Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.--1 Corinthians 4:2
The definition of a steward is one who manages the money or property belonging to another. Now in our republican form of government, we elect representatives to manage the dollars that we tax payers send them--to put them to good use in "providing for the common welfare". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are not doing so hot.
If Congress continues business as usual, we are headed for bankruptcy and an economy that will make the current recession seem like good times. The CBO says that the government will incur a record deficit of $1.5 trillion in 20011, causing the debt to rise to $10.4 trillion. Within 10 years, the debt is expected to rise to $18.3 trillion.
Now to most, these are just abstract numbers with no real meaning. To get a visual idea of what a trillion dollars looks like and to put it in perspective, go to Page Tutor. com.
No one could have come up with a better plan to destroy the national economy and relegate the nation to third world status.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
It's Never Just the Economy, Stupid
In a speech delivered on January 7, 2011 for the "First Principles on First Fridays" lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College's Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, outlined three serious threats to national security. While pointing out that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail, Mr. Kennedy presents a case for Islam being one of those serious threats. Below are excerpts from Mr. Kennedy's speech:
"Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that is was a religion of peace immediately following September 11........Unfortunately Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.
Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teaching of its founder Muhammad........Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran's 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.
Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Median in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam's peacefulness.
Sura 9, verse 5 reads: "Fight and slay the unbelievers where ever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them........"
Sura 9, verse 29, reads: "Fight those who believe not in Allah not the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the book until they pay the jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued".
Sura 5, verse 51, reads: "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust".
And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not b e friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.
It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here and abroad , who actively seek the destruction of America.
Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorists funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."
Elsewhere this document says: "The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes........
........Consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent........150,000--said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.
Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim--indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse..........."
It seems that we are signing our death warrant with the pen of political correctness.
"Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that is was a religion of peace immediately following September 11........Unfortunately Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.
Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teaching of its founder Muhammad........Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran's 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.
Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Median in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam's peacefulness.
Sura 9, verse 5 reads: "Fight and slay the unbelievers where ever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them........"
Sura 9, verse 29, reads: "Fight those who believe not in Allah not the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the book until they pay the jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued".
Sura 5, verse 51, reads: "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust".
And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not b e friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.
It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here and abroad , who actively seek the destruction of America.
Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorists funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."
Elsewhere this document says: "The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes........
........Consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent........150,000--said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.
Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim--indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse..........."
It seems that we are signing our death warrant with the pen of political correctness.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Threat of Islam
Mindy Beltz tells the interconnected story of Asia Bibi and Salman Taseer in the January 29 issue of World magazine that reveals the face of Islam and it is not pretty.
On Nov. 8, 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. This mother of five had been asked by Muslim co-workers to fetch water and then was told that it was unclean because she was a Christian. Her crime? Remarking that, "Aren't we all humans?" For this she was tried and found guilty for insulting the prophet Muhammad. Taseer who was governor of the' Province, defended Bibi, calling the blasphemy law "a black law". Muslim religious leaders rose up in venomous opposition, declaring that Taseer had forfeited his status as a Muslim and calling for his removal as governor.
Taseer did not back down, defying the Mullahs, and was shot dead by one of his bodyguards. 50,000 protesters demonstrated on behalf of the killer and close to 300 lawyers want to defend him. Taseer, who was educated in the West, suffered the consequences of expressing his opinion in a Muslim world that brooks no dissent.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have only been on the books since 1980's. The laws, rooted in the Quran, are backed by clergy and scholars who spread violence toward anyone who dares question the tenants of Islam.
The West has to wake up to the fact that the threat to its existence is not radical Islam, it is not Islamic jihadists, it is not Mulims per se, the threat is Islam itself. This is a political-religious system in which government cannot be separated from the religion. A system that requires absolute adherence, does not tolerate individual thought or expression and will resort to violence to make authoritarian government the rule.
We cannot afford to continue condemning acts of terror while not honestly confronting the ideology behind them. We do so at our peril. So far, in the United States, we are fortunate that Muslims compose a minute part of the population, but we only have to look to Europe to see what our future looks like if we don't acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.
On Nov. 8, 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. This mother of five had been asked by Muslim co-workers to fetch water and then was told that it was unclean because she was a Christian. Her crime? Remarking that, "Aren't we all humans?" For this she was tried and found guilty for insulting the prophet Muhammad. Taseer who was governor of the' Province, defended Bibi, calling the blasphemy law "a black law". Muslim religious leaders rose up in venomous opposition, declaring that Taseer had forfeited his status as a Muslim and calling for his removal as governor.
Taseer did not back down, defying the Mullahs, and was shot dead by one of his bodyguards. 50,000 protesters demonstrated on behalf of the killer and close to 300 lawyers want to defend him. Taseer, who was educated in the West, suffered the consequences of expressing his opinion in a Muslim world that brooks no dissent.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have only been on the books since 1980's. The laws, rooted in the Quran, are backed by clergy and scholars who spread violence toward anyone who dares question the tenants of Islam.
The West has to wake up to the fact that the threat to its existence is not radical Islam, it is not Islamic jihadists, it is not Mulims per se, the threat is Islam itself. This is a political-religious system in which government cannot be separated from the religion. A system that requires absolute adherence, does not tolerate individual thought or expression and will resort to violence to make authoritarian government the rule.
We cannot afford to continue condemning acts of terror while not honestly confronting the ideology behind them. We do so at our peril. So far, in the United States, we are fortunate that Muslims compose a minute part of the population, but we only have to look to Europe to see what our future looks like if we don't acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Are All Religions Equally True?
Professor Larry Timbs of Winthrop University has written that in one of his courses there is a discussion taking place of an article entitled "Religious Diversity". He refers to a passage in the article that makes the claim that "being a Christian does not commit one to to the view that all other religions are completely wrong". I would agree with that statement, provided that the word "completely" is emphasized.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Peaceful Religion
Faleh Hassan Almaleki moved his family from Iraq to Phoenix, AZ, in the mid 1990's. As his daughter, Noor Almaleki, grew up in America, she developed a longing to live a normal life as an American. At 17, she refused to enter into an arranged marriage in Iraq which infuriated her father. At 19, she moved into her own apartment and began work in a fast food place, but had to quit due to harassment from her parents.
In 2009, she moved into the home of her boyfriends parents due to physical abuse from her father, who continually harassed her and the parents. On October 20, 2009, Noor was visiting a Department of Economic Security Office with Amal Khalaf, the mother of her boyfriend. When departing the office, both women were run over by Faleh Almaleki in a hit and run. Amal recovered, but Noor subsequently died of her injuries.
Her crime? Becoming too Westernized in the eyes of her father.
This was no "Islamic radical", this was a follower of the tenets of mainstream Islam who is rightfully on trial for murder. In an Islamic country, nothing would have come of his actions.
Peaceful religion? How many Christian parents kill their children for refusing to accept Christ?
In 2009, she moved into the home of her boyfriends parents due to physical abuse from her father, who continually harassed her and the parents. On October 20, 2009, Noor was visiting a Department of Economic Security Office with Amal Khalaf, the mother of her boyfriend. When departing the office, both women were run over by Faleh Almaleki in a hit and run. Amal recovered, but Noor subsequently died of her injuries.
Her crime? Becoming too Westernized in the eyes of her father.
This was no "Islamic radical", this was a follower of the tenets of mainstream Islam who is rightfully on trial for murder. In an Islamic country, nothing would have come of his actions.
Peaceful religion? How many Christian parents kill their children for refusing to accept Christ?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Unintended Consequences
"Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy."--1 Corinthians 4:2
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" II
Is it just me or does anyone else think it odd that the Pentagon chose this particular time to publish it's report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Could it be possible that homosexual activists put pressure on the White House, who in turn put pressure on the Pentagon to publish the report in an effort to give Democrats enough cover to repeal the policy during this lame duck session of congress knowing that this is their last chance to do so. Nah! I'm sure the timing is just a coincidence since this is the most pressing problem currently facing the nation.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)