He's Telling Us...We Just Have to Listen Part II

Image via Wikipedia

In an Uncommon Knowledge segment Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical in Chief, said some things that helped me put my discomfort with President Obama's goal of "fundamentally transforming this country" into context and perspective.

In segment 3 he says: "Community organizers take discontent wherever it may be found and attempt to turn that in the direction of their true long term goals....move the country toward socialism." 

Having been educated in socialistic undergraduate and graduate Social Work environments I can attest that this is indeed the case.  I had to read Cloward and Piven AND Alinsky for goodness sakes!  I guess, though, I should be happy about that.  It helped open my eyes because much to the chagrin of my professors I left my common sense switch in the on position and regularly asked questions that they did not like.  Was it the icy stare or the attempt to humiliate me that gave me the clue that my questions were not welcomed?  I'd say they both played pivotal roles :-)


In segment 4 he says: "At every turn Obama has attempted to disguise his socialist past....you need political honesty which is required if democracy is going to work." (and) " Socialists worked within the Democratic Party, seizing on elements of the liberal program that were most likely to put the country on an irreversible and structural path toward socialism...corporate democracy...grabbing control of the economy from below."

In one of their "let's call it something else" moves socialists started calling themselves contemporary liberals (NOT to be confused with classic liberals) but still maintained their socialistic ideologies.  They had previously been referring to themselves as progressives until the American people began to realize just what the heck they were trying to do to our Constitutional Republic.  So, they did what they always do, they changed the term to liberal.  As I've said before in many of my posts it doesn't matter what they call themselves the world view is still the same.


In segment 5 he responds to the question "Why does this (Obama's socialistic past, present, and future) matter?"  (as an example) Reagan leveled with the American public; he was conservative and made no bones about it.  He helped to bring the public along; to convince them and if he was opposed it was for honest reasons.  Obama has not done that.  He has not advocated ANY ideology openly....casting most of his actions as "pragmatic fixes" to the economy.  If you do not understand the ideology behind his actions how can you evaluate his reforms?" (emphasis mine)
  For example, regulation....is he (Obama) using regulation and executive order to make pragmatic system fixes or fulfilling the wishes of Congress...OR...is he using it to provoke a much more radical systemic change by abusing the regulatory process.....(which results in) the subverting of the democratic process by holding back on his true long term intentions....class-based battles. (emphasis mine.)


The political debate in our Constitutional Republic depends on the open and honest competition in the arena of ideas.  As stated above:  if you do not know and fully understand the ideology behind this administration's actions then you cannot adequately evaluate whether or not you support them.  I would slightly disagree with Mr. Kurtz when he says that Barack Obama has not advocated any ideology openly.  As I pointed out in my previous post, The Obama Narrative, he has, by his actions made a statement about his intentions through his actions.  They are not as direct and "in your face" as some of the emails circulating but they ARE there if you take the time to look closely enough. I found a collection of some of the things Obama and other progressives/socialists have said that will give you a look inside their world view; hope you can believe in becomes "socialism you can believe in." Taking things away from you through coercion or force in order to "make everything equal in everybody's house" is the change Obama spoke of.  How many people really realize that is what the progressives are saying?  I am a Christian.  I believe we need to take care of each other....but by choice and by following the gospel.  The government is not part of that equation.


In my previous post I suggested a book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage.  For a somewhat shorter resource you might consider How Obama Thinks by the same author at Forbes.com. In this article Mr. D'Souza says:
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution. (Emphasis mine)

You've heard the claims about the goal of the"redistribution of wealth."  In January of this year President Obama signed an executive order that he said in an op-ed would "root out dumb and outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."  What many don't know about this executive order is that it now:

allows agencies, in weighing costs and benefits for example, to consider “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts,” and each agency must “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).” [Emphasis added]

Golly gee Wally that sounds great!  However, I've asked it before and I'll ask it again now:  WHO gets to define things like equity, human dignity, and distributive impacts?  It's at times like this I am reminded of the frequent use of the word "inconceivable" in the movie The Princess Bride.  At one point a statement of the obvious is made:  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means!" And that, my friends is just the point.  I don't think the majority of people fully understand that the concept of "social justice" is diametrically opposed to our long cherished concept of equal justice.


In closing I'd like to share some wisdom and some humor from one of our greatest presidents:
"Beware the temptation to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." --Ronald Reagan

....and now for the humor watch this video :-)
 

Some other readings for your consideration and continuing education:
Spontaneous Order by John Stossel
Reagan Revisionism by Matt Kibbe
Reagan Revisionism 2 by Matt Kibbe
Barack Obama vs Ludwig von Mises at the Economic Policy Journal

He's Telling Us...We Just Need to Listen

Image via Wikipedia

He's Telling Us...We Just Need to Listen

I received an email today with the subject line:  He told us but nobody was listening.  (The text is below.)

First point: Obama did not appear on Meet the Press on September 7, 2008 as you can discover by reading the transcript at the link provided above.

Second point: A quick google search and reviewing of an Urban Legends Post show that much of the contents of the email are simply not true, nor are they accurate representations of statements made by then candidate Obama.

That said I'd like to share an additional thoughts I shared when responding to the email:

I have long held the suspicion that many of these rumors are started by those who disagree with our world view to distract us from what we really need to attend to.  There is real evidence that the progressives among us are dismantling our Constitutional Republic.  Real evidence that we need to pay attention to and respond to.  That is why I started my blog....to get the facts our there.

I believe much of what is expressed below indeed reflects Barack Obama's world view. He, however, like any good progressive will never say this outright.  So, those whom you wish to convince about what is going on in our country will point out that this is a "lie" because he never actually said this on Meet the Press.  Worse yet, they will also then subsequently totally dismiss any evidence that these quotes actually do reflect his world view.

Take for instance a comment made in the Urban Legends article:  No, Barack Obama didn't really utter these asinine words. Nor does it say much for the intelligence of a certain segment of the American population that they believe he, or any serious candidate, actually did,

Any guesses who the "certain segment of the American population" are? I'll help you out...it is anyone who disagrees with the progressive world view.  What better way to discredit a group of people than to circulate an email that may contain a couple of grains of truth mixed with "asinine" claims in order to marginalize them?

The article goes on to say:  "As if to demonstrate that smear-mongering is a team sport, additional fabricated quotes have been appended to the message on its journey from inbox to inbox."

Did you catch that?  If you disagree with their world view you are part of a smear-mongering team! I really wish there was a fact checking site that was not presented from the progressive world view, but until I find one I'll have to rely on Snopes and Urban Legends.

To be clear, I do not believe we should be passing on information via emails that we have not checked out ourselves.  However, I really do believe there is something to the theory that our opposition may actually be initiating some of these emails.  As I said in my response, our attention is given to information that is not entirely true instead of the things we CAN verify as true.  We then, in essence waste our time passing on information that can be easily proven false AND give our opponents a chance to dismiss the underlying assumptions about President Obama's world view.  We then end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water;"discarding useful information because it is mixed with false information.

So, what about this email reflects the true world view of Barack Obama and the progressives?  How about the statement in the email attributed to him:  It is my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. For fun let's look at an article:  The Plot to Destroy the US Military:

"The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," completely ignore military realities for political objectives.  A political military is also a useless military....And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve."

Isn't that comparable to "disarming America?"

The article goes on to say:

The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptionalism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost.

The progressives in this country see American exceptionalism, independence and confidence as "oppression."And, yes, Barack Obama is a progressive, hence while he did not make the following statements on the record, they DO reflect his underlying view of the world:

There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression

When I become President I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. (For the record, I don't even fully understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but, hey, progressives don't WANT you to fully understand so I guess it's an excellent example of progressive-speak...and it uses the word oppressive, so they get extra points for that!)

One of the statements in the email that jumped out at me was:

"Of course now I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside.

If you look closely at Barack Obama's history and his statements that are on record you see clearly that his world view is not unlike the view reflected in the email in question.   The title link above takes you to an article that gives you an excellent summary of President Obama's world view....and it is NOT one that is conducive to the protecting and defending of the United States Constitution.  President Obama, to paraphrase Van Jones, has set his hatred aside for the radical ends.

Finally, the email also includes the comment:  I will use my power to bring change to this nation and offer the people a new path. He has always made it clear that he is about "hope and change."  The question you MUST ask yourself, however, is:  What does that MEAN?

Additional recommended reading/viewing:

Glenn Beck's TV segment with Dinesh D'Souza, author of The Roots Of Obama's Rage

My previous Post:  Will We Allow Whoever "Tells the Best Story" to Win?

***************

Text of email:

Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do.  Few were listening.  The following is a narrative...from Sunday, September 7, 2008 "Meet the Press."  The then Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

He was asked by General Bill Ginn USAF (ret.) to explain why he does not follow protocol when the National Anthem was played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171:  During the rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.  Or at the very least stand and face it.

Senator Obama replied:  "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides.  There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression...The anthem itself conveys a war-like message.  You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."  Obama continued:  "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose.  I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.'  If that were our anthem then I might salute it.  In my opinion we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.  It is my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren.  If we, as a nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam where peace prevails.....perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments..."

When I become President I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts.  We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrepects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past."

"Of course now I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside.  I will use my power to bring change to this nation and offer the people a new path.  My wife and I look forward to becoming our country's First black Family.  Indeed change is about to overwhelm the United States of America.

Are You a Person "Worthy of Protection?"

A pro-abortion professor, Dr. Mark Mercer recently argued:
Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.....
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality. (emphases mine)

This reminds me of the mental gymnastics on display in a discussion between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Rick Santorum in 1999 on the subject of partial birth abortion.  Life begins not at conception, but when you "bring your baby home?"


Next consider Virginia Ironside who said she would "put a pillow over my child's face if it was "deeply suffering." The questions that begs to be asked is who gets to define "deeply suffering?"

Then, just for the heck of it, consider Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who said that we all probably know at least a "half a dozen people who are no use in this world."  He suggests putting them in front of a committee and having them justify their existence.  And let's not forget his appeal that "chemists discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly...deadly, by all means, but humane, not cruel." I think a review of history will show us that Adolph Hitler took him up on that challenge.

Returning to the issue of abortion...Media coverage of the abortion issue uses subtle language choices to influence the debate; choosing who is a "foe" and who is a "supporter." If you believe in the sanctity of all life you are an "abortion foe."  If you subscribe to the belief in "abortion rights" you are a "supporter." Why would they do that?  Why are the people who want to save the lives of the unborn the "bad guys?"

To help us figure this out we need to remember that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it"

Maggie, as any good progressive would, supported the concept of Eugenics.  She had quite a few things to say about building that new race.

Mercer, Ironside, Shaw, Sanger...what they all have in common is a progressive world view and would probably refer to themselves as socialists or progressives.  Hillary Clinton describes herself as a progressive.  And what this means is that they all have a collectivist view of the world.  The individual is not important it is the collective that matters. I am not sure what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to avoid the realization that the collective is actually made up of a bunch of individuals, but I'm sure it is quite strenuous.

Ideas and world views have consequences.  If the world view is focused on the collective, it becomes increasingly easier to ignore the "individual" to the point that they become something "not human."  De-humanization leads to horrors.  History has shown us this.

How much has this progressive view infiltrated our society?  I would say quite a bit when we see in the news that Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passes fetal pain bill. We need a law to say it is wrong to inflict pain on a fetus?

Finally consider the Complete Lives System proposed by Ezekiel Emmanuel: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.  These "principles" include age-based prioritization of allocating medical care as well as a discussion of "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I think George and Maggie would approve. (And, for the record:  "Yes Virginia, there are death panels in the new health care law."  They have nicer names but the result is the same as far as I can determine.)

I am not ignoring the realities facing us.  I am merely asking you to consider the vast difference between people who have principles and values that say every life is precious and worthy of protection and those whose principles consider that only those deemed to be socially useful are worthy of protection.  Which group of people do YOU want making tough decisions?

The Importance of an Informed Vote

Image via Wikipedia

Today is election day.  I hope all eligible citizens have exercised this precious right.  I am hoping that we have all done our due diligence and made informed decisions.

This is not a decision about "Republican" or "Democrat."  It is more accurately described as a choice between a conservative world view and a progressive world view.  Here are just a few aspects and issues you might want to consider today and going forward into the future of our country.

Love Thine Enemies -OR- Punish Thine Enemies?  You Choose.

In 2004 Barack Obama (then a candidate for Senate) gave a powerful speech.  In this speech he "challenged the Country to shatter the idea that we are a divided people."  He went on to say that we are "not a Black America, or an Hispanic America, or a white America, we are ONE AMERICA." (emphasis mine)

On October 25th he gave a spoke to the Hispanic community in a Univision radio broadcast he said:  "If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us; if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election then I think it's going to be harder...."

Punish our enemies?  What happen to ONE AMERICA?  And, who are the enemies?  Why is it the aim to "reward" anyone?  Why is it not framed in respect to what is best for this country and it's citizens? You might also ask yourself:  "Exactly what does he mean when he says "immigration reform?"  I believe it has become code for "keep the borders porous and grant amnesty to a block of people, many of whom have no idea that they are being used for political purposes."

As stated in the sub- title link article, it is inconceivable to think that Hispanics could even think about disagreeing or doubting the merits of a progressive agenda.  You will recall that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared, "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."  This clearly follows the road map of "dividing and controlling." He "walked this statement back" after some backlash from the Hispanic community.  In the Huffington Post article his "clarification" did everything but accuse Republicans of mugging old ladies and stealing candy from children.  In other words, "they are the enemy" of just about everything; employing teachers, food on the table, and clean air, and small business just because they disagree that government is the answer. 


Understanding the Progressive View of Oppression

This link takes you to an article titled:  "The Truth About Oppression."  It suggests an interpretation of a conservative vs progressive view as to the source of oppression.  The author sets forth that conservatives fear oppression by the government and progressives fear oppression from everywhere else and rely on government to protect them.  That is, without a doubt, the most succinct manner of summarizing the difference.  And you can read it in way less than four minutes!

For a progressive the bigger the government the better.  They believe that all injustices can only be set right if the government is large enough and unbridled power is given to the elites in charge.

The article also states that conservatives have a world view that is consistent with the reality that oppression comes from governments; always has and always will.

It is interesting to note at this point something I read in Eric Weiner's The Geography of Bliss.  The author visited the World Database of Happiness in The Netherlands and talked with Ruut Veenhoven, Professor of Happiness Studies.    One of the professors findings made him very unpopular with his fellow sociologists.  He found that income distribution does not predict happiness.  Countries with wide gaps between the rich and poor are no less happy than where the wealth is distributed more equally.  Sometimes they are happier.
Veehoven is quoted as saying in response to this is: "My colleagues are not amused.  Inequality is big business here in the sociology department.  Entire careers have been built on it" (page 16.)

I would add that in our country, entire political careers have been built on it.  In particular the progressives' political careers; Democrat AND Republican.  The world view of the progressive is based in identification of oppressed groups and seeking "social justice."  The progressive concept of social justice has it's roots in liberation theology.   There is a website, Liberation Theology resource center and bookstore that may help you develop a better understanding of this movement.  It includes essays and chronology of the movement as well as criticisms.  During this assessment of this concept of "social justice" as presented via liberation theology I find two major contradictions to my understanding of what the Gospel says.  The first is the emphasis on the conditions in this world while putting spiritual and eternal life in the background.  The second is the concept frequently expressed by President Obama of "collective salvation.   So, if "social justice" sounds good to you it would be a good idea to delve into just exactly what it means in a progressive world view.


Immigration Reform = Social Justice


Finally, I urge you to take a closer look at the battle over Arizona's SB1070.  It is more complex than "people looking for a better life" or "they will do jobs Americans won't."  There is a two part report you will find useful at wstbv.com:  Investigating Border Security Part 1 and Part 2.  Who else is crossing our borders is a national security issue. 

Jan Brewer:  Doing the Job the Feds Won't
This was a special "Halloween" video posted by Gov. Jan Brewer in response to a new sign, that replaced an older one, on the Arizona border.  I don't know which one would make me feel better....probably neither.  Phoenix was called the "kidnapping capital of the US" in February of 2009.  Of course, there is an article that criticizes Congressman John Kyle for calling Phoenix the "kidnapping capital of the US" in August of this year.  I guess this author missed the 2009 article.  I can perhaps understand this as "google" made it difficult for me to find.

Finally, A Brief Comment on Polls

There was a recent poll that Michele Bachmann posted on her FB page asking what issue was most important to voters.  The usual things were listed but one choice was not offered; all of the above.

So, I did a "write in vote" and said:

All of the above!  It really gets summed up as, "Our government officials are not doing the job we elected them to do. It's "We the people" NOT "You the People, and We the Elite!" We are tired of being treated like idiots! We have awakened, we are doing our homework, and we will not let the Constitution be trampled any longer. It will take longer than this election cycle, but we shall restore the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.

Polls, I suppose, can be useful for our leaders.  It gives them an idea about what is important to the people who they are supposed to represent.  However, recently I've been somewhat irritated by the constant questioning about what we the people think is important.  It seems to me that it does not require a great deal of thought to name the biggies:  the national debt, unemployment, and the diminishing of our God-given liberties.  Why do they keep asking?!  Stop asking and DO something is what I want to say.

Finally, negative, attack campaign ads (if you believe the polls) work!  People listen to the sound bites and make decisions based on incomplete information.  So, I guess what I'd like to see is less time spent endlessly polling the opinions of voters and an increased use of common sense and basic guiding principles.  Along with that, if we the people who vote would spend a bit more time reading and researching in order to make informed decisions at election time we would be well on the road to restoration.  

So, you have a decision to make today and tomorrow and every day after that.  This is not just about one day. 

Related articles

• Obama turns to 'Piolin' to rev up Latino vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Calls Republicans "Enemies." (creativeminorityreport.com)
• Obama seeks to blunt Republican attack over comment (reuters.com)
• Only the Tea Party can save us now (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Boehner Chides Obama over "Enemies" (cbsnews.com)

Textbooks, Truth & World View

Image via Wikipedia

There have been quite a few stories recently regarding concerns about what our children are learning in our public schools.  The revision and/or presentation of history in a manner that leaves out important pieces of information has been a concern for some time.  Recently the concerns have been about how Islam and Christianity are being presented. Salon.com has a response presented from the other side of the argument.  Fox News airs a special report today "Do you know what textbooks your children are really reading?"

I've also come across an interesting article on Chinese textbooks and their approach to teaching about the Korean War that is worth reading.  In fact, this gentleman has quite a few articles worth reading.  In one of them, "Victims: History, Perception, and the East West Divide" he shares the following from a Chinese blogger:  "...this sense of being bullied from the west is rooted in the control of public opinion in China, the obstruction of the free flow if ideas, and students who from a young age are instilled with the notion of 'Westerners bullying Chinese people."  It seems this is not just an American problem.

The title link takes you to an article discussing the International Baccalaureate Program in some of our High Schools.  If you read the linked article above and visit their website you can get a range of opinions on the program.  When looking into this program I did a search and found that the world view at the core of this program is not one that I agree with....but I had to look closely because it "sounds so wonderful."

Before you jump to the conclusion that I just want to teach our schoolchildren another biased view of history please stay in your seat.  I have to be honest, I always had a sense of uneasiness with the concept of Manifest Destiny even when I first heard about it in school.  As I said in an earlier post, I believe we should learn the good, the bad and even the ugly to truly learn from history. 

Why does any of this matter?
Because those who possess much of the power and control over how and what our children learn seem to have a particular  world view, a Progressive world view.



If you take a quick tour of Progressive influences on our education system, I would suggest beginning with John Dewey.  In How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson presents:  "Dewey rejected the traditional belief that an idea is an insight into an objective reality, to be judged by whether it is true or false.  Instead, he argued that ideas are merely hypotheses about what will get the results we want and their validity depends on whether they work." (page 93)  (Note:  I have a note I wrote on this page that says: Darwinists believe there is no transcendent truth, yet they believe that Darwinism is objectively true?")

Next consider the 1930's George S. Counts, who "called upon teachers to begin controlling the evolution of society.  He urged them to redeem society, to stop being merely transmitters of the culture and become creators of social values...reach deliberately for power to build a new social order." (Colson, page 335) His "Dare the School Build a New Social Order?" can give you further details on his views.  His new social order involves our economic system "evolving into a collectivist pattern." 

Then you come to B.F. Skinner's Walden Two and behaviorism.  Skinner argues that "because the reality of consciousness or mental states cannot be observed, they cannot be described scientifically; therefore, they are not real.  Only observable, external behavior is real." (How Now Shall We Live, page 177)  This utopian thinking shifted education from the classical aim at the search for truth and training moral character to a new aim: "if human nature was nothing more than a reactive mechanism, then it could be manipulated and shaped by the laws science discovered.  Education became a means of conditioning, with the child treated as essentially passive rather than an active moral agent."(also page 177.) 

Then, consider Mary Calderone, former Executive Director of Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS.)  In a 1968 article she said: "the real question facing sex educators is this: 'what kind of person do we want to produce to take the place of human nature as we know it today, and how do we design the production line to create this advanced creature?"  and "..the best thing we can do for our children is to prepare them to view all notions of right and wrong as tentative, changing, and relative (emphasis mine).  Then, loosed from the old values, they can be inculcated with the values of a scientifically trained elite (consisting of professionals like herself, of course) who know what makes a human being truly healthy." (Colson, page 241 & 242)  This is interesting information in light of the recent Sex Ed controversy in Montana. 

Why does one's world view matter?  One more quote from How Now Shall We Live sums up my response to this:

"We easily forget that every private decision contributes to the moral and cultural climate in which we live, rippling out in ever widening circles--first in our personal lives, and then in the broader society.....every decision we make reflects our world view.  Every choice, every action, either expresses a false world view and thus contributes to a disordered and broken world, or expresses God's truth and helps build a world that reflects his created order."  (page 294)

Whether you believe in a supreme being or not, truth does exist.  A transcendent truth that is consistent with what we experience in the real world.  To re-phrase something C.S. Lewis said:  The theist, who believes in a transcendent source of truth and the materialist (Progressive for this discussion),who believes everything is relative,  hold different beliefs about the universe.  They cannot both be right.  The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe.

Finally, to all of this we add in the concept of the "useful lie" sometimes used by Progressives and the Muslim concept of "taquia"(or lying for the faith) and you have great difficulty "fact checking" and finding  the information that will lead you to truth.  I have faith, though, that we will get there with vigilance, perseverance and determination.  There is always hope. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Texas school board concerned that textbooks are too nice to Muslims (salon.com)
• State ed board tackles alleged pro-Islamic bias in textbooks (chron.com)
• Rule on Islam's portrayl in textbooks to be considered (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)

A good friend sent me a joke called, "A $50 Lesson" that I'd like to share with you:


I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.  She said she wanted to be President some day.  Both her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride.
"Wow, what a worthy goal," I told her.  "But you don't have to wait until you are President to do that.  You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard and I'll pay you $50.  Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought about that for a few seconds, then looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Well I said I loved it and that I had heard a similar joke about a college student berating her Republican father for his lack of compassion.  He asked her about her grades the previous semester.  She had gotten straight A's.  He said she was probably proud of the hard work she put in to achieve this.  She said she did work hard.  He also pointed out that her friends had partied a lot and did not get good grades.  He asked, "How about if you share some of her A's so that they could all have C's?"  She said, "NO WAY!  I worked hard for those grades!"  He said, "Welcome to the Republican party!"

All laughter aside, what is REALLY sad is what I heard recently on a talk radio station.  The caller was talking to the conservative radio host about redistribution of wealth.  The host asked the caller a number of questions about just how deeply his beliefs went.  The host searched for a situation in which he, the caller, might understand that folks deserve to keep what they've earned in an honest manner, so he asked, "So, if someone gets all A's you are saying that they should share that and bring everyone up to C's?"  The caller replied, (I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!) "Sure, some people are smarter, they should share their accomplishments."
I almost ran off the road!

My question to the caller is this, "If you child needed brain surgery do you want the Doctor who actually EARNED an A or the Doctor who got the re-distributed grade?"

The only changes I would make to the jokes above would be to substitute "Progressive" for "Liberal Democrat" because they've changed their name again AND there are progressives in BOTH parties.  So I guess substituting "Conservative" for "Republican" would be in order too.

I then signed off as follows:
As we remain in God's hands; the God who taught us to be good stewards of what we are given.  The Lord who did NOT advocate the forced re-distribution of wealth.  The God who taught us to love one another, care for one another, and support one another.

It's important to understand the two world views that are involved in our political discussions.  Jokes like these use humor to point out flaws in the world view that are held by most progressives.  The world view that says if we have just the right government programs, if we just have the right regulations, and if we can just convince all those folks with the opposing world view that "Yes we can" transform this country and the world into a Utopia.  Overlooking the one very important fact, that we are flawed and sinful humans, and that we cannot be "perfected" by government regulation and control is the key to the disastrous results of such world views.  I implore you to read history so that you understand the choices you are making.

Recently the Reverend Al Sharpton responded to a comment:  "Rev. Sharpton, Dr. King's dream has been realized since we have a black president in the White House."  Rev. Sharpton replied:  "We have NOT realized his dream.  His dream was not to have one black family in the White House.  His dream was that EVERYTHING WOULD BE EQUAL IN EVERYBODY'S HOUSE."  I'm thinking that is a bit of a perversion of Dr. King's message.  What about you?  (Note: I am now reading the writings of MLK to be sure.)