Have you ever wondered what you can do to alleviate the poverty, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and disenfranchisement problems in the inner cities of America? Dr. John Perkins has outlined three things that need to be done:
One: RELOCATION. Christian people need to relocate their residences into the ghetto of the inner-city (or, at least, as near the problem as they can tolerate). Only by doing that can the values of Christian society be transmitted to our deteriorating neighborhoods.
Two: REDISTRIBUTION. This does not mean redistributing money. Redistribution means redistributing skills, values, and ethics. Our inner cities need people who value faithfulness in marriage; trustworthiness in business; commitment to stable marriages and healthy, productive, children; a sense of value in life issues, i.e., avoiding abortion and euthanasia; valuing stable, heterosexual marriages; bringing helpful professional skills; and, above all, a commitment to Christ, the Savior.
Three: RECONCILLIATION. A Christian witness, well communicated by words and deeds, is absolutely required to bring real peace and productivity to the inner city.
Is all the above what Barack and Michelle Obama are talking about when they talk of “community organization?” Absolutely not! They are talking about the Saul Alinsky type of godless pragmatism which will accomplish any desired goal at the cost of ethical rightness. There is no hint of Christian charity in that kind of “community organization.”
Some of the ideas in the above post come from the thinking of John Perkins, the author of Beyond Charity. I would strongly recommend that you read that easy and informative book.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
What’s Wrong With Our Government, Today?
The economic policies being proposed these days are very bad. But the principles behind them are worse. They represent a return to the idea that the American Revolution repudiated—the idea that some are equipped by nature or training to manage the lives of others without their consent. The underlying principles of our new laws, today, are based on the idea that government bureaucrats and czars are better suited to govern us than we are, ourselves. The idea of equality under the law is apparently gone from government! Our political leaders today have been taught to look on us common people as material to be shaped and perfected by experts who have the proper technical training.
Our government leaders have been conditioned to deny the existence of absolute truth. The “good” has become subjective and the only standard of behavior is what we want—“we” in the political sense, meaning the government or bureaucracy. This thinking reduces politics not to right, but to force. That is why there is a seeming bullying spirit about our government today.
Christian people believe that there is a higher rule, a higher loyalty than that of the bullying bureaurocrat. We believe that God rules by His sovereignty and His love. We are far, far, from that concept, today, however, in our government.
If you doubt what I say, you should read what Barack Obama, himself has written in his book, The Audacity of Hope: “Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course....” From this, we can plainly see that according to our leader in the White House, today, that the idea of “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, are reduced to “tyrannical consistency.” Well, as for me, I prefer this kind of “tyrannical consistency” in my life, the rule of God over the rule of men.
Much of this post has been excerpted from Imprimis, December 2009.
Our government leaders have been conditioned to deny the existence of absolute truth. The “good” has become subjective and the only standard of behavior is what we want—“we” in the political sense, meaning the government or bureaucracy. This thinking reduces politics not to right, but to force. That is why there is a seeming bullying spirit about our government today.
Christian people believe that there is a higher rule, a higher loyalty than that of the bullying bureaurocrat. We believe that God rules by His sovereignty and His love. We are far, far, from that concept, today, however, in our government.
If you doubt what I say, you should read what Barack Obama, himself has written in his book, The Audacity of Hope: “Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course....” From this, we can plainly see that according to our leader in the White House, today, that the idea of “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, are reduced to “tyrannical consistency.” Well, as for me, I prefer this kind of “tyrannical consistency” in my life, the rule of God over the rule of men.
Much of this post has been excerpted from Imprimis, December 2009.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Save the Uighurs
The Uighurs are a tribe of Turkik, Muslim, people who live in East Turkestan (also known as the Uighur Autonomous Region); and for decades they have been the victims of systematic human-rights abuses at the hands of the Chinese government.
In November, 20 Uighurs, including two children, escaped their homeland and sought asylum in Cambodia. Initially, the Cambodian Foreign Affairs Ministry announced that it would cooperate with them and offer them asylum. However, two days later, these poor people were declared “illegal entrants,” handcuffed, and detained. On 19 December 2009, a Chinese plane, under cover of darkness, departed the Phenom Penh airport carrying the 20 escapees back to China, where they will undoubtedly be mistreated severely, as former escapees from that country have been treated. Chinese practice has been to declare such persons criminals without any proof of that charge.
Why did this happen? Cambodia is the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from China and $1 billion in foreign direct investment from China. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has called China Cambodia’s “most trustworthy friend.”
Hmmm...! I wonder, could this deportation of 20 Uighurs be due to a bribe? Let us remember that as these poor people are abused unjustly, so are we, fellow members of the human race.
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of your friends or of your own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” John Donne 1572-1631
In November, 20 Uighurs, including two children, escaped their homeland and sought asylum in Cambodia. Initially, the Cambodian Foreign Affairs Ministry announced that it would cooperate with them and offer them asylum. However, two days later, these poor people were declared “illegal entrants,” handcuffed, and detained. On 19 December 2009, a Chinese plane, under cover of darkness, departed the Phenom Penh airport carrying the 20 escapees back to China, where they will undoubtedly be mistreated severely, as former escapees from that country have been treated. Chinese practice has been to declare such persons criminals without any proof of that charge.
Why did this happen? Cambodia is the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from China and $1 billion in foreign direct investment from China. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has called China Cambodia’s “most trustworthy friend.”
Hmmm...! I wonder, could this deportation of 20 Uighurs be due to a bribe? Let us remember that as these poor people are abused unjustly, so are we, fellow members of the human race.
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of your friends or of your own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” John Donne 1572-1631
Monday, December 21, 2009
Humble Settings for Our Lives
One part of the Christmas story we often forget is the part which tells where Joseph led his family to live after the danger from Herod was past-—Nazareth, a small town in Galilee, an insignificant place. Jesus lived there, grew there, learned there, and worked there. What a small and ignominious situation that must seem to us, who seek and strive after fame, glory, and importance! Yet, it was not too mean and insignificant for our Savior. He, the young prince of Glory, worked in a carpenter’s shop. He moved among humdrum tasks, petty cares, village gossip, and trifling trade. He was always faithful in that which was least.
When I am tempted to repine
That such a lowly lot is mine,
There comes to me a voice which saith
“Mine were the streets of Nazareth.”
So mean, so common and confined,
And He the Monarch of mankind!
Yet patiently He traveleth
Those narrow streets of Nazareth.
It may be I shall never rise
To place or fame beneath the skies
But walk in straitened ways ‘till death
Narrow as streets of Nazareth.
But if through honors arch I tread
And there forget to bend my head
Ah! Let me hear the voice which saith,
“Mine were the streets of Nazareth.”
Excerpted from Springs In The Valley by Mrs. Charles Cowman
When I am tempted to repine
That such a lowly lot is mine,
There comes to me a voice which saith
“Mine were the streets of Nazareth.”
So mean, so common and confined,
And He the Monarch of mankind!
Yet patiently He traveleth
Those narrow streets of Nazareth.
It may be I shall never rise
To place or fame beneath the skies
But walk in straitened ways ‘till death
Narrow as streets of Nazareth.
But if through honors arch I tread
And there forget to bend my head
Ah! Let me hear the voice which saith,
“Mine were the streets of Nazareth.”
Excerpted from Springs In The Valley by Mrs. Charles Cowman
Friday, December 18, 2009
Manufacturing a Consensus on Climate
(This blog was partly excerpted from the Wall Street Journal of 18 December 2009, page A25)
In 1985 I was listening to a speech at a Michigan State University graduation by the then president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Frank Press. Dr. Press’s main point was that the greatest challenge to useful science in the coming decades was plagiarism and falsification of data by “scientists” trying to justify the conclusions of their research. (fhttp://tinyurl.com/y8wo4kp)
Today, we are faced with so-called scientific data justifying the idea that CO2 is causing the warming of the earth to the great detriment of all earth’s inhabitants. These “scientists” are mainly located at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Many scientists scattered all over the earth are vested in propagating the idea of global warming and it’s supposed cause, greenhouse gasses.
They have organized a systematic cover-up of data that indicates that the earth was actually warmer in the Medieval period than it is now. Furthermore, they fail to point out that there has been absolutely no evidence for surface or atmospheric warming in the last ten years. They also do not emphasize that the temperature on Mars and Jupiter’s moon, Europa have been rising in recent years.
The scientists are calling CO2 a pollutant. It is well known that market gardeners pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase their crop yield. That hardly sounds like CO2 is a pollutant—rather, it is acting as a fertilizer!
We need to look carefully at “scientific” justification for global warming and the dangers of greenhouse gasses. Some of this data is just not good science.
In 1985 I was listening to a speech at a Michigan State University graduation by the then president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Frank Press. Dr. Press’s main point was that the greatest challenge to useful science in the coming decades was plagiarism and falsification of data by “scientists” trying to justify the conclusions of their research. (fhttp://tinyurl.com/y8wo4kp)
Today, we are faced with so-called scientific data justifying the idea that CO2 is causing the warming of the earth to the great detriment of all earth’s inhabitants. These “scientists” are mainly located at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Many scientists scattered all over the earth are vested in propagating the idea of global warming and it’s supposed cause, greenhouse gasses.
They have organized a systematic cover-up of data that indicates that the earth was actually warmer in the Medieval period than it is now. Furthermore, they fail to point out that there has been absolutely no evidence for surface or atmospheric warming in the last ten years. They also do not emphasize that the temperature on Mars and Jupiter’s moon, Europa have been rising in recent years.
The scientists are calling CO2 a pollutant. It is well known that market gardeners pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase their crop yield. That hardly sounds like CO2 is a pollutant—rather, it is acting as a fertilizer!
We need to look carefully at “scientific” justification for global warming and the dangers of greenhouse gasses. Some of this data is just not good science.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Pay Benefits for Congressmen
Did you ever wonder what your Congressmen and Senators are paid? The answer is $165,200/ year, four times the median household income in the United States.
Another perk is that their pension benefits are out of this world. Last summer Congress passed a new Pension “Protection” Act, a bill that undermined the funding rules for pensions which significantly limits pension benefits. However, Congressional pensions were specifically exempt from these limitations.
After only five years on the job, Congressmen and Senators are entitled to a regular pension, bigger than almost all other federal workers' at the same pay and twice what a midlevel executive would expect. Their pensions rise regularly with the cost of living and can never be taken away — short of a conviction for espionage or treason-related offenses.
Health care benefits are also a generous perk for our Congressmen. Congressmen enjoy more than a dozen options in health insurance, including the prized indemnity plans only 3% of workers with coverage receive. On top of that, for an annual fee of $480, they can get just about all the medical attention they want at the Capitol Office of the Attending Physician, which has five doctors and a dozen assistants on call for routine checkups, tests, prescriptions, emergency care and mental health services. Who's paying for all this above the $420 each Congressman pays? Taxpayers, naturally, to the tune of at least $2.5 million this year alone.
This litany of fringe benefits goes on and on; and I recommend that you look at http://tinyurl.com/y8vyyy7 for more information on this subject.
Another perk is that their pension benefits are out of this world. Last summer Congress passed a new Pension “Protection” Act, a bill that undermined the funding rules for pensions which significantly limits pension benefits. However, Congressional pensions were specifically exempt from these limitations.
After only five years on the job, Congressmen and Senators are entitled to a regular pension, bigger than almost all other federal workers' at the same pay and twice what a midlevel executive would expect. Their pensions rise regularly with the cost of living and can never be taken away — short of a conviction for espionage or treason-related offenses.
Health care benefits are also a generous perk for our Congressmen. Congressmen enjoy more than a dozen options in health insurance, including the prized indemnity plans only 3% of workers with coverage receive. On top of that, for an annual fee of $480, they can get just about all the medical attention they want at the Capitol Office of the Attending Physician, which has five doctors and a dozen assistants on call for routine checkups, tests, prescriptions, emergency care and mental health services. Who's paying for all this above the $420 each Congressman pays? Taxpayers, naturally, to the tune of at least $2.5 million this year alone.
This litany of fringe benefits goes on and on; and I recommend that you look at http://tinyurl.com/y8vyyy7 for more information on this subject.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A Venezuelan Nuclear Threat?
Remember Cuba 1962? Who would have thought that that little country could possibly be a serious threat to the United States? Double-speaking diplomats convinced the JFK administration that there was no danger—until a U-2 fly-over revealed soviet rocket silos being built on the island nation in abundance. The U.S. was caught unprepared for that situation; and heavy-handed government means had to be used to get the soviets to tear down the silos and ship them back to the U.S.S.R.
A very similar situation is building up in Venezuela today. Covert Iranian government operations are going on there according to intercepted memoranda. The memoranda are passing between the science and technology ministers of the two countries. The memoranda say that “the two parties agreed to cooperate in the field of nuclear technology.” The leaders of these two countries, Ahmadinijad and Hugo Chavez, have met eleven times recently. I wonder what they are talking about.
An Iranian “tractor factory” has been established in Ciudad Bolivar. A shipment of 22containers of “tractor parts” was intercepted in Turkey and officials report that the containers contained equipment and materials for setting up an explosives lab.
An Iranian “gold mine” has been established on the border of Venezuela and Guyana where one of the world’s richest supplies of uranium awaits excavation. Regular flights of an Airbus 340 travel to Damascus and Tehran. What do you think might be in those flights?
Americans had better wake up. There is trouble brewing in our next-door neighbor, Venezuela.
This article was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 15 Dec 2009, page A19.
A very similar situation is building up in Venezuela today. Covert Iranian government operations are going on there according to intercepted memoranda. The memoranda are passing between the science and technology ministers of the two countries. The memoranda say that “the two parties agreed to cooperate in the field of nuclear technology.” The leaders of these two countries, Ahmadinijad and Hugo Chavez, have met eleven times recently. I wonder what they are talking about.
An Iranian “tractor factory” has been established in Ciudad Bolivar. A shipment of 22containers of “tractor parts” was intercepted in Turkey and officials report that the containers contained equipment and materials for setting up an explosives lab.
An Iranian “gold mine” has been established on the border of Venezuela and Guyana where one of the world’s richest supplies of uranium awaits excavation. Regular flights of an Airbus 340 travel to Damascus and Tehran. What do you think might be in those flights?
Americans had better wake up. There is trouble brewing in our next-door neighbor, Venezuela.
This article was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 15 Dec 2009, page A19.
Monday, December 14, 2009
American Are Soft On War
Despite all the dangers in the world today, Americans are dragging their feet when it comes to defending our way of life with the sword. Unfortunately, war will always be a necessary fact of life—as long as human nature remains as it has since the beginning of recorded history. We seem eager to use Theodore Roosevelt’s admonition of 1903 in that we always want to “speak softly,” but for several reasons, we are reluctant to “carry a big stick” (or, we are, at least, reluctant to use it).
Western nations join America in this reluctance to fight for the things we value. The West cannot even get together to agree on sanctions against Iran when everyone knows that once Iran obtains nuclear weapons it will seriously threaten Israel and soon it will aim its rockets at Munich, Frankfurt, and Paris.
Why this reluctance? I think the main reason is that we, at home, eating pizza and sitting before our TV sets do not feel seriously threatened. A country will only fight for its way of life if it is being invaded, as America did during our revolution and after 9/11. But the fact that we do not actually have any foreign invader (yet) does not lessen our ultimate danger.
We, Westerners, need to realize that we are facing an enemy who does not value the lives of its fighters as we do. We cringe at reading about war casualties, and very rightly so. But our enemies think nothing about sending women and children into market places with suicide bombs strapped to their bodies. They think they can assure themselves a place in heaven by dying in a jihad for Allah. Our enemies’ philosophy of war, whether we like it or not, makes for effective tactics.
In asymmetric wars, such as we fight today, the ultimate winner is not the one who wins big battles—it is the side that remains in the field the longest and who is able to avoid losing its soldiers in pitched battles on a conventional battle field. That kind of tactic is exactly what the Taliban is using today in Afghanistan.
Despite our American distaste for war, we must realize that no war is won without paying attention to the old principle of warfare: It is impossible to win a war without putting foot soldiers on the enemies’ soil. American foot soldiers are in danger. We, as Americans, desiring to protect the freedoms we enjoy and desiring to spread those freedoms to other nations not so fortunate as we, must support those troops and believe in what they are doing for us!
Western nations join America in this reluctance to fight for the things we value. The West cannot even get together to agree on sanctions against Iran when everyone knows that once Iran obtains nuclear weapons it will seriously threaten Israel and soon it will aim its rockets at Munich, Frankfurt, and Paris.
Why this reluctance? I think the main reason is that we, at home, eating pizza and sitting before our TV sets do not feel seriously threatened. A country will only fight for its way of life if it is being invaded, as America did during our revolution and after 9/11. But the fact that we do not actually have any foreign invader (yet) does not lessen our ultimate danger.
We, Westerners, need to realize that we are facing an enemy who does not value the lives of its fighters as we do. We cringe at reading about war casualties, and very rightly so. But our enemies think nothing about sending women and children into market places with suicide bombs strapped to their bodies. They think they can assure themselves a place in heaven by dying in a jihad for Allah. Our enemies’ philosophy of war, whether we like it or not, makes for effective tactics.
In asymmetric wars, such as we fight today, the ultimate winner is not the one who wins big battles—it is the side that remains in the field the longest and who is able to avoid losing its soldiers in pitched battles on a conventional battle field. That kind of tactic is exactly what the Taliban is using today in Afghanistan.
Despite our American distaste for war, we must realize that no war is won without paying attention to the old principle of warfare: It is impossible to win a war without putting foot soldiers on the enemies’ soil. American foot soldiers are in danger. We, as Americans, desiring to protect the freedoms we enjoy and desiring to spread those freedoms to other nations not so fortunate as we, must support those troops and believe in what they are doing for us!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
ObamaCare More Unpopular Than Ever
Democrats are pushing for passage of the unpopular health care bill before the Christmas recess. They do not want senators to go home to face their constituency on the health care issue. The people are not in favor of this bill—and for good reason. Polster.com shows the 38.8% of the people favor passage of the health care bill, while 51.4% are against it.
74% of the American people do not believe the President when he says the bill will not increase the national debt. Many, including me, are very upset that this bill does not prohibit government money from being used for abortions.
A new study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates that mandating that employers provide health care will cost 1.6 million jobs by 2013. That’s all we need with unemployment already topping 10% at this time!
We should all write to our senators and representatives protesting this bill, especially the public option.
74% of the American people do not believe the President when he says the bill will not increase the national debt. Many, including me, are very upset that this bill does not prohibit government money from being used for abortions.
A new study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates that mandating that employers provide health care will cost 1.6 million jobs by 2013. That’s all we need with unemployment already topping 10% at this time!
We should all write to our senators and representatives protesting this bill, especially the public option.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Kevin Jennings, Obama's Worst Appointment
Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s appointee for the office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is a crude, distorted, and ridiculous representation of good judgment in making administrative appointments. Mr. Jennings is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, the largest advocacy group in the nation dedicated to the promotion of homosexuality to students as young as kindergarten age.
This year Jennings sponsored a pornographic AIDS activist exhibit at Harvard University that included an endorsement of perversion that included video pornography, religious defamation, photos of genitalia, and stories of child pornography, cross-dressing, and sadomasochism. (Tony Perkins, Family Research, Council 22 Oct 2009)
Mr. Jennings’ values are the very things that are causing more and more parents to choose home schooling because they consider the public schools UNSAFE.
This year Jennings sponsored a pornographic AIDS activist exhibit at Harvard University that included an endorsement of perversion that included video pornography, religious defamation, photos of genitalia, and stories of child pornography, cross-dressing, and sadomasochism. (Tony Perkins, Family Research, Council 22 Oct 2009)
Mr. Jennings’ values are the very things that are causing more and more parents to choose home schooling because they consider the public schools UNSAFE.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Global warming? Where is it?
There is lots of hype these days concerning global warming. Lots of controversy abounds about the data that “proves” a crisis is brewing. One thing that needs to be explained by the proponents of atmospheric disaster on the horizon is why no significant global warming has occurred since 2001!
Satellites circling the globe twice daily have not recorded any global warming since 2001. Ground stations during that time have not revealed any warming, either. (The Skeptic’s Handbook, Joanne Nova. joannenova.com.au)
NASA reports that the temperatures on Mars and Pluto are rising. Could that possibly be due to greenhouse gasses??!
Satellites circling the globe twice daily have not recorded any global warming since 2001. Ground stations during that time have not revealed any warming, either. (The Skeptic’s Handbook, Joanne Nova. joannenova.com.au)
NASA reports that the temperatures on Mars and Pluto are rising. Could that possibly be due to greenhouse gasses??!
Friday, December 4, 2009
What to do about unemployment?
What to do about unemployment?
The “unemployed” in America are made up of two groups, i.e., those who have recently been laid off and are looking for a job are counted in the “unemployment rate.” If a person is working part-time and wants a full-time job or if he has given up looking for a job, he is counted in the group called “underemployed.”
In the U.S. today, the unemployed count up to 10% of the population of working age people. The underemployed count for another 17% of working age people. These figures are terrible. The unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. In addition, the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent. In November, the economy shed another 11,000 jobs, so the situation still seems to be exacerbating. Even with the 11,000 jobs lost, the official unemployment rate in November dropped from 10.3% of the work force to 10%--people moving from the “unemployed” status to the “underemployed” category must have caused this paradoxical drop in the unemployment rate.
The government seems to think that more government spending will remedy this poor employment situation; and it is considering spending lots of money collected from taxation to create more jobs. Many economists doubt this will be effective. Taking money out of the economy by taxation only expands government programs; it is unlikely to create more jobs. The way jobs are to be created is to decrease taxes and let the private sector invest that money in factories and businesses that have the capacity to really create new jobs.
The “unemployed” in America are made up of two groups, i.e., those who have recently been laid off and are looking for a job are counted in the “unemployment rate.” If a person is working part-time and wants a full-time job or if he has given up looking for a job, he is counted in the group called “underemployed.”
In the U.S. today, the unemployed count up to 10% of the population of working age people. The underemployed count for another 17% of working age people. These figures are terrible. The unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. In addition, the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent. In November, the economy shed another 11,000 jobs, so the situation still seems to be exacerbating. Even with the 11,000 jobs lost, the official unemployment rate in November dropped from 10.3% of the work force to 10%--people moving from the “unemployed” status to the “underemployed” category must have caused this paradoxical drop in the unemployment rate.
The government seems to think that more government spending will remedy this poor employment situation; and it is considering spending lots of money collected from taxation to create more jobs. Many economists doubt this will be effective. Taking money out of the economy by taxation only expands government programs; it is unlikely to create more jobs. The way jobs are to be created is to decrease taxes and let the private sector invest that money in factories and businesses that have the capacity to really create new jobs.
The “unemployed” in America are made up of two groups, i.e., those who have recently been laid off and are looking for a job are counted in the “unemployment rate.” If a person is working part-time and wants a full-time job or if he has given up looking for a job, he is counted in the group called “underemployed.”
In the U.S. today, the unemployed count up to 10% of the population of working age people. The underemployed count for another 17% of working age people. These figures are terrible. The unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. In addition, the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent. In November, the economy shed another 11,000 jobs, so the situation still seems to be exacerbating. Even with the 11,000 jobs lost, the official unemployment rate in November dropped from 10.3% of the work force to 10%--people moving from the “unemployed” status to the “underemployed” category must have caused this paradoxical drop in the unemployment rate.
The government seems to think that more government spending will remedy this poor employment situation; and it is considering spending lots of money collected from taxation to create more jobs. Many economists doubt this will be effective. Taking money out of the economy by taxation only expands government programs; it is unlikely to create more jobs. The way jobs are to be created is to decrease taxes and let the private sector invest that money in factories and businesses that have the capacity to really create new jobs.
The “unemployed” in America are made up of two groups, i.e., those who have recently been laid off and are looking for a job are counted in the “unemployment rate.” If a person is working part-time and wants a full-time job or if he has given up looking for a job, he is counted in the group called “underemployed.”
In the U.S. today, the unemployed count up to 10% of the population of working age people. The underemployed count for another 17% of working age people. These figures are terrible. The unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. In addition, the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent. In November, the economy shed another 11,000 jobs, so the situation still seems to be exacerbating. Even with the 11,000 jobs lost, the official unemployment rate in November dropped from 10.3% of the work force to 10%--people moving from the “unemployed” status to the “underemployed” category must have caused this paradoxical drop in the unemployment rate.
The government seems to think that more government spending will remedy this poor employment situation; and it is considering spending lots of money collected from taxation to create more jobs. Many economists doubt this will be effective. Taking money out of the economy by taxation only expands government programs; it is unlikely to create more jobs. The way jobs are to be created is to decrease taxes and let the private sector invest that money in factories and businesses that have the capacity to really create new jobs.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Where does Natural Law come from?
"Is it possible that there is no Natural Law and man can know moral order and unalienable rights from his own reasoning, unaided by the supernatural or God? There are, of course, those who argue this case--including the atheist and others who attempt to distinguish Natural Law from Divine Providence. It is not the view adopted by the founders of America. This position would, it seems, lead man to arbitrarily create his own morality and rights--right and wrong, just and unjust, good and bad, would be relative concepts susceptible to circumstantial applications. Moreover, by what justification would 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' be 'unalienable Rights' if there is no Natural Law, since reason alone cannot make them inviolable? What then is Natural Law if its origin is unknown or rejected? it is nothing more than a human construct. An individual may benefit from the moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while rejecting their Divine origin. But the civil society cannot organize itself that way. It would become unstable and vulnerable to anarchy and tyranny, imperiling all whthin it, especially the individual. The abandonment of Natural Law is the adoption of tyranny in one form or another, because there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law." Mark Levin Liberty and Tyranny 2009 Page 26.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Let's not kid ourselves. Government "give aways" do not help.
Our traditional American freedoms are being erroded day by day in favor of more and more control by the government--of this, hardlly anyone can disagree. America was deluded into thinking that this errosion was for our own good. We should have remembered that during the 1930's Adolph Hitler was swept into office in Germany by promises of "hope and change," as he put it. Does this sound familiar?
The statists who propose this gradual errosion do it in the name of equality, i.e., equal outcomes and uniform distribution of wealth and property. However, they do not realize that constructive equality consists in equal opportunity to work, live freely under self-government, acquire property, and to be represented fairly under the law. All of the proposed equalization at the hands of the statist is to be done by more and more government regulation--regulations that eventually result in tyranny.
The statist thinks that he can accomplish all this equalization by taking money away from investors in the form of taxes and investing that money, as only he knows how, in government projects. What the statist does not realize is that his money does not improve things because it delets dollars from the bank accounts of the investors who would otherwise use it to increase productivity with their capitalizations.
Statists should look at Europe if they think that their government monies will increase employment. The socialized governments of Europe routinely run levels of unemployment in excess of 10%. The reason for this high unemployment rate is that people will not work if the government will just give them the things they want; and if there is no capital to purchase factory equipment and other tools of commerce, then no jobs will be created.
We, Americans, need to go back to the old principles upon which our country was founded. We need to trust more in the industry and productivity of motivated and dignified individuals. We need to give up this illusion that the government knows best what we need in order to prosper.
The statists who propose this gradual errosion do it in the name of equality, i.e., equal outcomes and uniform distribution of wealth and property. However, they do not realize that constructive equality consists in equal opportunity to work, live freely under self-government, acquire property, and to be represented fairly under the law. All of the proposed equalization at the hands of the statist is to be done by more and more government regulation--regulations that eventually result in tyranny.
The statist thinks that he can accomplish all this equalization by taking money away from investors in the form of taxes and investing that money, as only he knows how, in government projects. What the statist does not realize is that his money does not improve things because it delets dollars from the bank accounts of the investors who would otherwise use it to increase productivity with their capitalizations.
Statists should look at Europe if they think that their government monies will increase employment. The socialized governments of Europe routinely run levels of unemployment in excess of 10%. The reason for this high unemployment rate is that people will not work if the government will just give them the things they want; and if there is no capital to purchase factory equipment and other tools of commerce, then no jobs will be created.
We, Americans, need to go back to the old principles upon which our country was founded. We need to trust more in the industry and productivity of motivated and dignified individuals. We need to give up this illusion that the government knows best what we need in order to prosper.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Destroy Terror Manuevers Before They Happen
A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal (23 Nov 2009, page A21) makes the point that the United States seems to have a penchant for ignoring the fact that terrorist acts like the one involving Major Hasan at Fort Hood which killed 13 American soldiers was obviously motivated by Major Hasan's Muslim religion. European countries do not seem to be ignoring these Islam-connected acts of outright terrorism.
Our FBI, oriented on law enforcement after the fact of an illegal offense, is poorly fitted to ferret out potential acts of terroristic destruction before they occur. The FBI is much too oriented on being politically correct, in that it will not call Muslim terrorism for what it is--a religion-related destructive effect in our society. The FBI would do well to emulate the behavior of the French internal security service (which deploys a large number of Muslim officers) in its effective function of finding and destroying subversive elements in the society before dissaster happens.
Our FBI, oriented on law enforcement after the fact of an illegal offense, is poorly fitted to ferret out potential acts of terroristic destruction before they occur. The FBI is much too oriented on being politically correct, in that it will not call Muslim terrorism for what it is--a religion-related destructive effect in our society. The FBI would do well to emulate the behavior of the French internal security service (which deploys a large number of Muslim officers) in its effective function of finding and destroying subversive elements in the society before dissaster happens.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
America’s Fiscal Crisis Looming Larger
We hear every day how our government is spending more money than it has coming in; but the situation is getting ridiculous! The Federal government’s spending is far out-distancing its income; and there is no end in sight. This cannot go on! The government’s tax and spend tactics are not helping the unemployment situation; and there is no increase in productivity in sight—increasing productivity is the only thing that will pull the economy out of the doldrums. Only government employment seems to be increasing.
Now, to make matters worse, we are planning a new entitlement program in the form of a health care bill that will supposedly provide health insurance for 46 million people. President Obama says the spending on this new entitlement will not increase deficit spending! He must be talking of some new kind of magic where he can buy something for nothing. The fact is that if you provide free or low cost health insurance for 46 million people, 46 million people will begin using health care services at a faster rate. Who can say that that will not cost anything?
The only way to control this dangerous rush to suicidal cost over-runs is to reform the tax code by getting rid of corporate long term gains taxes and decrease pay-roll deduction taxes. That will actually stimulate growth by increasing employment and improving productivity. http://tinyurl.com/yfh96l7
Now, to make matters worse, we are planning a new entitlement program in the form of a health care bill that will supposedly provide health insurance for 46 million people. President Obama says the spending on this new entitlement will not increase deficit spending! He must be talking of some new kind of magic where he can buy something for nothing. The fact is that if you provide free or low cost health insurance for 46 million people, 46 million people will begin using health care services at a faster rate. Who can say that that will not cost anything?
The only way to control this dangerous rush to suicidal cost over-runs is to reform the tax code by getting rid of corporate long term gains taxes and decrease pay-roll deduction taxes. That will actually stimulate growth by increasing employment and improving productivity. http://tinyurl.com/yfh96l7
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Liberals and the Politics of Envy and Division
“How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes—one rich, one poor—both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?” Ronald Reagan, February 1982
Monday, November 16, 2009
Liberals Should Not Speak if They Do Not Know What They Are Talking About
I have been listening to Wisconsin Public Radio lately—a program called To The Best Of Our Knowledge. It is produced by WPR in conjunction with Public Radio International. On 11/14/09, WPR aired a program titled Money, Debt, & Unbridled Capitalism. A speaker on that program was Margaret Atwood; she was discussing her recent book Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth.
Ms. Atwood discussed the idea of redemption and mentioned that it is, by definition, the pay back for debt. She agreed that redemption is a basic idea in the Christian faith, i.e., that Christ redeemed guilty sinners on the cross of Calvary, paying the debt they owe for violating the nature of God. Speaking of theologians down through the ages since Christ’s crucifixion, she made the remark: redemption,…“the idea they developed in the course of time, but it certainly was not there in the Scriptures.” It seems that Ms. Atwood believes that redemption was not mentioned in the Scriptures and very probably had nothing to do with the Christian saga.
It is a shame that someone with a speaking opportunity like hers is so pitifully bereft of a basic knowledge of the Bible. She should just not comment on it if she knows so little about it. The fact is that the Bible is the great story of God’s redemption of His people. After the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis and the account of the fall of man in the third chapter, the whole Bible is about God’s redemptive work. This aspect of the Bible is most clear in the New Testament where there are numerous references to Christ’s redemption of fallen man.
1 Peter 1:18,19 says, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” I counted 15 other direct references to Christ’s redemption in the New Testament, e.g., Matt 20:28, Luke 2:38, Acts 20:28, Romans 3:24, 1 Cor 1:30, and 6:20, etc., etc.
Should we, Christians, listen to false voices like Wisconsin Public Radio? I think we should. Learning to refute this kind of false accusation, if it is answered properly, will only sharpen and strengthen our faith.
Ms. Atwood discussed the idea of redemption and mentioned that it is, by definition, the pay back for debt. She agreed that redemption is a basic idea in the Christian faith, i.e., that Christ redeemed guilty sinners on the cross of Calvary, paying the debt they owe for violating the nature of God. Speaking of theologians down through the ages since Christ’s crucifixion, she made the remark: redemption,…“the idea they developed in the course of time, but it certainly was not there in the Scriptures.” It seems that Ms. Atwood believes that redemption was not mentioned in the Scriptures and very probably had nothing to do with the Christian saga.
It is a shame that someone with a speaking opportunity like hers is so pitifully bereft of a basic knowledge of the Bible. She should just not comment on it if she knows so little about it. The fact is that the Bible is the great story of God’s redemption of His people. After the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis and the account of the fall of man in the third chapter, the whole Bible is about God’s redemptive work. This aspect of the Bible is most clear in the New Testament where there are numerous references to Christ’s redemption of fallen man.
1 Peter 1:18,19 says, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” I counted 15 other direct references to Christ’s redemption in the New Testament, e.g., Matt 20:28, Luke 2:38, Acts 20:28, Romans 3:24, 1 Cor 1:30, and 6:20, etc., etc.
Should we, Christians, listen to false voices like Wisconsin Public Radio? I think we should. Learning to refute this kind of false accusation, if it is answered properly, will only sharpen and strengthen our faith.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tort Reform: The Most Needed Feature of a New Health Care Bill
One of the largest expenses patients pay when they go to a doctor is the added on fee to pay the doctor’s malpractice insurance. The direct costs of medical malpractice insurance is $30 billion yearly; and that does not include the $240 billion yearly that doctors and hospitals spend ordering useless laboratory tests “just to rule out” highly unlikely possible diagnoses so they will be free of litigation liability. This wasteful type of practice takes place to a very large extent in emergency rooms where the doctor is unlikely to ever see the patient again. So…rather than planning to see the patient, again, to check on how the problem is resolving or progressing, as a primary care physician can, he just orders more and more lab tests.
For an example of how much malpractice insurance money is passed on to the patient, consider this: It is estimated that for every baby delivered by an obstetrician, the patient is charged $1000 to pay for the doctor’s malpractice insurance.
Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
Believe me, those “alternative medical liability laws” will only work if caps are imposed on attorneys’ fees.
To read more about the traps that exist in the new health care reform laws, I refer you to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html.
For an example of how much malpractice insurance money is passed on to the patient, consider this: It is estimated that for every baby delivered by an obstetrician, the patient is charged $1000 to pay for the doctor’s malpractice insurance.
Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
Believe me, those “alternative medical liability laws” will only work if caps are imposed on attorneys’ fees.
To read more about the traps that exist in the new health care reform laws, I refer you to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Caused the Ft. Hood Tragedy? The Obvious!
How long will our opinion gurus in the media and in the government continue to brain wash us about the innocence of Islam in the causation of national and international terror. The murderer at Ft. Hood is a Muslim; and as he shot down 13 American soldiers and wounded 29 others, he shouted the Muslim war cry, “God is good!” Could it be that his Islamic religion had something to do with his actions??!! Our government and other politically correct leaders continue to seek some esoteric reason for his homicidal mania, e.g., worries about his imminent transfer to Iraq. If that were true, it seems strange to me that more soldiers do not go about killing their fellows when they get the news that they are about to deploy.
The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, Jr. had this to say when he was interviewed ABC’s George Stephanopolous. “This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” Evidently, General Casey values diversity even more than the lives of his soldiers!! I suppose that General Casey has a point: We apparently need diverse attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. military, such things as murderous attitudes and terroristic events aimed at killing and maiming our military personnel.
How crazy can we get?! This thing was caused by Major Hasan’s Islamic religion. To read more about this I refer you to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525831785724114.html
The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, Jr. had this to say when he was interviewed ABC’s George Stephanopolous. “This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” Evidently, General Casey values diversity even more than the lives of his soldiers!! I suppose that General Casey has a point: We apparently need diverse attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. military, such things as murderous attitudes and terroristic events aimed at killing and maiming our military personnel.
How crazy can we get?! This thing was caused by Major Hasan’s Islamic religion. To read more about this I refer you to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525831785724114.html
Saturday, November 7, 2009
On National Defense? Not Obama!
Our President does not seem to be oriented on defending our country and/or its allies. His lack of conviction and action are very reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s administration.
President Obama has continued to try to get a sociable settlement with the Iranians on nuclear disarmament despite the fact that they openly pour out anti-American rhetoric and blatantly continue marching toward the production of atomic bombs. All this is in the face of repeated warnings of pending disaster from the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. One of Iran’s stated goals is to obliterate Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.
Obama has continued to rile up the Israelis in an attempt to get them to quit settling the west bank of the Jordan River while he apparently ignores the fact that Hamas has test fired an intermediate range rocket capable of delivering an Iranian nuclear weapon to Tel Aviv.
Despite active agitation of the Iranian people for a democratic government which would probably be friendly to the United States, President Obama continues to send friendly messages and solicitations to President Ahmadinijad, who obviously hates us. All the while he ignores the democrats in Iran and allows them to be pillaged by their own government. No objection, here, from Obama!
In North Korea, people are literally starving to death at the hands of their government and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, while Obama refuses to make an effective objection to the horrible civil crimes being perpetrated there. Of course, the North Korean government can’t do anything about it because they are too busy making atomic bombs and rockets to threaten their neighbors and Hawaii.
In Afghanistan, American troops are wondering what the policy makers in Washington are doing while they are pursuing a course of “Who knows where we are going and what we are doing?” Leadership is needed in that war; and I doubt that a Democrat in the White House can provide it.
I wonder if the Obama administration has given any thought to the possibility of the establishment of Iranian intermediate range ballistic missiles in our near neighbor, Venezuela? Hugo Chavez, the leader in Venezuela is hardly a friend of the United States; and this possibility could create a situation very similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. An Iranian atomic weapon placed in Miami, New Orleans, Houston, or Phoenix would make Hurricane Katrina look like a summer rain shower.
I seriously doubt the effectiveness of leadership in Washington to protect our country.
President Obama has continued to try to get a sociable settlement with the Iranians on nuclear disarmament despite the fact that they openly pour out anti-American rhetoric and blatantly continue marching toward the production of atomic bombs. All this is in the face of repeated warnings of pending disaster from the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. One of Iran’s stated goals is to obliterate Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.
Obama has continued to rile up the Israelis in an attempt to get them to quit settling the west bank of the Jordan River while he apparently ignores the fact that Hamas has test fired an intermediate range rocket capable of delivering an Iranian nuclear weapon to Tel Aviv.
Despite active agitation of the Iranian people for a democratic government which would probably be friendly to the United States, President Obama continues to send friendly messages and solicitations to President Ahmadinijad, who obviously hates us. All the while he ignores the democrats in Iran and allows them to be pillaged by their own government. No objection, here, from Obama!
In North Korea, people are literally starving to death at the hands of their government and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, while Obama refuses to make an effective objection to the horrible civil crimes being perpetrated there. Of course, the North Korean government can’t do anything about it because they are too busy making atomic bombs and rockets to threaten their neighbors and Hawaii.
In Afghanistan, American troops are wondering what the policy makers in Washington are doing while they are pursuing a course of “Who knows where we are going and what we are doing?” Leadership is needed in that war; and I doubt that a Democrat in the White House can provide it.
I wonder if the Obama administration has given any thought to the possibility of the establishment of Iranian intermediate range ballistic missiles in our near neighbor, Venezuela? Hugo Chavez, the leader in Venezuela is hardly a friend of the United States; and this possibility could create a situation very similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. An Iranian atomic weapon placed in Miami, New Orleans, Houston, or Phoenix would make Hurricane Katrina look like a summer rain shower.
I seriously doubt the effectiveness of leadership in Washington to protect our country.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Homeschoolers Excell!!
Surveying 11,739 homeschooling students and their families from all 50 states through 15 independent testing services, Homeschool Progress Report 2009: Academic Achievement and Demographics is the most comprehensive study of homeschool academic achievement to date. The results support the large existing body of research on homeschool academic achievement and show homeschoolers, on average, scoring 37 percentile points above public school students on standardized achievement tests. The results were uniformly indicative of superior achievement in the areas of reading, language, math, science, and social studies. The study also found that the achievement gaps common to public schools were practically insignificant in the homeschool community. Conducted by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute. www.hslda.org
Friday, October 30, 2009
The End of Democracy
Democracy will last precisely until the people understand that they can vote themselves benefits from the use of other people’s money.
Monday, October 26, 2009
What Early Feminists Thought about Abortion--Mattie Brinkerhoff
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.” The Revolution 3(9):138-9 September 2, 1869
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Just Say No To Blasphemy Laws
USA Today published an editorial on 10/19/09 under the above title. I thoroughly agree with this editorial. Free speech in the world forum is being limited on the altar of religion. This free speech is being called hate speech, discrimination, and blasphemy; and it is being considered harmful to society.
Let it be understood that the privilege of free speech is designed to protect the rights of people to speak out on controversial issues—there is no need for free speech rights to speak on non-controversial subjects. Religion offers the platform par excellence to exercise true freedom of speech.
The whole issue of limitation of speech freedom in religious matters was brought to international attention by Muslims in Denmark after the publication of cartoons considered disrespectful of Mohammad. Deaths of Christians and church burnings accompanied the riots that followed the publications of these cartoons.
I am a Christian, and I do not like to see my religion blasphemed; but I will not countenance violence and killing if it happens. My religion can stand on its own two feet in the face of contradictory statements; and I will defend it by hearty debate if someone attacks it. It is only religion that cannot stand on the basis of reason, good will, and historical verification that needs to be defended by anti-blasphemy laws.
Let it be understood that the privilege of free speech is designed to protect the rights of people to speak out on controversial issues—there is no need for free speech rights to speak on non-controversial subjects. Religion offers the platform par excellence to exercise true freedom of speech.
The whole issue of limitation of speech freedom in religious matters was brought to international attention by Muslims in Denmark after the publication of cartoons considered disrespectful of Mohammad. Deaths of Christians and church burnings accompanied the riots that followed the publications of these cartoons.
I am a Christian, and I do not like to see my religion blasphemed; but I will not countenance violence and killing if it happens. My religion can stand on its own two feet in the face of contradictory statements; and I will defend it by hearty debate if someone attacks it. It is only religion that cannot stand on the basis of reason, good will, and historical verification that needs to be defended by anti-blasphemy laws.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
(Mrs. Stanton classified abortion as a form of “infanticide.”)
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library.
“There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?” The Revolution 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library.
“There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?” The Revolution 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868
Monday, October 12, 2009
What Early Feminists Thought about Abortion--Susan B. Anthony
(The early feminists, who will be featured in up-coming blog posts, referred to abortion as “child-murder.”)Following is a statement by Susan B. Anthony.
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to desperation which impelled her to the crime?” The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to desperation which impelled her to the crime?” The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
What Early Feminists Thought about Abortion--Susan B. Anthony
(The early feminists, who will be featured in up-coming blog posts, referred to abortion as “child-murder.”)Following is a statemnt by Susan B. Anthony.
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to desperation which impelled her to the crime?” The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to desperation which impelled her to the crime?” The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Abortion and Racism
In 2003 in the United States, white women had 165 abortions per 1000 live births; Hispanic women had 228 abortions per 1000 live births; and Black women had 491 abortions per 1000 live births. (Human Life Alliance, autumn 2009) Black women comprise 12% of the female population of America, but they account for 37% of the abortions! What could explain this great excess of abortion activity among women of color?
The obvious answer is the well-known racial targeting of abortion providers in the U.S.A. Planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider of abortions in our country; and that organization has continued the eugenic bias of its founder, Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger was a woman obsessed with the goals of sexual freedom of all people and the “science” of eugenics in the early years of the 20th Century when she founded Planned Parenthood. She openly stated that she wanted to eliminate the feeble minded and retarded by forced birth control; and she welcomed into her movement those who were dedicated to white supremacy and the elimination of Blacks. She founded the Negro Project designed to infiltrate the Black community with a “birth control for health” doctrine in the early part of the last century.
It seems ironic that today we have a Black President who supports Planned Parenthood in a very enthusiastic way. It seems that he is also dedicated to diminishing the numbers of the Black population.
The obvious answer is the well-known racial targeting of abortion providers in the U.S.A. Planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider of abortions in our country; and that organization has continued the eugenic bias of its founder, Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger was a woman obsessed with the goals of sexual freedom of all people and the “science” of eugenics in the early years of the 20th Century when she founded Planned Parenthood. She openly stated that she wanted to eliminate the feeble minded and retarded by forced birth control; and she welcomed into her movement those who were dedicated to white supremacy and the elimination of Blacks. She founded the Negro Project designed to infiltrate the Black community with a “birth control for health” doctrine in the early part of the last century.
It seems ironic that today we have a Black President who supports Planned Parenthood in a very enthusiastic way. It seems that he is also dedicated to diminishing the numbers of the Black population.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Dare We Doubt?
There are three basic beliefs that our modern society holds very dear. I would like to define them for you:
Multiculturalism: All cultural and belief systems are equally valid.
Diversity: Cultural, racial, and sexual identity take precedence over the common good.
Political correctness: Do not dare to challenge, question, or disagree.
Dare we doubt the truth of these? I should hope so! If any of you are interested in looking further into these beliefs, I would refer you to a good book: Diversity, The Invention of a Concept by Peter Wood of Boston University.
Multiculturalism: All cultural and belief systems are equally valid.
Diversity: Cultural, racial, and sexual identity take precedence over the common good.
Political correctness: Do not dare to challenge, question, or disagree.
Dare we doubt the truth of these? I should hope so! If any of you are interested in looking further into these beliefs, I would refer you to a good book: Diversity, The Invention of a Concept by Peter Wood of Boston University.
Monday, October 5, 2009
We Must Have An Anti-Abortion Proviso In Health Care Act
A simple read of H.R. 3200, the present health care act, being considered by the Senate and the House of Representatives will show that there is no mention of abortion in the bill. However, broad powers given to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who is Kathleen Sebelius—an avowed pro-abortionist, would allow her and her department to pay private insurance companies and abortion clinics for abortions using federal money. It would also allow low-income clients to get money directly from the Federal Government to pay for their abortions.
This bill needs a strict and specifically worded proviso preventing the use of federal money for abortion. This kind of language has been voted down repeatedly by Democrat legislators. However, there is a strongly worded amendment, called the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which would specifically prohibit federal money from being used for abortions. http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/StupakPittsLetterSept282009.pdf
I would strongly request that you write to your Congressman and Senator to vote for the Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R.3200.
This bill needs a strict and specifically worded proviso preventing the use of federal money for abortion. This kind of language has been voted down repeatedly by Democrat legislators. However, there is a strongly worded amendment, called the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which would specifically prohibit federal money from being used for abortions. http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/StupakPittsLetterSept282009.pdf
I would strongly request that you write to your Congressman and Senator to vote for the Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R.3200.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Democrats in Congress and the Senate will not realistically approach the problem of medical malpractice costs because of opposition from the trial lawyers professional group (called the American Association of Justice). Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee was asked why there is nothing in the health-care proposals about liability reform. Mr. Dean replied: “The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers…And that is the plain and simple truth.”
Today, lawyer and administrative costs soak up 54¢ out of every malpractice dollar. It costs obstetricians $1000 in malpractice insurance costs for every baby they deliver.
Former Sen. John Edwards made a fortune bringing 16 cases against hospitals for babies born with cerebral palsy. Each of those tragic cases was worth millions in settlement. But according to a 2006 study at the National Institutes of Health, in 9 out of 10 cases of cerebral palsy nothing done by a doctor could have caused the condition.
We should all write our Congressmen about this big problem, which is causing huge medical service costs.
(This article was resourced from the Wall Street Journal 9/29/09 page A25.)
Today, lawyer and administrative costs soak up 54¢ out of every malpractice dollar. It costs obstetricians $1000 in malpractice insurance costs for every baby they deliver.
Former Sen. John Edwards made a fortune bringing 16 cases against hospitals for babies born with cerebral palsy. Each of those tragic cases was worth millions in settlement. But according to a 2006 study at the National Institutes of Health, in 9 out of 10 cases of cerebral palsy nothing done by a doctor could have caused the condition.
We should all write our Congressmen about this big problem, which is causing huge medical service costs.
(This article was resourced from the Wall Street Journal 9/29/09 page A25.)
Friday, September 25, 2009
No waste, fraud, or abuse?? Are you talking about Washington?
Obama’s Claim: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut… That will never happen on my watch.”
The Truth: His plan proposes $500 billion in “savings” in Medicare by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” This is a sleight of hand as old as Washington, D.C., and it is one reason why our deficit is out of control. There is no budget line for “waste, fraud and abuse.” If there are $500 billion that can be saved, prove it now. Cut that “waste, fraud and abuse” now, and save the money now!
(A note from Gary Bauer.)
The Truth: His plan proposes $500 billion in “savings” in Medicare by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” This is a sleight of hand as old as Washington, D.C., and it is one reason why our deficit is out of control. There is no budget line for “waste, fraud and abuse.” If there are $500 billion that can be saved, prove it now. Cut that “waste, fraud and abuse” now, and save the money now!
(A note from Gary Bauer.)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
America, Do Not Slip on Afghanistan!
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll taken 5 days ago indicated that 51% of Americans are somewhat or strongly opposed to increasing troop strength in Afghanistan. One third of respondents favor an immediate withdrawal from the war!
Pulling back from Afghanistan now would be a disastrous mistake for the United States. Afghanistan was the staging site for the 9/11 attack against the United States, and turning the area over, again, to the Taliban and Al Qaeda would only allow them to reinstitute their nefarious terrorist activities and show the world that America lacks the courage and stick-to-it necessary to complete a job that we have started. It would be a slap in the face to all who have sacrificed so much to accomplish the President’s campaign promises to finish the job in Afghanistan and rid the world of Al Qaeda once and for all.
Asymmetric warfare, such as the warfare in Afghanistan is not won by winning battles. The outcome of this kind of war is determined by which side can stay in the field the longest. A perfect example of this was the American Revolution. George Washington’s army did not win very many battles; but American fighters out-stayed the British army and were victorious because of that factor. In Afghanistan, is seems that the native Taliban fighters have an advantage in that they are fighting on their own home field. They have staying power!
In Afghanistan, it is imperative that America stay there long enough to get Afghan nationals trained up and ready to stay the course against an enemy that they hate almost as much as we, Americans, do—the Taliban. Only then, can we relax and bring our brave fighting men and women home.
Pulling back from Afghanistan now would be a disastrous mistake for the United States. Afghanistan was the staging site for the 9/11 attack against the United States, and turning the area over, again, to the Taliban and Al Qaeda would only allow them to reinstitute their nefarious terrorist activities and show the world that America lacks the courage and stick-to-it necessary to complete a job that we have started. It would be a slap in the face to all who have sacrificed so much to accomplish the President’s campaign promises to finish the job in Afghanistan and rid the world of Al Qaeda once and for all.
Asymmetric warfare, such as the warfare in Afghanistan is not won by winning battles. The outcome of this kind of war is determined by which side can stay in the field the longest. A perfect example of this was the American Revolution. George Washington’s army did not win very many battles; but American fighters out-stayed the British army and were victorious because of that factor. In Afghanistan, is seems that the native Taliban fighters have an advantage in that they are fighting on their own home field. They have staying power!
In Afghanistan, it is imperative that America stay there long enough to get Afghan nationals trained up and ready to stay the course against an enemy that they hate almost as much as we, Americans, do—the Taliban. Only then, can we relax and bring our brave fighting men and women home.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Boy Scout’s Viewpoint on Abortion
I am publishing the following letter from a Boy Scout friend of mine that was written to Colorado Senator Udall. I am particularly proud of this post, because I am an Eagle Scout, myself. I hope you enjoy this letter:
I am Joel Meyer. I am a 14-year-old boy in Boy Scout Troop 231 of Arvada, Colorado. I am writing this letter for my “Citizenship in the Nation” merit badge. I would like to speak out on my opinion about abortion. I believe that as an American I should be able to speak out against abortion. As a Catholic, I believe that once conceived, a baby is a living human being. With this idea in mind, the real definition of abortion is the same as homicide. I understand the view that rape victims should be able to have an abortion because of the trauma caused by it. This does not make abortion right, either. Instead of killing the baby, it should be given up for adoption. Every life should have a chance to be a part of this world. Another concern is research that requires the killing of embryos. In March 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that opened the door to federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos, reversing President Bush’s 2001 order that blocked federal funding of embryo-killing research. “The pro-abortion movement sees federal ‘health care reform’ legislation as a golden opportunity to force-feed abortion into every nook and cranny of the health-care delivery system.” “They hope to use the structure of a federal health-care law to make abortion on demand accessible in every region of every state, paid for by taxes and government-mandated private insurance premiums.” I believe that abortion should be discouraged as much as possible. Thank you for listening to what I have to say and representing the views of our state. Please send a response if possible and let me know what you can do about my concern.
Sincerely, Joel Meyer
I am Joel Meyer. I am a 14-year-old boy in Boy Scout Troop 231 of Arvada, Colorado. I am writing this letter for my “Citizenship in the Nation” merit badge. I would like to speak out on my opinion about abortion. I believe that as an American I should be able to speak out against abortion. As a Catholic, I believe that once conceived, a baby is a living human being. With this idea in mind, the real definition of abortion is the same as homicide. I understand the view that rape victims should be able to have an abortion because of the trauma caused by it. This does not make abortion right, either. Instead of killing the baby, it should be given up for adoption. Every life should have a chance to be a part of this world. Another concern is research that requires the killing of embryos. In March 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that opened the door to federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos, reversing President Bush’s 2001 order that blocked federal funding of embryo-killing research. “The pro-abortion movement sees federal ‘health care reform’ legislation as a golden opportunity to force-feed abortion into every nook and cranny of the health-care delivery system.” “They hope to use the structure of a federal health-care law to make abortion on demand accessible in every region of every state, paid for by taxes and government-mandated private insurance premiums.” I believe that abortion should be discouraged as much as possible. Thank you for listening to what I have to say and representing the views of our state. Please send a response if possible and let me know what you can do about my concern.
Sincerely, Joel Meyer
Friday, September 11, 2009
Summary of What is needed in Health Care Bill
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
• Enact Medicare reform.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
• Enact Medicare reform.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Health Care plan will allow federal dollars to pay for abortions!
Non-partisan entities like the Associated Press, FactCheck.org, and Time have confirmed that ObamaCare will allow all abortions to be covered by the public plan and by federally-subsidized private plans. The government will collect the necessarily-higher premiums (which we will be required to pay), receive bills from abortionists, and then send the abortionists payment checks from a federal treasury account.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"Triggers," the latest twist in ObamaCare
In order to get ObamaCare enacted, Democrats are now proposing a “trigger” to create a single payer option if private insurers fail to pass specific benchmarks in the economy of health care. Democrat bureaucrats will specify those benchmarks; and they will very probably be impossible for private insurers to meet. So…this is just another ploy to get a single payer system in place for our health care.
Every version of ObamaCare being considered will turn private insurers into subsidiaries of Congress. H.R. 3200 would appoint a “health choices commissioner,” who will have the final say about premiums, deductibles, and copays. That commissioner will, no doubt, have the final say so about rationing of health care dollars, too.
Every version of ObamaCare being considered will turn private insurers into subsidiaries of Congress. H.R. 3200 would appoint a “health choices commissioner,” who will have the final say about premiums, deductibles, and copays. That commissioner will, no doubt, have the final say so about rationing of health care dollars, too.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Health insurance cooperative?
The recently touted discontinuation of the “public option,” and its replacement by federally chartered insurance cooperatives is only a way of replacing the “public option” with another federal government grab by controlling money flow through a new agency placed between the federal government and the private insurers. The feds will still control the money under this kind of arrangement by setting up an insurance Fannie Mae system of money control.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Economics of the Proposed Health Care Bill
A single payer, government-run, reimbursement system would be a reenactment of Medicare for all Americans. It would drive all the private insurance companies out of business because it would be able to sell insurance using the mandate-creating tool of collective bargaining where the government would be the only bidder—that is not something that would increase competition, as the President has said he wants. Furthermore, it would increase total costs as the Congressional Budget Office predicts. This would happen because if the government is supplying free or low-cost health care services, everyone will want some of it; and utilization will necessarily increase. (The CBO estimates that H.R. 3200 would cause a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion during the 10 year period of 2010-2019.)
Friday, September 4, 2009
Economical Federal Financing--an Oxymoron
President Obama insists that the new health care proposals will not cost the government or the people any more money; he even says it will save money—not likely. If this program is anything like Medicare, which is very probable, it will follow a financial trajectory similar to Medicare. Let’s look at that: Medicare was created about 40 years ago. At that time it cost $7 billion, which was 4% of the federal budget. In 2008, the program cost $455 billion and comprised 15% of the federal budget. (Potetz and Cubanski, Kaiser Family Foundation July 2009)
The lesson is simply that the Federal Government does not know how to run an economical health care system. I think the American people should not believe the President when he talks about an “economical Federal option.”
The lesson is simply that the Federal Government does not know how to run an economical health care system. I think the American people should not believe the President when he talks about an “economical Federal option.”
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Unacceptable Things about the Health Care Bill
Our American health care system obviously needs fixing in several areas; but there are two things about the current legislation that are absolutely unacceptable to Pro-Life people countrywide. Those things are provisions for abortion facilitation and the parts of the bills under consideration that would deny the rights of health care providers to obey their consciences. As I read H.R. 3200, I do not see anything that would mandate or facilitate euthanasia.
I am retired from the practice of medicine at this time, but if I were not, I would quit the profession rather than cooperate with a law that required me to facilitate or perform abortions or euthanasia. Physicians are mandated by conscience to do things for patients that help them; and they are not to do any harm. The old Hippocratic Oath, which is no longer in use, specifically proscribed giving a woman anything that would cause her to miscarry a pregnancy.
I am retired from the practice of medicine at this time, but if I were not, I would quit the profession rather than cooperate with a law that required me to facilitate or perform abortions or euthanasia. Physicians are mandated by conscience to do things for patients that help them; and they are not to do any harm. The old Hippocratic Oath, which is no longer in use, specifically proscribed giving a woman anything that would cause her to miscarry a pregnancy.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What Is Quality Health Care
Americans have a different concept of “quality health care” from the providers of that care and, also, from the bureaucrats, both of whom aspire to administrate that “quality” care. The doctors and other health care deliverers would work to deliver the care that produces the best outcome to the individual patient, regardless of the cost. Bureaucrats and administrators would hope to see care delivered that produces the best outcome for the most people at the least cost. They do not necessarily look for ideal care for individual patients.
Patients, on the other hand, usually consider two criteria of care which they deem to be of importance in determining the quality of care they are receiving.
1) Respect of persons: This includes dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to make decisions about their own care.
2) Client orientation: This includes prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities, and choice of provider.
Patient expectations are going to suffer if either the provider or the bureaucrats have their way in the new health care laws that are being considered in America today.
Americans have a different concept of “quality health care” from the providers of that care and, also, from the bureaucrats, both of whom aspire to administrate that “quality” care. The doctors and other health care deliverers would work to deliver the care that produces the best outcome to the individual patient, regardless of the cost. Bureaucrats and administrators would hope to see care delivered that produces the best outcome for the most people at the least cost. They do not necessarily look for ideal care for individual patients.
Patients, on the other hand, usually consider two criteria of care which they deem to be of importance in determining the quality of care they are receiving.
1) Respect of persons: This includes dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to make decisions about their own care.
2) Client orientation: This includes prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities, and choice of provider.
Patient expectations are going to suffer if either the provider or the bureaucrats have their way in the new health care laws that are being considered in America today.
Monday, August 31, 2009
A More Practical Solution To the Health Care Crisis
At the present time, employees and union members want very fat health care insurance coverage, because that is income for them on which they do not have to pay taxes. If they were taxed on the cost of their employer-purchased health insurance, they would quit using the employer-purchased option and begin buying their own insurance from private insurers. They would buy catastrophic insurance that had a large co-pay, e.g., $2500 per year. That would encourage them to shop around for lower cost medical services.
This system would help the employer who is struggling to keep up with escalating health insurance costs; and it would keep medical care costs down by creating competition among health care providers.
This system would help the employer who is struggling to keep up with escalating health insurance costs; and it would keep medical care costs down by creating competition among health care providers.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
BOOK REVIEW
Valkyrie
An Insider’s Account of
THE PLOT TO KILL HITLER
One might ask, “Why would a Pro-Life organization like Caring Hands Pregnancy Center tout a book about a failed assassination attempt? Read on….
Valkyrie is a book about the fight men of conscience waged against an evil despotism. It is a story that we can ignore only to our own detriment. Our times are evil; and the dangers of our falling into the trap that Germany fell into in the twelve years of the Third Reich (1933-1944) are very real, indeed!
At the end of the Weimer Republic the German people were under the administration of Kaiser Wilhelm, who had only a counterfeit conservative political position. Inflation was rampant, and the people had great unrest in their hearts—they were dissatisfied, and they blamed conservatism. They were looking for something new. Liberal views had suffused the populace. Liberalism with its overemphasis on individualism, contributed greatly to the dissolution of religious and ethical principles. Liberalism’s mechanistic idea of centralization helped to obstruct any step toward a healthy kind of federalism. This political milieu was a perfect situation for a take-over by a convincing political speaker like Adolf Hitler. The result was horrific! “The speed with which centralism can deteriorate into extreme nationalism is something that we, Europeans, who have felt the worst blows of nationalism, have experienced not only in Germany but in the rest of Europe.”
Many Germans kept aloof of the problems that were escalating in their country during those momentous twelve years. And, finally, when the truth was out and all Germany knew consciously what heinous deeds were afoot, they still remained “neutral.” When the cattle cars of the railroads rattled by their churches on Sunday mornings filled with screaming Jews destined for the extermination camps, their response was, “Sing louder!”
There were, in Germany, however, a class of moral and honorable men of the highest quality who drew together, determined to not let the prevailing madness of the Nazi regime blur their sense of responsibility to their Fatherland and their understanding of right and wrong. These men saw success of the Nazi regime as the end of Christian civilization in Europe. They worked to undo the bad deeds of Hitler and his henchmen. But, unfortunately…they were too few. Their efforts eventually proved their undoing—almost all of them died—with one notable exception, Hans Gisevius, the author of this book.
Now comes the question we must all face: Is the civilization of our nation impregnably fortified against similar outbreaks of imminent evil? Or, are we facing a holocaust of deaths of the innocent while we stand by and shout, “Sing louder!” Are we taking a neutral stand (which is really a strike for centralization, autocracy, and intolerance of Christian principles) or are we willing to stand up and be counted, regardless of the cost?
We will either take the responsibility for our actions or be guilty before God of the German error of 1933-1944.
Valkyrie
An Insider’s Account of
THE PLOT TO KILL HITLER
One might ask, “Why would a Pro-Life organization like Caring Hands Pregnancy Center tout a book about a failed assassination attempt? Read on….
Valkyrie is a book about the fight men of conscience waged against an evil despotism. It is a story that we can ignore only to our own detriment. Our times are evil; and the dangers of our falling into the trap that Germany fell into in the twelve years of the Third Reich (1933-1944) are very real, indeed!
At the end of the Weimer Republic the German people were under the administration of Kaiser Wilhelm, who had only a counterfeit conservative political position. Inflation was rampant, and the people had great unrest in their hearts—they were dissatisfied, and they blamed conservatism. They were looking for something new. Liberal views had suffused the populace. Liberalism with its overemphasis on individualism, contributed greatly to the dissolution of religious and ethical principles. Liberalism’s mechanistic idea of centralization helped to obstruct any step toward a healthy kind of federalism. This political milieu was a perfect situation for a take-over by a convincing political speaker like Adolf Hitler. The result was horrific! “The speed with which centralism can deteriorate into extreme nationalism is something that we, Europeans, who have felt the worst blows of nationalism, have experienced not only in Germany but in the rest of Europe.”
Many Germans kept aloof of the problems that were escalating in their country during those momentous twelve years. And, finally, when the truth was out and all Germany knew consciously what heinous deeds were afoot, they still remained “neutral.” When the cattle cars of the railroads rattled by their churches on Sunday mornings filled with screaming Jews destined for the extermination camps, their response was, “Sing louder!”
There were, in Germany, however, a class of moral and honorable men of the highest quality who drew together, determined to not let the prevailing madness of the Nazi regime blur their sense of responsibility to their Fatherland and their understanding of right and wrong. These men saw success of the Nazi regime as the end of Christian civilization in Europe. They worked to undo the bad deeds of Hitler and his henchmen. But, unfortunately…they were too few. Their efforts eventually proved their undoing—almost all of them died—with one notable exception, Hans Gisevius, the author of this book.
Now comes the question we must all face: Is the civilization of our nation impregnably fortified against similar outbreaks of imminent evil? Or, are we facing a holocaust of deaths of the innocent while we stand by and shout, “Sing louder!” Are we taking a neutral stand (which is really a strike for centralization, autocracy, and intolerance of Christian principles) or are we willing to stand up and be counted, regardless of the cost?
We will either take the responsibility for our actions or be guilty before God of the German error of 1933-1944.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
