Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
My friend felt that, as a man, it is one's responsibility to be able to defend one's self, one's possessions, one's family. He then felt that UFC is a celebration of skill, technique, achievement, and is taking man ability to defend one's self to the highest levels. I felt that the sport was barbaric, was violence porn, and might actually diminish masculinity because a real man does not have to prove himself in combat or through acts of violent aggression. In my opinion masculinity, true masculinity, is not tested in this manner.
After the course of the conversation had run and neither had changed the other's opinion, I decided to pull the God card out. W.W.J.D. (What Would Jesus Do)? I hardly believe that Jesus would be the type of man that would chose to embrace such a sport in light of much greater needs in the world. But I also believe that God does believe in developing talents - so long as those talents do good in the world.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
My wife tends to think that this argument is the argument that slashes at socialism as socialism takes man as he is. Capitalism embraces the potential of man as he can be, and by encouraging and seeking opportunities for man to increase, not simply to supply man with what he needs now.
Regardless if you view this video clip the same way, Frankl offers some very gospel centered assertions that in order for man to know of our greatest potential, we must see man, and in this case society, as it can be, not as it is now. Seek to obtain our highest potential, not simply seek to respond to our most basic needs.
Monday, May 24, 2010
I am curious if that has happened directly to anyone that reads this blog? Maybe you were not hired because of your beliefs or your race? Maybe you have been pulled over by a police officer and had your car searched illegally? Who knows? And that's the point. Who knows a case where the rhetoric in the media and by talk show pundits are telling the truth or is this all a bunch of puffery?
We see in the media certain arguments that seem unjust, but are they blown out of proportion? Do these great tragedies of racial profiling really exist? Or are these simply unfounded fears? How many people have been in a socialistic medical system
Saturday, May 22, 2010
THE HEART OF COMMUNISM
Much as been said about the economics and social analysis of Marxism, but as a Christian, I want to look at the heart of Communism. Beneath all the philosophical verbage and political rhetoric, what is the driving force of Marxist-Leninism?
“Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism.” Vladimir Lenin.
“We must HATE. Hatred is the basis of Communism.” Lenin
“Hatred is an element of the struggle, a relentless hatred of the enemy…transforming him into an effective, violent and selective, cold blooded killing machine. A people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.” Che Guevare.
“I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.” Karl Marx.
“The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain, till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.” Karl Marx.
“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant… Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.” Karl Marx
“Karl Marx is a monster possessed by ten thousand devils.” Frederick Engels.
Karl Marx “had the devil’s view of the world and the devil’s malignity. Sometimes he seemed to know that he was accomplishing the works of evil.” Robert Payne (a friend of Karl Marx).
“We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen. WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him.” Velchernaia Moskva (a Marxist newspaper).
The slogan of the Soviets in their early days was: “Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth, and God from Heaven.”“The World has never before known a godlessness as organised, miltarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions.
Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Quoted from “A History of Communism in South Africa ” by Henry Pike (CMI) and “Was Karl Marx a Satanist?” by Richard Wurmbrand (CMI).
What, then, can we say about those church leaders who could preach in front of the bloodstained Soviet flag, under which many millions of Christians have been butchered?
What are we to think about those ministers who hold ‘talks” with Marxist terrorists and promote these murderers as a government?
What are to conclude about those clergymen who claim that (godless, atheistic) Communism and Christianity have much in common and should merge?
What can we believe about church documents that justify the mob violence, petrol bombings, stoning and public burnings of innocent people, advocate civil disobedience, and demand that all Christians “participate in the struggle”, working under the political organisations “of the masses”?
What must we do about a “theology” that is based on a Marxist analysis of socio-political history, ignores the clear teachings of Scripture, justifies and advocates violence, causes bloodshed, works for revolution and uncritically supports Communist terrorists?
Let us never forget what Communism has done in Russia , China , North Korea , Hungary , Czechoslovakia , Poland , Romania , Bulgaria , East Germany , Albania , Cuba , Cambodia , Viet Nam , Laos , Afghanistan , Nicaragua , Ethiopia , Mozambique , Angola and Zimbabwe . The millions imprisoned in concentration camps, the hunger and starvation, the civil wars, the persecution of Christians, the buttering of pastors, the destruction of churches, the burning of Bibles, the massacres, the fear and the horror.
Let us never forget the results of this evil anti-Christ religion of Communism. And may we be faithful to God’s Word, loyal to Christ and steadfast in our prayers for the suffering Christians. May we be brave in our opposition to Communism and bold in our proclamation of the truth of God’s Word.
-Dr. Peter Hammond
Now I turn to a quote from Michael Harrington, founder of the Democratic Socialists of America.
"Karl Marx (and Frederich Engels) was a democratic socialist in the most profound sense of the phrase. More importantly for the purposes of this essay, the vision, methodology and analyses which are Marx’s living heritage are democratic as theories and as guides to praxis. Indeed, I would argue that the development of Marxism since the death of Marx and Engels has made this last point so compelling that […] those who do not understand it or, worse, who take up arms against it, are anti-Marxists no matter what they call themselves."
-Praxis International, (1:1) April 1981, (I found a link to this on the DSA website)
Sounds like the DSA founder picked a wonderful role model in Karl Marx.
I am continuing my study of socialism in order to be open-minded, and I still am not impressed...
The more I am learning, the better free-market capitalism and decentralized government under the precepts in the Bill of Rights becomes to me.
That's all for now....
"There seems to be developing a new civil religion. The civil religion I refer to is a secular religion. It has no moral absolutes. It is nondenominational. It is nontheistic. It is politically focused. It is antagonistic to religion. It rejects the historic religious traditions of America. It feels strange. If this trend continues, nonbelief will be more honored than belief. While all beliefs must be protected, are atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, and moral relativism to be more safeguarded and valued than Christianity, Judaism, and the tenets of Islam, which hold that there is a Supreme Being and that mortals are accountable to him? If so, this would, in my opinion, place America in great moral jeopardy.
For those who believe in God, this new civil religion fosters some of the same concerns as the state religions that prompted our forefathers to escape to the New World. Nonbelief is becoming more sponsored in the body politic than belief. History teaches well the lesson that there must be a unity in some moral absolutes in all societies for them to endure and progress. Indeed, without a national morality they disintegrate. In Proverbs, we are reminded that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.)"
The article continues to articulate through legal explanation and process, the threat that the first amendment to the constitution is under as well as the threat to personal freedom that sweeping governmental powers can produce. Through the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause, (one could add the Commerce Clause) the government has been given power to restrict what the founding fathers placed as the foundational and preemptive rights in the Bill of Rights that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".
The Mormon faith, as it is often referred, encompasses every aspect of my life. The food that I eat, the books that I read, the employment I am engaged, my marriage, and every other conceivable part of my life is influenced by my membership and trust in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no government regulation that does not have some attachment or relationship to the first amendment to the constitution. I make no apologies for this stance.
Some have proposed that there is no room for a discussion of God and Politics. From my perspective, that is precisely the problem we are having in this country. Greed is immoral, sexual sin is immoral, and slavery, financial or otherwise, where one man is in bondage to another, is immoral. In fact, much of the problems that we face as a society are based on violation to moral laws of honesty. I do advocate higher moral standards for this country both publicly and privately. I am not advocating a national religion, but I am advocating that God, more generally speaking, morals, have an absolute and irreplaceable part in CIVILIZED society. To eliminate the discussion of morals in society is to eliminate the influence of God in our society, a God in whom we trust. To eliminate God is to eliminate order as God is a God of the truest order. If the constitution is to have any value to its people, then the first and foremost principles that lay at its foundation should be honored, and protected. It is the people who must first be moral, and then the government will follow.
There has been no more persecuted religion in and by the United States than has been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I say that without any reservations. Any honest research into the history of the church from the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, to current times, will show that the Mormons have found constant persecution based solely on their religious beliefs and affiliation. The Extermination Order from Gov. Boggs of Missouri given in 1838-39 gave governmental authority to kill people by any means (including being raped to death - which happened to the people in Far West) simply because they were Mormon. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith were illegally incarcerated on charges of treason against the state of Illinois without due process of law and murdered two days later while in jail. Polygamy laws were directed specifically and by name to target those of the Mormon faith. Johnston's army was sent to Utah under order of the President to control and put down the Mormons. Books have been and are being written on this subject to illustrate that in every case where religious persecution has happened against the Mormon's, it has been done at the violation of moral, legal, and constitutional authority.
To this end, Mormons have every reason to believe, both historically, and based on Elder Faust's words, to consider the First Amendment to the Constitution as the most important in the bill of rights. Second to the first amendment in importance is any clause, such as the commerce clause, and any other like unto it that provides the government with sweeping authority over the lives of its citizens. I consider these regulations important so far as they are a violation not only the first amendment, but to the rest of the constitution of the United States as well. For me and my life, there is no real way to separate my life with my religion as my religion covers all aspects of my life. Therefore, I believe, to curtail the rights guaranteed under the first amendment is a violation of moral law that we as a nation should all stand to defend - not ignore, repress or persecute.
Friday, May 21, 2010
With Congress passing their recent financial system overhaul, and with the recent health care overhaul from Obama, one could ask, "Does everything need an overhaul?"
When you go to the mechanic and you say, it looks like I need new break pads and then you go to pick your car up only to find that he replaced the pads, the rotors, the calipers and the master break cylinder, you feel cheated, ripped off. In fact you might refuse to pay because that was not the problem in the first place. The mechanic did more than he was commissioned to do.
When you go to a doctor to have your rotator cuff repaired and they take out your arms off you have every reason to sue and be upset. To do so would be grossly negligent and would betray the trust given the surgeon.
When 85% percent of the country is insured, should the solution be to remove the whole system?
And when the financial industry has a hard two years (of their own making) does it mean the whole system needs an overhaul? Seems to me that a financial system who wants to be greedy, should feel the full weight of their greed when it comes back to bite them in the butt. That includes the millions of Americans who were greedy enough to get into bad loans in the first place. Sweeping overhaul does not effect those with the problem, it punishes those who honorably meet their obligations. This is why punishment has its place. It targets those who violate the laws not those who are keeping them.
How is it that the United States of America can be the greatest nation in the world, a bastion of freedom and opportunity, yet everything needs an overhaul? If this country is so backwards, and people think we should be like other countries in the world, then why are so many people come here illegally under chance of death? Why are the most evil and disgusting people in the world fighting against US? And why does the world look to the US to solve all of their problems? While the US is not perfect, it is far from a need of an overhaul - at least it wasn't in need of an overhaul - now I'm not so sure.
Don't get me wrong, when something is broke, you should fix it. But there is a good and prudent way to do so. One does not wrap a 3rd degree burn in duct tape. Sure it would protect the wound from outside bacteria, but it does not heal the underlying problem. And it will hurt like a mother when it is to be removed in order for the wound to heal. Some wounds take time to heal, some remedies make things worse.
Bad economies come and go, bad regulations seem to stay around forever.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Somehow, in each scenario there seems to be a way that the panelist keep the conversation funny, yet still very real. Most scenarios, even the weird ones still come back to some principle or core issue that is more universal. So far, the show has only featured one gay couple, and has stayed engaging. In the end, the Marriage Ref takes in the panels "vote" on who wins the argument and makes a call on which one of the two people wins.
Last night while watching the episode with Gweneth Paltrow, Jerry Seinfeld and Greg Geraldo as the panelists, my wife and I wondered if we had any issues that were worthy of the show. Then we considered if we would even go on the show at all, even for a smaller petty kind of thing. So far my wife and I are happy to say that while we have our issues, there is nothing that we have not been able to resolve thus necessitating a marriage ref.
I wonder though, if we had an issue that warranted the shows "services", would I go on?
Is a couple's private life something that should be made public? I find a bit of irony here: People always claim how bad it is to be judgmental and certain issues are "nobody's business", yet this same society seems to create a show that capitalizes on the idea of being the judge of someone else's private life. Judging people is entertaining to say the least.
Monday, May 17, 2010
My initial research has been Wikipedia. We all know that is not a be-all-end-all of information, but it provides a launching point. The most useful part of a good wiki page IMO is the links it gives to other sites on the subject, especially official sites for organizations and such. I have taken the time to click these official links for the DSA and its affiliates.
So far I have not been impressed.
According to the official DSA website, they are the official US affiliate of a much larger political organization called the "Socialist International". They pride themselves as being the largest political organization on earth. Turns out the Socialist International is a modern incarnation of one of several strains of socialist/communist thought which have decended from the Second International, from the First International and right back to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.
Here is a name you can research: Max Schachtman. He was originally from Poland and was a Leninist right hand man for Trotsky. He emigrated to NYC in 1905. He later became the right hand man of the president of the AFL-CIO in the US. That is the big labor union conglomerate here. He became active in the American Socialist movement. He is regarded as having critically shaped thinking in the DSA. The DSA leader, Michael Harrington believes in working within the US Democratic Party to shape policy rather than running independent candidates, an idea that he says comes from Schachtman.
While there is so much I could post here about what I have been reading, I will simply point out two items I have found very interesting that illustrate the failure in the real world of the Socialist International ideology.
1. Greece - The Socialist International affiliate there is called the "Panhellenic Socialist Movement". They have been in power of the government there since 1981, except from 2004-2009. In 2006 their party president was elected president of the Socialist International. Do I need to elaborate on why this is relevant?
2. Mexico - The Socialist International affiliate there is called the "Industrial Revolutionary Party". They have not been in power since 2000, though they were in sole control politcially in Mexico for the previous 70 years, when Vicente Fox won, putting them out of power for the first time in decades.
We see many problems in Mexico, though things have become much better there in the last decade then they were for a long time. They just have a very long way to go still. The corruptions that held its people down for the better part of a century were done by the Socialist International affiliate party in power there for the majority of a century prior however.
There is much more that could be discussed here but that is all I have time for right now....
Sunday, May 16, 2010
What I was interested with was that the crowd seemed to agree with her. They boo'ed the question initially, but cheered her answer as this being an issue of states rights. I was a little surprised that there was such a popular response in support of states rights.
Secondly, I was surprised that they offered such a loaded question to a beauty pageant contestant. Not meaning to insult beauty pageants, it hardly seems like the platform for lively debate on such a heated issue. But then again, she couldn't answer "world peace" so that was nice to see.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Then comes the republican primaries in Utah. Three time senator and high ranking committee member Bob Bennett didn't even make it out of the starting gate. He was voted out of office in the primaries! Wow, who would have thought it? Well apparently enough of his constituents because he didn't even garner a third of votes between the three candidates.
So what does this all mean? Many in the media have had to swallow their tongues as they have in the past dismissed the tea party movement as one that is a small bunch of radicals. I would ask Bob Bennett if he feels they are a small group? Regardless of their numbers, their influence is spreading. It would seem that many, at least in Utah, are fed up with the status quo and want it gone. Florida's governor decided to leave his bid for re-election knowing that his fate was the same as that of Bob Bennett.
So, what now America? Democrats aren't going to have an easy time either. Because the tea party movement is flexing its muscle towards both parties, and since tea party folk tend to lean to the fiscally conservative side, what does that hold for the future of this country and is it a good thing?
From my perspective I do feel that the removal of Bob Bennett is in order. Regardless of policy the man is old and has served his time. The country is where it is today in part because of his efforts. And if we want a better place, then we need a better senator. Lets hope his replacements can fill that void.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Yet another report has come out of one of the secret little parts of the bill no one knew to talk about because no one could read it before it was passed. Aparently one of the provisions that is in the bill is that anything a business purchases that is over 600 dollars will need to have a 1099 form filled out from the supplier and the purchaser and sent in with their taxes each year. According to this article small businesses will have to get the form from Apple if they buy a computer. A laundromat will have to file a form for their soap purchases from their supplier. Why all the paperwork?
Well, because the government estimates that 300 billion dollars a year in revenues are lost because people don't declare their taxes properly. In this way they feel they will make businesses pay more taxes. What they don't take into the equation is that someone down the line is paying taxes on these otherwise exempt items in the form of sales tax. This goes back to opening the door for Obama's socialist value added taxation. In the end this whole thing is a huge door, wide open, to higher taxation the likes that this country (outside of maybe Obama's dysfunctional home of Chicago) has ever seen.
No proof, just an estimate. So why is this in the health care bill then? Because this is part of how the government "guesses" that they can help pay for the whole program. So, just when you thought that individual tax payers are going to the be ones to bear the brunt of the burder, small businesses are going to be crushed either under the mounds of new paperwork, or in any possible additional value added taxation that is sure to come online through this whole thing. And to think, some people try to NOT pass off the health care bill as a socialist program....
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
I don't know how it is at home, but over here people are talking about stuff that previously was unheard of and outrageous to even suggest in regards to the type of changes that need to take place in America. I stumbled across this video, and as an avid fan of Outkast and the lyrics of Andre and Big Boi, I have to say I agree with just about everything in this song - minus Mary J Blige wanting to cheer for Obama. I have this question for Mary - Are you still cheering? Because Obama is a liar and has followed through on nothing he promised, and has torn the United States apart far beyond anything Bush could have concieved. He was an idiot, right? Well Obama is smart, he's cunning and calculating, and everything he is doing has a purpose behind it. He is a socialist, and I really hope I don't have to explain that, because at this point it's common knowledge, just look at his track record. We wanted jobs, what did we get? Bank bailouts! We wanted healtchare reforms, what did we get? Mandatory health insurance! We wanted economic stability, what did we get? Trillions of dollars spent and an even less secure financial future! Why is it that no one in Washington is listening?! If I were in charge the first order of business would be to axe all elected positions' salaries. It is a position of public SERVICE. A stipend to cover reasonable costs is acceptable, but even that should be capped. Then I would axe all of the government parties. How many has Obama been to now? He's out hamming it up in the White House while the majority of Americans suffer. It's an outrage! No white house correspondents dinner, unless the networks want to cover the cost for the party, but definitely not on the taxpayers' dime. No more government assets being put to private use - that means you Nancy Pelowsy. That G5 will no longer be used to cart your kids back and forth from San Fran to D.C. They can fly commercial like everyone else, and you can foot the bill. I'm tired of the ruling class keeping down the man. What we need is less government intervention, legislated by a bunch of crooks and lawyers (they're not the same thing right?), and allow individual enterprise and ingenuity to flourish. Sorry, just felt the need to vent............
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I can just see the Republicans salivating at the mouth in their lust for office this fall due to the particular divisive political climate Obummer has fostered. The "One" - I don't think so, maybe he meant the "One" as in he would only serve one term? He is the greatest divider of our time, and he has made a mess of the nation. The answer however is not voting in a bunch of Republicans. They have shown that they cannot be trusted any further than Nancy Pelosi can be thrown. Both parties are self serving, and that is the root of the problem. Vote all those clowns out and vote in independents and members of other parties. I don't know that I'll vote for anyone who belongs to either party. I encourage you to do the same.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Now consider this question, "How bad would you have to hate the country you are living in to go risk all that these illegal aliens risk to go to another country illegally (and what some may see as a country that doesn't want you)?" It seems to me that when American's have a problem with America, we try and fix America. When Mexicans have a problem with Mexico, they run away. Where is the honor and human dignity in that?
(This picture sums it all up for me. People think that we need ILLEGAL immigration as the ONLY source for certain aspects of our lives that we currently enjoy. When the reality is, if we are for human rights as the protesters claim to be, would it not be better if they came here legally with all the protections that come with it? Why fight for a system that abuses its workers and under pays them?
Is the strongest argument that Mexicans have against the US is the loss of burritos? Seriously, we have enough food that is bad for us here in America thank you.)