Archive for May, 2011


May 31, 2011

I’m watching the series Monarchy. It’s a historical and analytical look at the English monarchy.

I’ve worked my way through the first series, which covers the Anglo-Saxon years and the Norman conquest.

It’s a fascinating look into human nature, the nature of nations, and the nature of the people.

On the one hand, kings make a whole lot of sense. If we had someone we could absolutely trust to be our lawgiver, judge, and military commander, then we could have order and peace. As a society, we would be protected from all threats, foreign and domestic, and we could live our lives in freedom. This was the Anglo-Saxon ideal, and that ideal still burns in the hearts of the English people, the Americans being a branch from that tree.

On the other hand, because kings are men, the same type of men that their counselors, the nobles, and the people are made out of, they can be selfish, cruel, vindictive little people. Only a few kings in English history have had the opportunity to wield the powers of government almost absolutely. Most have had checks and balances placed on them, above their objections.

It seems to be English is to be a lover of liberty and naturally distrustful of authority. No sooner is one rebellion crushed, than another arises. More English blood has been spilled on English soil by English hands than any other place by any other people, it seems. What a fitting crucible to see various experiments of government. Man’s cruelty to man is what we ultimately fear, and government is supposed to be the means of controlling that beast. The lesson the English people have learned throughout their history that government can just as easily infringe on the rights they claim they exist to protect.

Our presidents today are much closer to the Anglo-Saxon kings than I’d like to admit. It’s very troubling, in fact, because I can see how a few bad apples can convert America into a monarchy. We are practically there today, what with the behavior of every administration since Coolidge. The grossest offenders, those who have expanded the authority of the presidency and the reach and scope of the federal government, have not had their ill-gotten and unconstitutional gains reversed by their successors. Indeed, our great hope for smaller government, Ronald Reagan, in cutting taxes actually greatly expanded the federal budget.

What is remarkable, however, is that we have today a movement based on restoring constitutional authority and limited the size and scope of the government—actually cutting it down to something it used to be, rather than merely limiting its growth. This is, of course, the Tea Party movement, which is gaining recognition both as a legitimate political force, and as a powerful one at that.

It seems at any point in English history, you had two competing sides: those who wanted to make the king greater, and those who wanted to diminish him. Although for periods of time it seems like the authority of the king had expanded, ultimately, the people always get what they want, and what they want is a man who sits on his throne in the throne room, leaving the people to their affairs, rather than a monster who enslaves the population with burdensome taxes and then sends them off to die in pointless foreign wars.

Those who wanted to make the king lesser never had effective leaders, except for rare occasions. Their voices were whispers and mumblings from the parliament and lesser nobles who had no hope of ever obtaining any high office. Their voice was the thoughts and actions of millions of lower and middle class Englishmen, whose hard work actually created the bread that fed the king’s armies.

Those who wanted to make the king greater were forever locked in partisan battles. Their supporters would face each other in open combat, graciously helping the people of England by exterminating their own partisan wealth and followers in slaughter. The War of Roses, for instance, did more to set back the power of the monarch than anything any rebel could’ve done, simply because you had two groups of people who disagreed on who should lead, not how.

We see this in today’s politics. As pointless partisans burn through their money trying to secure their offices of power, they are doing the nation a favor. What better way to waste the money of the partisan than in campaigning? I would to God that all those who seek office to expand their personal power be drained of all their wealth and influence.

The Tea Party is the game changer here. In command of vast fortunes, to be spent only on those who genuinely seek office to tear it down, rather than to build themselves up, the Tea Party has the power to erode the political power and authority of the federal and state governments. We see it today, as the House of Representatives overwhelmingly votes to not extend the debt ceiling. The message is clear: any debt ceiling increase will come with trillions in spending cuts.

We would do well to try and remember which side we are on. Do we believe in limited monarchy—a king who is mostly a figurehead, who can only wield power when it is used to defend the rights of the people? Or do we believe in an unlimited monarchy—a king who rules without consent and without limits, who uses his power to do as he pleases?

I think this question has already been answered, and answered again and again since the 400’s. The English people want, and will forever have, a limited government. Though great people may rise to great heights and attempt to change government to an unlimited one, this is temporary, as all dynasties are. The people, however, will always be there, and always whispering for less government.

Communists Are Either Stupid Or Insane

May 26, 2011

I don’t believe this is a false dichotomy, because I cannot imagine any other scenario for someone actually supporting communist ideas. They are either stupid, meaning ignorant, incapable of reasonable thought, or insane, meaning they desire that which is not good for themselves or others.

To understand why, you first need to understand communism. The idea sounds simple enough: Let’s have everyone share everything so there is no rich and no poor. Indeed, that’s the idea behind the United Order as revealed by the prophet Joseph Smith. It’s an ideal I aspire to. I want to live in a society where there is no rich and no poor, even if it means that I live a lower standard of living.

However, and this is the key, it is the means by which communism intends to impose this vast equality of economic means that leaves communism as a failed, and outright evil, philosophy. It is this means which the stupid or insane people who support communism either ignore, misinterpret, or pretend doesn’t exist.

Let me help you understand. If you want to have no rich and no poor, then you need a few components to make it happen. One, a way to determine who has more than their fair share, and who has less. Two, a way to obtain the surplus property from the rich. Three, a way to distribute the property to the poor.

Under the United Order, the means are as follows. One, people determine, according to their conscience and input from their bishop, whether they are rich or poor, and how rich or poor they really are. People do not concern themselves with other people’s status, because it is an individual determination between God, that individual, and his conscience. Two, the rich voluntarily give their surplus to the bishop. Three, the bishop gives the surplus to the deserving poor. Meaning, those poor people who refuse to work and support themselves get nothing, whiles those who do are given the means to provide for themselves.

Looking at the United Order in this way, it becomes clear that sloth and pride are both eliminated. Pride in both sense: pride in thinking that you know better than someone else whether they are rich or not, and pride in thinking that you are more deserving than someone else of your own property. Those who live by the order, in their hearts, are rewarded with the blessing of living among people who share their values, and knowing that they have truly sacrificed all they have to the Lord, and what property they have is a gift of the Lord to them.

Under communism, the means are as follows. One, the rich and poor are defined in purely political terms, namely, in those terms which will help the communists obtain and keep power within the government. Two, property from the rich is obtained through government force. Those who refuse to comply are put into prison, slave camps, or executed, along with their friends and family. Three, the poor are given what little is left after individuals in the government and the communist party have taken their share of the pie, which in many cases is not enough to survive.

It doesn’t have to be argued whether or not what I just said is true. We have far too many examples from history, both in our own country and without. Even a casual examination of the facts will expose what I have described to be the truth.

Granted, communists will yell and shout and try to label me an idiot for exposing this truth. This is a demonstration of their own idiocy or their insanity. Being confronted with the truth, they do not argue it logically or reasonably, being open-minded and considerate of the fact that other people besides themselves are capable of higher human thought. Instead, they embrace their own ignorance, or realizing the truth, continue in the march towards communism anyway.

Communism is the most evil philosophy to appear on the face of the earth. The evils of the empire, an absolute monarch who ruled by blood and terror, at least had the veil of securing for the people some degree of liberty. Even the evil Roman Empire, which committed vast acts of genocide and slaughter obtained for the world, at least temporarily, Pax Romana, which made it possible for one tiny man from Galilee to preach against the status quo and form the Christian faith.

What does Communism leave in its wake? Not even peace. Those who live under communism are under constant threat from their masters, the members of the communist party and government. They live in fear, watching every word they say, and doing their best to appear as a good little communist.

One day, I am sure, it will be apparent to all that Satan is indeed alive and well, and he is at the helm of the communist movement. Those who cannot see communism as evil are the same who look over the world and say there is no devil. Being confronted with evil in such absolute terms, and deciding that it is no evil, they can see no devil even though his work is evidence throughout the globe.

The coming election in 2012 is a vote between re-electing a president who obviously supports the ideas behind communism, and is quite open about his support for those ideas, and someone else. I can’t think of any president, not even Wilson or Carter or FDR, that was so open in their detest of the American way and so open in their support of the statist way. I hope and pray our country chooses the “something else” option, to show that we do not want any part nor parcel with communist ideals.

Where is the Democratic Plan?

May 26, 2011

As the Democratic Party derides both Paul Ryan’s and President Obama’s budget proposals, I am left to wonder what their proposal is. See, the Democratic Party made no budget last year, the first time in our nation’s history. The Democratic-controlled senate made no efforts at a budget this year. April 15th is the date by which both the House and the Senate have to propose a budget so that reconciliation can begin. Although Paul Ryan finished his budget on time, the democrats in the senate made no move.

Their strategy, it appears, is to be the cynics among us. No matter what anyone proposes, they will attack it for its flaws, making no effort to try and produce something that resolves those flaws.

If this is their strategy, I hope the republicans make hay out of it. It’s a simple attack to defend against. “I am putting myself on the line with our own proposal, and I am here to defend it. What is your proposal? Or are you simply pointing fingers and calling us names when you have no proposal of your own?”

If the democrats were to propose a budget, it would have to address cuts to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. That’s because. as Paul Ryan points out repeatedly, it is impossible for our status quo to continue past 2037. If you’re 65 years old today, you’ll be 91 when 2037 rolls around. At that point, not only will there be no Medicare program, but the entire country, as we know it, will be gone because we will have to default on all of our loans.

So, in reality, Republicans are left to run against the status quo, which is the annihilation of our country through debt. That makes an easy argument. As I’ve said before, if the republicans proposed to cut Medicare 100%, they wouldn’t be cutting Medicare by a dime, because the program is already bankrupt and already gone.

This can’t be said enough: Paul Ryan’s plan is to deliver, in full, all the promises we’ve made to seniors 55 and older. That is, he is giving you Medicare beyond 2037. The way he does this is by cutting the costs of medical care for everyone under 55, by giving them a voucher that they spend, thus driving costs down and quality up. It’s a brilliant plan, a plan based on economic principles we know already work.

I’m also very curious why the Democrats want to be in power as the nation falls apart. Do they actually believe that we will pull through somehow, without any budgets or any serious proposals to stop the downfall? Or are they like the last emperors of Rome, ready to lie, cheat, steal, murder and wage war to take the throne of a kingdom that is doomed, just so that they can be there to whet the swords of the conquering barbarians?

Paul Ryan Explains his Budget Plan for Medicare

May 26, 2011

Hat tip Right Scoop

50 Cent Gang

May 26, 2011

An Australian ABC reporter does an investigation in China about the underground Christian movement there. He notices he’s being followed by the same group of people, and then confronts them. Their reaction is priceless.

I installed an add-on in my Firefox, gTranslate, and started going through the comments on YouTube. Most of the Chinese comments are vicious attacks on their state police and spy agencies, calling them scum, garbage, and the whole problem with China.

A few commenters chimed in that the Western media is trying to undermine the whole system of government in China, so that the West can feed like vultures on the chaos that will ensue.

The comments respond to these posts calling them “50 cents”. Of course, they can’t mean the American rap idol! Looking up the slang for that particular Chinese phrase, I discovered that there is something called the 五毛党 — the 50 cent party. They are a bunch of commenters throughout the internet paid 50 cents to post in support of the Chinese government.

This almost seems laughable, really. Yet I wonder what compels so many people to defend the indefensible in our country. For instance, we have for a president, a complete joke and a sham. He has broken every campaign promise, made both to the right and the left. He sets a new record for presidential lows every day.

Just now, his USDA is persecuting magicians for having rabbits, saying they need permits and hand washing stations if they are going to use rabbits in their show. His NLRB ordered Boeing not to move to South Carolina, because that’s a union-busting tactic.

I wish half the things I read about President Obama and his insane administration were made up. I find it hard to believe myself until I see his officials saying those things with their own mouths, and the actual letters people receive from them.

It wouldn’t surprise me if he had his own 50-cent gang trolling the internet, inventing comments to make him look better than he is, spreading the pack of lies he wishes were the truth. Our own representative, Adam Smith, has been feeding us lies about what Obamacare is really doing, and what the Paul Ryan proposal really is, rather than confront the truth and propose a way out of the mess he caused with his own votes to bankrupt America.

Perhaps that’s what the Democratic Party has become today: President Obama’s 50-cent gang.

My Views on Muslims, Homosexuals, and Immigrants

May 24, 2011

Howard Dean ranted today about how the far-right elements of the Republican Party hates Muslims, homosexuals, and immigrants. (link)

Here’s what I truly believe.

It doesn’t matter who you are, or where you come from, you are equal to everyone else.

If you’re a Muslim, I welcome you, provided you do not violate other people’s right to life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately, many of the professors of Islam theology among the Muslims do not teach this. However, as long as you welcome freedom and liberty, and are willing to lay your life down to defend it, I will count you as a brother.

If you’re homosexual, either meaning that you have homosexual tendencies or that you actually engage in homosexual acts, then I welcome you as a brother. I warn and caution you that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s plan of happiness, and that you cannot be living in sin and find happiness, the kind of happiness that doesn’t go away but grows brighter every day. I will do all I can to help you overcome your sins and find life in Christ. As to the Muslims, whether or not you give up your sinful life and put your passions under control, as long as you will lay down your life to protect our rights to life, liberty and property, you are my national brother.

I may disagree with you on many topics. I don’t believe those who practice homosexual acts should be allowed to serve in the military, anymore than those who practice heterosexual acts outside of marriage. People who can’t control their bodies cannot be relied upon.

I also may disagree with you on homosexual marriage. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is in the best interests of the child, so much so that I believe every child has a right to a father and a mother who love them and love each other. This is part of the right to life. If you are not raised to live your life as a productive, happy member of our society, what life have you been given rights to live?

I also believe I have the right to teach my children right from wrong, and that homosexual activity is contrary to nature and God’s laws. Even if the government were to redefine its laws so that homosexual acts were not considered wrong, I would still teach it to my children. I believe you have the same right to teach your children right from wrong. But that we must also teach our children to submit to our laws, and that means we need to be careful that we don’t write laws that don’t expand our liberty.

To immigrants, I love you and I love that you want to live in our country, as long as your intentions are peaceful. Some of you, and you and I both know who they are, do not come here to work or to build up the country. It is for that reason and that reason alone that we must patrol our borders and use government force to protect ourselves. However, if you are here for peaceful purposes, then I wish our government was setup to welcome you with open arms. I envision a country without a social welfare system that could absorb all the poor people of the world at once, giving them an opportunity that wouldn’t exist anywhere else, to participate in our economy and find their own way to prosperity. However, our system is not that system today. We need to work together to eliminate the social programs, dramatically reduce government spending, taxes, and regulation, and free the economy so that a man who can barely speak our language is able to comfortably support his family doing what he knows how to do.

I don’t think Howard Dean was telling the truth. I certainly don’t hate Muslims, homosexuals or immigrants.

Of course, I don’t consider myself part of any right-wing ideology, so maybe he wasn’t talking about me. I believe in less government, limited government, a government that only protects our rights, but cannot grant or define them. A government that doesn’t participate in our economy, that doesn’t participate in charity, but only does those things which have the net effect of expanding our own rights to secure our own property and liberty.

Polygamy in the Bible

May 24, 2011

Roger Patterson writes a well-written piece on polygamy. I don’t understand much what his point is, except to try and demonstrate that God never intended one man to marry two wives. Judging by the amount of content he devoted to trying (unsuccessfully) to unravel LDS doctrine, it appears to be an article designed to convince people that Mormons are weird.

I want to clarify a few points he glides by.

One, he claims that polygamy is outright forbidden in the Bible. This simply isn’t the case. Exodus 21:10 clearly tolerates and anticipates polygamy. That scripture alone is enough to throw down the remainder of Patterson’s argument.

The scriptures he later cites do not condemn polygamy outright. In the one case, the Israelite kings are commanded not to multiply their wives, which, as I understand it, means that they shouldn’t have hundreds of wives. In fact, this is what the prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon was referring to when he said Kings David and Solomon sinned against God—they had too many wives, more than what they were allowed.

In the other case, leaders of the New Testament church were asked not to have more than one wife. Not because it is bad, but because they were leaders of the church and examples to the world. Is this any different than leaders in our church being asked not to grow facial hair? I really wish we could grow beards in the tradition of President Snow (I admire Ken Ham’s beard greatly), but the world frowns on that sort of things and it isn’t really that important anyway. So we don’t do it for fear of alienating people we would not otherwise alienate. not because growing a beard is a sin.

I’ve seen people try to connect King David’s marrying of many wives with sin. The only instance where David sinned is in taking Bethsheba for himself, and then only because he robbed another man of his property. Had Bethsheba been available, and had David followed the law for proper marriage, it appears like there would have been no sin. Otherwise, marrying many wives in clear violation of the “multiply many wives” commandment didn’t seem to be that serious of a sin. If it was, God kept quiet about during his condemnation of David’s adulterous and murderous affair.

Others try to equate what Abraham and Jacob did with sin. In no case can I see the sin on the part of Abraham or Jacob. If these two otherwise perfect men did sin, would the sin be something so grave as adultery, which is second only to murder in extremity? Does God call adulterers to be his representatives on the earth?

If they did sin, where was their condemnation? Where did the Lord call them to the carpet for doing something wrong? Yes, in Abraham’s case, there was discord, and God commanded Abraham to defer to Sarah’s will. That is simply explained because Sarah, in her righteous state, had earned the respect that God gave her, and had a position in the home despite the fact that she was one of two wives. What a great lesson for the modern home! Husbands, listen to your wives, as Abraham was commanded to listen to Sarah!

In both cases, their plural marriage and additional children were a great blessing to them. In Abraham’s case, he is counted as the father of many. many nations, not just Israel because he chose to submit to Sarah and impregnate Hagar. In Jacob’s case, we have the twelve tribes, the twelve groups of people who will bless the entire earth in the last days. This does not sound like the same kind of “blessing” that King David received for committing adultery and murdering an otherwise righteous man—the premature death of his seed and a promise of eternal warfare for his descendants..

The other aspect of the article is Patterson’s naive treatment of LDS doctrine. It is clear that President Woodruff couldn’t change one word of the revelations Joseph Smith received. That would make Joseph Smith a liar, a fraud, a fallen prophet. Or if Joseph was faithful, it would make God a liar and a fraud, or at least the God that Joseph claimed to be a prophet for. Obviously, you can’t go back in time and wipe scriptures out. Jesus said it best: He came to fulfill the law, every bit of it, not to change it or destroy it. Just as Jesus didn’t change one word of Isaiah or Moses, our modern prophets can change no words of any previous prophet. The best they can hope to do is clarify misinterpretation or correct the errors of the scribes over the centuries. The LDS church is bound just as tightly by the Old and New Testaments, as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. They cannot contradict one another, not in the slightest, or else God is a liar.

The practice of polygamy in the LDS church at the time required that revelation be received from God to permit the marriage, and then consent be gained from the current spouses of the man. Wives could, and did, refuse. Is this any different than what Abraham did with Hagar? Not only did Abraham get permission from God (Abraham did nothing without consulting God first, as we see time and time again in the account of his life), but he was commanded to marry Hagar by his wife.

When President Woodruff announced that polygamy was being done away with, he was making sure everyone knew that in no case would anyone be receiving any revelation from God to continue the practice with absolute authority. There is no way any modern prophet can ever re-open the practice.

We see a parallel in the Book of Mormon. Jacob corrected an error in the practice of polygamy by the Nephites by simply receiving and communicating the commandment that among the Nephites, polygamy was done with and no longer permitted. This was a new revelation, a new commandment. President Woodruff and the prophet Jacob are identical twins in this regard.

This begs the question: If the Old Testament condemns polygamy, why would the Nephites be practicing it? They had the records, and they knew the law. They practiced polygamy because they knew the law permitted it.

Frankly, I’m glad our church had the practice, just like I am glad we no longer do. I’m glad because I was born as a descendant of one the twelve wives of my grandfather Archibald Gardner. If it weren’t for polygamy, I wouldn’t be alive.

Anyone who spends a moment of time examining the life of Archibald Gardner, or any of the righteous polygamists in the LDS church, and the purifying effect plural marriage had on his life, in addition to the vast quantities of blessings he brought down from heaven due to his willingness to sacrifice all the comforts of life he would have otherwise enjoyed to simply and meekly obey the prophet of our God, would have their ideas of polygamy instantly reversed. To me, he is an Abraham of the 19th Century, someone who wrought out with his very lifeblood the faith necessary to earn a spot next to the patriarchs, and who left a mark on history not unlike Abraham’s in terms of the sheer volume of good work he not only did himself, but inspired in others.

I am glad that I will never be called upon to plural marriage. I could not do it. Having one wife and five kids is already too demanding, spiritually and physically. I am scared to learn too much about the practice. I do not ask God about it. I don’t want to know.

AiG does a wonderful job helping people understand that science is not at odds with religion. Unfortunately, it seems a segment of their ministry is devoted to showing the world how bad the Mormons are. I understand that there are deep, theological differences between our two versions of Christianity. On the one hand, the LDS followers believe God is alive today, has called a prophet and speaks his doctrine plainly through him. On the other hand, they believe that God doesn’t have a prophet on the earth, and that he expects us to parse words from the Bible to divine His will, rather than ask the source Himself for clarification.

I will continue to read the material AiG contributes, correcting what I see as errors when they occur, whether it be in science or in their representation of our church. Not because I hate them, but because I love the good work they do, and I love the truth.

I understand that they see themselves as a missionary wing of their branch of Christianity. I hope they understand, however, that their greatest good comes from exposing science for what it really is, and helping people realize that the simple doctrines in the Bible are found in nature as well. That is a ministry I could support. By emphasizing the differences between the LDS church and what they believe, unrelated to doctrines concerning nature and nature’s origins, I feel like all I can do is watch from the sidelines and cheer when they get something right.

Tax Breaks vs. Subsidies

May 21, 2011

A lot of liberal people have a hard time with the difference between tax breaks and subsidies. The concept really isn’t that hard, if you look at it from the business’s point of view.

A tax break, or a tax cut, is a reduction in the tax revenues collected. It can also be a reduction in the tax rate. A subsidy, however, is money given to an individual or business for a specific purpose.

Let’s look at the motivating factors of each.

First, consider a business owner or executive. They have a bunch of ideas in their head, and some of them might be pretty good. Sometimes they have a good idea, except it won’t make business sense because the tax rates are too high to sustain the business. In this case, the businessman walks away, and the idea rarely leaves the idea stage.

If government cut taxes in a way that lowers the tax rate for their business idea, then they might decide to execute on it after all.

Since the margins for success are usually thin, a small change in the tax rate will have a huge effect on the amount of activity related to that tax. A good example is what happened when the Bush Administration and Republican congress cut the capital gains tax in the early 2000’s. Almost immediately, people began buying, selling, and trading stocks. The amount of tax revenue for that particular tax reached an all-time high.

The reason why people did this is very easy to understand. Under the old capital gains tax rate, if they bought, sold and traded stocks, they would have lost money. Under the new rate, they can make money doing the very same thing.

If government ends up collecting more revenue than before, did they really give a net financial gift to the businesses? No. Government and businesses both end up making more money in the end. Tax cuts are not a zero-sum game, since the economic activity that high tax rates stifle can produce wealth that didn’t exist before.

Let’s look at subsidies. Subsidies take the limited funds that government has, and dedicates it to individuals and companies, usually with specific restrictions in place. This is different than the government purchasing goods or services at market prices. For instance, the defense industry is not subsidized.

The idea behind this is that the economic activity is a net benefit to the nation as a whole, and so the government wants to see more of it by creating an incentive program for it.

The problem here is the net potential benefit for the economic activity is likely very low. That’s why few, if any, people do it. Adding subsidies to the mix helps make the cost a little lower, and may even make the activity profitable.

However, there is a limit to how much money the government will spend on the subsidy. If, for instance, they offered a subsidy and the economic activity became very popular, then government would withdraw the subsidy and maybe even raise taxes on the activity.

The end result of this is that businesses aren’t going to stick their necks out for a limited pot of money. Whereas potential profits are endless, government has a fixed budget that they can and already have exhausted.

The upside to accepting a subsidy is low, and the downside is very high. wise businessmen do not chase government dollars. There is much, much more money to be made in delivering valuable, superior goods and services at a lower price.

Obama Proposes Giving Jerusalem to Hamas

May 19, 2011

Many thousand years ago, the city of Jerusalem was conquered by the hands of the future king of Israel, David. Jerusalem was one of the many cities left in the land God had promised the children of Israel that were not occupied by the children of Israel. During David’s reign, he conquered many other cities.

I don’t know exactly why Jerusalem was chosen as King David’s city, or why the temple of Solomon was built there, and subsequent temples rebuilt there. I do know, however, that the city has a special history and future, according to the scriptures.

President Obama today proposed that Israel give control of Jerusalem to Hamas, an unrepentant terrorist group. Why he would propose giving a terrorist group anything more than what we gave Osama bin Laden is a mystery to me.

Does Barack Obama understand that the temple is to be rebuilt on the temple mount in Jerusalem in preparation for the Second Coming? Does he not know that the entire religions of Judaism and Christianity are waiting, eagerly, for this event?

If Hamas took control of Jerusalem, it would start a religious war that would have an end only over the dead bodies of Hamas, and the recapture, by military means in necessary, of that sacred city. With Jerusalem under Israel’s control, or at least partially, there is hope that one day there might be enough peace, meaning the Muslims won’t be in such a murderous rage, that the Jewish people can rebuild their ancient temple.

Biblical prophecy is quite clear on the subject. Those who are friends of Israel gain the protection of God. Those who fight Israel will fall before Israel. In the last days, Israel will go through the gentiles like a lion. If we have aligned our politics in such a way that the only free democracy where people actually have the right to worship however they please, and can conduct commerce without fear with people of different faiths is the target of our animosity, it is clear what we have become.

Thankfully, President Obama is a complete and utter disaster. Jimmy Carter will go down in history as the second worst president in the entire history of our country thanks to Obama. Any future presidents have a very, very low bar to pass under if they want to steal the title away from Obama.

This means that President Obama’s proposal, like his budgets, is received with half the people wondering if he’s serious, and the other half laughing at the entire administration.

I join those who laugh at this proposal. It is simply absurd. No one would go for it, not even Hamas. Do you think once they obtain Jerusalem they will suddenly change their hearts and decide that maybe Jews aren’t pigs and dogs and should be allowed to live alongside them?

Those of you who are consumed with anti-Zionist rage, I ask you: Will you continue to allow yourselves to be jerked around by your puppet masters who are seeking genocide? Or will you wake up and observe the facts for what they are, and admit that in no case, never, has the modern state of Israel ever initiated violence against any people, except in self-defense.

Our Decayed Morals

May 19, 2011

Our collective moral code is very, very different from the moral code our parents were born into.

In some ways, there has been improvements. Compared us to them, and racism isn’t really an issue anymore. We prefer, overwhelmingly, merit-based systems instead of systems based on seniority or some other pointless distinguishing factor. We are more skeptical, we tend to have a better grasp of basic scientific concepts, and we’re more tolerant.

But along the way, we’ve lost a few things.

We don’t value sexual purity anymore. Promiscuity before marriage, and infidelity in marriage seem to be the norm, if you believe popular culture. Lying, cheating, and stealing aren’t really that bad, as long as you are lying to, cheating, and stealing from people who don’t deserve it (as if we are able to judge worthiness.) Life is losing value, shown by our lack of willingness to get married, raise families, and put children above all else.

We lack humility, reverence, respect. We don’t even know what the word “meek” means anymore. We don’t focus our lives around impossible ideals. We have no God but ourselves.

Our language is coarse. Our ideas simple. Our vocabulary rapidly diminishing. Our knowledge of history and other cultures (beyond superficial facts) is all but gone.

We combine politics with religion and science, something our grandfathers knew to keep separate. Our state religion is atheism. We worship scientists and we are taught not to question expert opinion, although we question every other authority.

Of course, I am not speaking about individuals, I am talking collectively. I can’t deny that the culture I live and work in is all of the above. If you can’t detect my disapproving tone, then you aren’t paying attention.

What shall be done? Simply put, put God back in His place. You don’t have to be a genius to see why setting God, the ultimate embodiment of all that is good, just, and merciful, as the center of our lives is the most important thing we can do. Glenn Beck is absolutely right about this. It doesn’t matter what religion you belong to, if any, or even whether you actually believe such a being exists. What’s most important is we focus our individual lives around these permanent ideals.

From there, we will find it clear that things like respect for life, liberty and property is important. Without us rendering our duty to respect each other’s rights, we have no rights that will not be infringed upon.

Set life as the priority. Marry. Raise a family. Have 5 kids, or maybe 10. Stay married, don’t get divorced. Work things out with your spouse. Live and learn. Raise your children to be outstanding, honorable children.

Sexual activity—that thing which brings life into the world—should be preserved for the marital relationship. We know, scientifically, that there is a deep, emotional bond formed with sexual activity. Is it any wonder that sexual deviance from chastity leads to broken homes? We should use that deep, emotional bond to strengthen the marriage vow, and commit the loving couple into long-term, eternal fidelity. That means we begin a purge of our culture. All elements which detract from sexual chastity should be removed and erased. We shouldn’t give a dime to any author, writer, or actor who creates for us stories that exalt sexual immorality. We shouldn’t elevate them, but we should explain what they are doing by portraying sex the way they do.

Live your life with honor. Look up what “meek” means. It doesn’t mean weak. It means quiet, gentle, submissiveness. Submissive to what? Our eternal, unchanging ideals. Respect, honor, dignity are things that take hard work. We should develop these attributes, encourage the development in others, and elevate these as more important than their opposites.

Separate the political from the religious and the scientific. Politics corrupts everything it touches. Keep it isolated to those things with which it must be involved, but no more. That means we don’t use politics to further our favorite religion, whether it be Christian or Atheist. That means we don’t have political solutions to scientific problems. That really means limited government, government which is incapable of influencing in the smallest degree our religious or scientific culture.

Let’s stop stealing from each other. Using the government to take from someone else and give to yourself is wrong, and it will always be wrong. Either you render a service at market prices for which the government compensates you, or you get nothing. You have no claim to anything of anyone else’s. The rich owe you nothing.

I doubt the message will be heard. These ideas are, of course, completely contrary to everything we live in today. But our culture is really a sum of its parts. If the vast majority of the people acted with honor, refused to steal, and cherished life and virtue, then our culture would be identified with those traits.

So take these messages into your own heart, apply them to your own life, and live as an example to others. That’s all you can do, after all.