The Last Man Standing

I have always been a conservative. Mind you I come from small town, KY where conservative values are the norm.

I remember once in 8th grade saying to my parents that I liked Bill Clinton because he had a woman Sec. State (Madeline Albright), and was immediately challenged to think why her being a woman was important. The real challenge, left unsaid of course, was that although I thought it mattered because the history of inequality for women, a person is an individual at the end of the day. Only in a post-discriminatory society do we see individuals and not groups of people. While I saw Albright as a woman instead of Albright I could never truly judge her.

The way President Obama has been treated, espcecially in the media, has done the exact same thing. Can he ever be judged as something more than the first African-American president? Wouldn't in a post-racial culture the fact that he is African-American actually be somewhat an afterthought instead of the forefront of the election season? When Coach Dungy won the Super Bowl a few years back, there was never this type of media circus. An acknowledgement, but not a celebracy party for the singular fact that he was the first African-American coach to win the Super Bowl. (I think part of it has to do with Dungy's personality more than the media though.)

I have come to understand a few things in the past couple days. First, it was only the extreme hatred of George W. Bush that fueled Obama's victory. One does not propose a message of "Hope" unless the listeners feel that their situation is hopeless. One does not thing that a message of "Change" is viable unless there is deep resentment against the current administration's policies.

The hatred for Bush was against an individual. But what did Bush do to the common people? He gave us tax cuts. He gave us TARP. He got us into two wars and the Patriot Act. He won one and kept us safe from terrorists. He inhereited a recession, he ended on a recession. But he also had 50+ months straight job growth. There were good things and bad things about his presidency. Was there ever a reason to despise the man with the deep hatred that people had for him? Was there really cause to mock the man as is still happening?

Obama then turned the hatred into a love for him. But how can one trust that attitude, so flippant, which can easily turn against you? I guess it worked for FDR, but is it right? Is it moral? Is this what we want from the President of the United States, to manipulate our emotions than to give us good policy? This cannot be safe. And it scares me. What if the attitude turns against Obama? He will be ridiculed, like Bush, and the potential for racism will be there. If he fails policy wise, he will fail, and what that means for the African-American community is dangerous. We stand in a delicate balance, all depending on how Obama does.

So I am concerned on two fronts. The first, the animosity turned love of Americans. The second, the future of America.

Going to Regent College I have experienced many things, including making friends who both agree with me on some things but can disagree with me on other things. One thing I have encountered is the same conservative moral values that I hold. Abortion is looked down upon. Gay marriage is held in the delicate tension it needs to be, both being denied in practice, but all individuals being welcomed in the Church. Issues pertaining to the environment are taken seriously, but not so seriously that science and morality are separated. But where we differ, well, we differ greatly. I am challenged by people who deeply believe that it is their responsibility to support the politician/policy that encourages Christian purposes. I mean things like public healthcare, welfare, etc. Liberal issues basically. Part of it might be because its spatial location in Canada. Another part of it might be because of the Anglican/Episcopal backgrounds of many people, which does unite Church and State.

So what I do not understand is the incoherency of the message. We are to support Democrat candidates because they encourage morally good things (taking care of the poor, etc), but we overlook their views on other issues. And of course how can you argue against someone who supports something that does good for the world? I encourage taking care of the poor as well, but only if the poor are willing to take care of themselves as well. I do not want a government Father-state. I want the Church to preach and enact their messages of taking care of people, not the State. It shouldn't be the State's role to take care of us, but to provide us the oppotunity to succeed. It is the Church's responsibility to show people God's love. Somehow these two have become mixed up at Regent College. Personally I think this type of thinking only comes about because of personal laziness. "As long as we support the other people who do this, our responsibility is lessened." And we dare preach Christ crucified?

I regressed into a discussion about Regent because of how I would like to see America healed. We need healing from the Church. Someone who can condemn the hatred against Bush, and someone who can condemn the blind lust for Obama. The Church offers a moral authority on the subject as long as it is not ashamed to at least take a stand. I am scared because I know this will not happen. Some churches already have left Christ. Some churches already make compromises. Some are not willing to be confrontational. Others are too conceited to know anything, too proud to be any help. And none weep for this great nation and call it to come under God's love and wrath.

The second issue I worry about is Obama's policies. Closing Gitmo... fine. Whatever. He obviously doesn't have a plan for it, but symbolic, right? Any volunteers on where homocidal/suicidal prisoners of war will be housed next? I guess it really be easier to shoot POW's on the battlefield than to house them as prisoners. But we do what we do because it is more humane... I guess.

But really it is this "Stimulus" package that scares me. Nobody thinks that this will work, and yet it looks like it will be passed anyways. Nobody can answer how large amounts of spending stimulates the economy. Nobody can answer why this is better than tax cuts, which historically have always helped this nation out of recessions. And nobody is asking where this money is going to come from. Us tax payers today? Our children? Our children's children? Will we even be a nation anymore when this is paid off? This plan is not a stimulus, but Obama's budget for the next four years. Rush's label of "Porkulus" was right. It should rightly conjure us the image of a pig with lipstick on it. A pig by any other name (in this case, "Stimulus") is still a pig.

The figures don't lie. Most people I know will be paying approximately $2600 towards this thing. Opps, since I'm married, that means that together we will pay $5200. This is still just slightly less than what my parents will have to pay I guess ($6200). Money that we could have put towards a house. Or groceries. Or anything to stimulate the economy instead of paying for special interest groups to waste it. And all you people who voted for Obama... all you who wanted "hope" and "change"... you got what you wanted I guess. You can now blame Bush for all eternity, feeling confident that it was all "his fault" while you sit jobless with your Obama commemortive plates and coins surrounding you.

I heard a story today from a caller on Rush Limbaugh. The caller explained that at age 37, he owned his house with his wife and (soon to be) 4 children. They have no debt and no mortgage. They also only make (on average over the past 14 years) $42,000 annually. How did they do it? They lived below their means. They lived the American dream. They did it. Now they get to pay for other people who did not make good decisions to just survive. What is fair about that? Where is the fairness there? They prospered and now they get to work just as hard for other people.

People, Rush is right. Obama, et al, are making us victims. They are making it so hard to succeed that it is no longer success. Why try then? Is it not easier to become a victim and live off the Granny-State that will take care of you? This is definately Socialism. Nevermind that 46% of the people voted against Obama, if we are going to fail then we all will fail together. "It is through our common failure that we will succeed." Does this even make sense, much less encourage anyone?

So part of this piece is to vent my frustrations and show support for the Last Man Standing: Rush Limbaugh. In this age where it is easy to become a victim and surrender liberty to Obama and the Granny-State, he gives hope and a voice to us who do want the chance to succeed to our own measures of success. His success is what we all want, to be so successful that we can anything with our money. Perhaps my Regent community could then decide that with their success they could then take care of the poor. At the beginning of one of the other talk shows (David Boze, a northwest conservative) a clip plays which features Reagon's famous line, "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." Amen. Now if only we could someone to convince American's of this, and in turn convince Obama to turn to Rush for advice.

I hate thinking of 2012 with it being so far away. There are so many other elections before then. There are so many opportunities to fail as well. But if we get there I hope that my two favorite condidates will come out strong. By this I mean Huckabee and Palin. (Sorry, I don't like Mitt Romney.) Huckabee holds the moral strength which to actually challenge the American people and Obama. Palin holds the experience with actual skills to balance the budget and setting this country off right. What they need though is to understand economics enough to articulate why conversatives such as Rush Limbaugh are right. Let government get out of the way and allow the free market to work.

I predict we are to enter a period of depression. One in which people are going to change their life styles. I want to go through our things once more with sell anything that we can or just plain get rid of it. I need to finish my degree quickly, but frankly I am truly scared of what might happen in America that I'm starting to think that other things are more important. It's a scary time to live in America, for some moreso than others. I can only hope that I'm wrong, but I think it would take Obama listening to Rush Limbaugh and not trying to marginalize him to even have a chance. Well here's to Hope I guess. That's what "America" got wasn't it?

Obama vs Rush

I'll link here, but I'll also quote the entire article. I wonder how many people can read this without first discrediting Limbaugh's comments because of his arrogant radio persona. Despite what one might think of the persona, this is a highly intelligent man. And truthfully, until someone in the Republican party steps up, he really is the leader of the Republican party. Please read until the very end, as it is very good.

Limbaugh Responds to Obama [Byron York]
According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."~


Update: Ann Althouse responds.
And this British headline rocks! Bipartisanship? We don't need no stickin' bipartisanship!

History

Well he's president. Can we start disagreeing with him now?

Edit:
No, seriously. Can I?

Can I fundamentally disagree with the sentiment that we should just all get behind Obama and hope that he (and by extension his plans) will succeed without any sort of debate or discussion on what success actually looks like?

Can I fundamentally disagree with his policies in general, like the insane thought that increased spending helps promote economic growth?

Can I fundamentally disagree with the way all the drive-by media has covered, and continues to cover, Obama as compared to Bush? (Can anyone please say hypocrisy?)

Can I fundamentally disagree with the apparent change in social policy in which we whites can now be mocked and ridiculed openly at public events? How about racism in total? How long will race be held over our heads as a oppressive weight? When can the present let go of the guilt of past generations? When will we become a true post-racial country where such concerns of race are seen as actually offensive instead of something that should be strived for?

Can I disagree? Am I allowed to disagree at all? Or will I be met with condemnations of either being a racist, a hate monger, or just a disagreeable person who cannot get along? When can I, as an individual, be seen as an individual instead of just one part the fringe group who actually hold conservative principles? Is such a thing as intellectual discussion possible when so many blind followers fill this nation? I will say this: if met with intellectual discussion, I at least am more likely to come into the fold. If met with name calling and write-offs I will become the dis-enlightened and cynical person that you already see me as. I listened, and wept, at the dissent you showed towards George W. Bush. If I dissent against Obama, dare you listen?

About the address: Where does the presumption that unity is the key to success come from? I simply don't even understand the reason behind such a statement, but if you had to find a theme of his speech that would have to be it. Since when does being unified guarantee prosperity.

About the boo'ing of Bush: I almost cried that a president—any president—would be publicly booed and ridiculed. But this is nothing new. People have been doing this for years now. It was sad to see no common decency, manners, or respect. It has always pained me whenever I have seen it. Freedom of speech is one thing, but it is sad commentary on society when it dissolves from all intellect into a proverbial crotch-kicking mob.

The Good Wine

John 2,1 The third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there. 2 Jesus also was invited, with his disciples, to the marriage. 3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine.”
John 2,4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come.”
John 2,5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six water pots of stone set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, containing two or three metretesa apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the water pots with water.” They filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the ruler of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and didn’t know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when the guests have drunk freely, then that which is worse. You have kept the good wine until now!” 11 This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

I just happened to turn on the television this morning, and a preacher was going through this passage. Overlooking his blatantly bad input on history (this is John the Evangelists' wedding? John was Jesus' second cousin? weddings lasted 6 days?), I actually noticed something which he saw as bad. He points out (as any good uninformed Protestant) that the pots of water (λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ) that were there for the ritual of purification (κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων) were of a dead religion (emphasis kept). I would disagree on a number of levels, but that's not really why I'm posting.

What struck me as important was that these water pots were vessels of purity. Not that the water poured into them is pure, or that to wash from them makes one pure. But their purpose is indeed purity. Washing from them (keeping Torah) is the sign that one is apart of the covenant people. Now, what does wine have to do with this? Well many things, but most importantly new wine was promised to those who would return from exile. This is picking up those prophecies more than any other. I would then venture to ask, does the fact that these water pots were intended for purity have any bearing on the miracle? Does being purposed for purity equate better results? (This was really good wine after all.) Basically, I am asking what does the author purport to do by adding the information about these water pots: to give contextual place and/or explanation (these were just the water pots used for the ritual of purification) or to give added emphasis to their intended function (the issue of purity is important for the outcome of the miracle)? Both logically might be the author's intended purpose, but I would encourage thought towards the latter, if for no other reason than to have an intellectual exercise. What, if any, bearing might purity bring to and add on the occasion of this miracle?