How To Use Money We Don’t Have

I see in our neighborhood new playground equipment being installed in perfectly good playgrounds that, to me, seem adequate for our children. Streets that are in good repair are being torn up and replaced with new asphalt we don’t need and paid for with money we don’t have to produce jobs that don’t appear. Street corners where there is negligible traffic are being provided with expensive traffic lights and pedestrian walk lights where few people ever walk.

This is all being done with TARP money in order to “stimulate the economy.” Isn’t big government wonderful!

Sex-Starved Americans

Our society seems absolutely soaked in sex; and our population seems to be demanding even more of it! A recent Barna Group poll indicates that among Americans between the ages of 20 and 40, attitudes about sex are significantly less traditional and less moral from a Christian perspective than that of people over the age of 40. They “were twice as likely to have viewed sexually explicit movies or videos; 2½ times more likely to report having had a sexual encounter outside marriage; and 3 times more likely to have viewed sexually graphic content online.”

There is no need to recount the sexual explosion within the entertainment, advertising, and political worlds—these things are common knowledge to everyone.

This whole scenario is a disgrace to our people. We seem to have so little resource within ourselves that we can only gravitate to the basest qualities of our beings. We cannot think of anything better. So…we go to sex. Young people do not have enough strength to avoid anything but their “animal instincts” on which to rely.

David Kinnaman, the leader of the Barna Group who studied the sexual trends mentioned above had this to say about the study. “We expect to see this mindset of sexual entitlement translate into increased appetites for pornography, unfiltered acceptance of sexual themes and content in media, and continued dissolution of marriages due to infidelity.”

But those who would cling to time-honored moral values should not throw up their hands in surrender. We should remember, as Randy Alcorn has said, “…in Sodom’s sexual revolution, God fired the last round.”

Hate America at its Worst

It seems that the “Hate America” bunch has reached its apogee of nastiness. Popular leaders seem unleashed in their freedom to bash America and the American people. It seems to me that they have no respect for the majority of decent Americans who love this country and stand for tried and true values.

For instance: Federal California District Court judge Vaughn Walker lately struck down Proposition 8 (a voter initiative that eliminated the legality of same-sex marriage in California) and opined that those who disagree with him—the majority of California voters—can be motivated only by bigotry. He stated, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

Mayor Bloomberg, of New York has said that residents who want the Islamic mosque moved away from Ground Zero are people who should be “ashamed of themselves.” Apparently, he disagrees with 61% of the New York population.

Nancy Pelosi has referred to people who disagree with her and do not like the health care bill as people who should be “carrying swastikas.” Name calling like the above is sure evidence that the speakers have lost a rational basis for debate—it always happens that when good and reasonable arguments are exhausted, debaters turn to name calling.

This blog post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal opinion page of 8/10/10.

Obama’s Strategy Won’t Work

On winning the White House in 2008, President depended on a very popular and appealing populist slogan, “Yes we can!” and “Change/Hope,” etc., etc. Now, his slogan seems to be, “They did it to us.” That latter idea is a popular and not unusual idea of many minority groups—a victim mentality. I think that concept is unlikely to appeal to voters in November. Democrats are also pumping up the electorate with the idea that Republican ideas will take us backwards in our progress—whatever that has been lately!

Polling results indicate differently. A poll was taken this week in 13 states where the Senate race is in serious contest; and in those states, 61%-33% voters believe that America is on the wrong track. American Crossroads, a very reliable polling company, took the poll. Republicans lead on the ballot by 47% to the Democrats 39% in favorability with the probable voters. The poll examined what probable voters had to say about health care, financial regulation, the economy, and the country’s future. Republicans were all favored in these categories by five to eight percentage points.

If Republicans can pick up 10 seats in the Senate this year, they will control the Senate; and much of the nonsense we are experiencing in national government will probably cease.

Morality and International Policy

The following blog post is excerpted from an essay by George Weigel in First Things of August/September 2010.

United States foreign policy has oscillated between two poles. One pole is the Realpolitik, self-interested policies of Theodore Roosevelt and a liberal, idealistic, interest in the welfare of the world’s people in general. In other words, it has varied between our interest and our purposes in the world. Our Realpolitik presidents have been Theodore Roosevelt, Harding, early Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush. Presidents committed to the welfare of the international community have been Wilson, later FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Our policies in foreign affairs have varied with the situations and the philosophical bent of our leaders, and American foreign policy has moved according to these forces.

Whatever we, Americans, have done in the past 110 years, has been good or bad, according to one’s values and outlook. But Winston Churchill has said that Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else.

We find ourselves caught, however, in a clash of which is the moral and the safest thing to do—the thing that will help the world’s people and that will secure American safety and prosperity.

On the Right side of the argument is the Protestant moralistic viewpoint that attempts to reduce international relationships to questions resolved by the Sermon on the Mount. On the other side is the camp that attempts to resolve all moral and policy questions on the basis of human reasoning in view of the situations on the ground at the moment. Neither viewpoint seems capable of resolving the problems of the world.

What seems to be needed in this conundrum of values is a combination of common sense and a good dose of Christian moral thinking, applied to situations as they arise. But it is patently evident that neither approach will do as an answer in itself. It would be nice if we could answer all our questions of foreign policy by referring to the pages of the Bible; but it seems hardly possible that one could deal effectively with such tyrants as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, this dilemma will not be resolved; but we need leaders who will not ignore one pole of the argument in favor of the other.

The New Left in American politics sees all of the problems in foreign policy as being due to personal selfishness and self-interest on the part of the American people; and they would like to apologize to all the world for the bad things the United States has stood for; they decline to defend human rights activists in Russia, China, and Iran; and they turn their backs on our allies and reinforce the activities of our enemies. This is the message of the Obama administration; and it absolutely will not work. I am hoping that future administrations will correct this imbalance of thinking and bring a semblance of common sense back into American policy.

Affirmative Action Should Come To An End

Senator James Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, has written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal dated 23 July 2010, in which he decries the continuing discrimination in America against white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. This anti-white discrimination has been going on since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it was put into place by the Johnson administration. Discriminatory policies against these WASP’s have effected males more than females. They have effectively prevented the hiring and college admissions of qualified Whites in preference to Blacks and other ethnic groups.

As Senator Webb and others have pointed out, this administration-initiated preference was justifiable in 1964 and for years afterwards because of an obvious discrimination bias against Blacks in the university and work-place environment. Shelby Steele, a preeminent Black sociologist from the University of California system, has written that affirmative action has done its job and now should be discontinued. The reason is that it is allowing Blacks and other minority ethnic groups to enter education programs with lower qualifications than whites at all levels of upper education, and this assures the outcome of lesser qualification upon graduation of Blacks when compared to Whites. In other words, Black Ph.D.’s, M.D.’s, R.N.’s, etc. come out of their training programs with lesser abilities than their White competitors. It is time for us to get away from affirmative action and admit all comers to universities and the job market on the grounds of their actual qualifications instead of on their ethnic background. Qualified Blacks can stand up on their own against qualified Whites; and both groups would benefit from a discontinuation of affirmative action policies.

Quran—A Dangerous Doctrine

I am making a careful study of the Quran; and I am increasingly concerned with the frequency of admonitions in that book that encourage Muslims to resort to violence in order to promote the cause of their religion.

The Quran, itself, is difficult to read. It consists of a collection of recurring themes in an apparent jumble of text without any ongoing stream of logically flowing idea. The themes that repeatedly recur are ideas that magnify Allah and show him to be “all forgiving and all merciful,” along with many other complimentary names. The book has some admonitions toward moral behavior and commands for integrated family life, erroneous historical accounts from Old Testament sources and other references to historical events from Muhammad’s own life and times. Mixed in with the above are many admonitions and commands favorable to violence against the enemies of Muslims and of Allah, himself. Followers of Islam are guaranteed passage into paradise where there will be very pleasant surroundings—all in response to the good things they do in this life. They are especially favored if they slay unbelievers or are slain in the act of killing enemies. There is no mention of kindness to enemies or to unbelievers—all these are relegated to punishment until they pay the “jizyah,” a tax on unbelievers that allows them to live in peace in a Muslim community. Especially prevalent in the pages of the Quran are erroneous statements about Jews and Christians—claims that these two religions add gods to Allah. The Quran claims that Jews and Christians have changed the books that were originally given to them by God in order to make their religions look better and to justify their pagan beliefs.

I think that those who would claim that Islam is a peaceful religion should read this book and then make their claims, because this doctrinal statement is disturbing to the MAX.