Great Quote

So my great Senator, which we all know I love, has introduced legislation to help teach financial responsibility in schools. I'm in full support of teaching our children stuff like this. Well, I'd be in support of teaching our children anything to begin with (still waiting for that to happen).

So as Melissa just noted: Why do allow the blind to lead the blind? Shouldn't they prove themselves financially accountable before expecting others to be financially accountable?

Ironically, this was the second issue in Ms. Murray's weekly update. The first section contained links to all the pork projects that were passed in the Omnibus Bill earlier this year. Yeah, perhaps we ought to have Congress learn financial responsibility before they start teaching our nation's children.

A Scary Joke

There shouldn't be much to say about how the President of the United States fires the CEO of GM. Now I've always been on record of letting the auto industries go through bankruptcy. To some extent it is good to see Obama agree with this sentiment. Let them fail, and let them reorganize according to system already set in place to deal with these types of problems.

The problem though is that Obama has an agenda more than just a bankruptcy. It is no surprise that he wants green vehicles. It comes to now surprise that he is pro-union, and so the head of the UAW gets off free. Does any of this really make sense? Why fire the CEO Rick Wagoner and not the head of UAW? Why give them 2 months to restructure (to Obama's specifications) only to hinder the process by taking out the key players? This process is a joke, and Obama is a clown thinking that we the people are going to buy this cock and pull story that he is looking out for the American people. Letting them fail is one thing; hindering the process is another.

So why hinder? Because "I won." He wants his agenda, which is fair enough. But this was the POTUS asking the CEO of a private organization to step down and that CEO not telling POTUS to shove it! Let me point out one definition: "Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology. It is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth." Getting out those elements which stands in the way of Obama's agenda does indeed sound Fascist! So what gets me is when Obama says that he has no interest to run GM, of course he doesn't! He wants to turn it over to the unions on the basis that they support him already and so they will make the green cars he wants under the pretense of "fairness." What we are seeing here is a combination of both Fascism and Socialism. Corporations run things, but those corporations are unions who support the administration.

So because I have been told by the powers above to provide solutions to what I say. Here's the solution: Start asking yourself why the problems are always at the level of management and not on the unions. And start buying yourself a really nice Obama lapel pin. You're going to need this pin to show your loyalty in the times ahead. Position yourself in nice level jobs working for the government. And then start insisting on hiring certain types of employees: former CEO's, former entrepeneurers, and former Wall Street execs. Make your lists! Buy these people, because in the near future they will be for sale (if not dead). Give these people a safe-haven.

Basically go watch Schlinder's List. We're entering a second Holocaust, and we need to start acting like this man, who I truly believe was a saint. No excuses for the future people, because people will be dying soon.

Will it be Atlanta?

So I've had a bad feeling recently about the up coming April 15th tea parties. Now I should add quickly that I support these protests to the highest degree. And when it becomes apparent that we as a nation desperately need them, such as can be seen in this article. I also like this parody:

CNN (Continental News Network) Boston, 1773: The city of Boston canceled a proposed protest over tea taxes today, citing the fear that too many people dressed as Indians would be gathered near the wharves. Organizers expressed sadness over the cancellation, but meekly returned to their homes fearful of upsetting the officers of the Crown. Taxmen breathed a sigh of relief as the tar and feathers were put away not to be used this day.

Now my concern comes from my pessimism about seeing the worse that could go wrong. I worry is that someone is going to do something stupid, and there will be something akin to the Boston Massacre. Well, not that protesters will be killed, but that the scene could turn ugly. All it really takes is someone who shows up, not under the premise of a peaceful protest, but rather who is just ticked about the taxes but having a violent intent to start something. A gun fired at police or rocks thrown at police. The consequences of such actions could be disastrous, as there could be a public outcry against protesting against the new administration. I'll just point out that the Boston Massacre was truly the final straw before the American Revolution.

So the scene? Atlanta. You'll have Hannity there, which is trouble in itself. As well you'll have CNN. But also we all know how heated Atlanta can get, even in April. Take into account the urban area in one of the most stressful times in the year (people have just finished paying their taxes), and it could turn ugly.

Anyways so I'm praying for these protests. There has not been any sort of protest of this sort cross country of this size ever. All to protest government irresponsible spending. I hope they go well and go orderly. And that the government takes notice!

White is the new Jew!

No seriously, it is. You see, Jews were blamed for all the finical troubles in Europe. They were especially true in Germany of course, as stated in Mein Kampf.

Well now according to Brazil's president, white people are now the problem. I'm sure he just forgot to add blond hair to the criteria; after all we all know who "white and blue eyes" refers to.

As Rush Limbaugh would have to say, some of you might think that I'm making a joke at the expense of Jews. I'm not. I'm making a joke pointing out the bigotry of Brazil's president! Blaming white people for the current finical crisis is just as stupid and racist as blaming the Jews for Germany's downfall in the 1920-30's.

New info in...

It would seem that Obama left Binky behind when revealing his brackets. He even was able to speak clearly and articulate without Binky. Apparently Barack and Binky are had a little spat after the mix up on St. Patrick's Day. Don't worry, later Barack bought flowers and chocolates for Binky and the two made up with kisses. My sources say that Windex was needed in the cleanup.

Ahh, but that's not the news. Apparently Binky admits to making the Guinness joke on his blog. My thoughts for the entire incident in the first place? Binky may have had one too many pints that night and just made a simple mix up. I am starting to wonder now about the relationship between Barack and his Binky. Is Binky mistreating him? It doesn't help when Binky makes his threats public to everyone:

"Believe me, this is going to be a knock down, drag out fight worth monitoring over the weekend."

Perhaps part of the stimulus should go to getting Binky off the hooch, and perhaps some relationship counseling between Barack and Binky. Goodness knows we can't afford to have this type of thing happen again.

I want to know who is writing his speeches...

... because that person is running the country. Think about this: the country has a reactionary attitude towards policies right now. That's fine. But who drives the spin to move the public's reactions? President Obama, loved by many and questioned by conservatives. But who controls Obama? That's the question.

We all know how much Obama is dependent upon his safety blanket, which we now know is called "Binky." Now we know that Binky has betrayed Obama. It allowed Obama's speech to be read by another person! See here.

Now Obama's dependence upon Binky has worried me for a while now. I think it really is Obama's safety blanket right now, because he is a young president who is over his head at times. When he takes it press conferences we ought all be concerned (and again, more concerned when the press ignores it). When he uses it to introduce people, we ought to be concerned. And now he's bringing it to parties? If he brings it with him to Leno, then can we all please mock this man? But at some time he has got to put Binky away and start acting like his own man.

Perhaps he ought to transfer some of that stimulus money towards contacts that have bluetooth technology so that we can have a truly portable Binky at all times. (BTW, I would approve of this use of stimulus money.)

So really, who is running the country? If Obama is writing his own speeches, that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He has speech writers. Now who tells what the speech writers to focus on? Who decides the precise articulation of Obama's ideas? Might it be that devious coalition of Emanuel, Carville, Begala, etc? How about Axelrod? Pelosi/Reed? All of the above? Seeing that Emanuel is chief of staff, he's going to be in contact with all of the above and the direct contact for speech writers. As well Obama has admitted that his staff gives him 10 fan letters a day, to allow him to be connected. Who decides these 10 letters and their content? He admits further that at least 3 are about health care. Someone is trying to manipulate Obama, and admittedly this is done for every president. But this type of data and emotional manipulation of both the president and the public is outrageous. I thought Obama stood for hope and change. The only change going on here is politics as usual, only to the extreme! The X-games of politics as usual. People behind the scenes are using Obama as the frontman to push liberal agendas.

I will say that I have a renewed respect for President Obama. From the above article Obama admits that he drinks Guinness, although he notes that the beer is better in Ireland. I can approve of any president that partakes in this Irish blessing! I raise a glass for Obama. (Don't get used to it.)

But in other news (and you might want to get a pint or two before reading this) guess who will be involved in the census next year? Yeah, yeah... the White House we all know that. But someone else. Can you guess? Let's just say that its a bunch of nuts. Need I ever point out how dangerous, even criminal, this could turn out to be?

In other news Rush just likened the AIG witchhunts to McCarthyism. Good analogy. And now he's playing Obama clips...

"Just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that has existed for far too long: excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking... As we work toward getting ourselves out of the recession, I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace doesn't think that we can return to business as usual... The buck stops with me."

This scares me. I started this post with concern with who is running Obama's agenda, but here is a perfect example. I don't know who wrote this, and frankly I don't care. I won't rehash Limbaugh's comments, because I shouldn't have to.

"Excess greed." I have never cared for this Sesame Street way of looking at looking at how the markets work. It's the basis for Marx's argument. "Excess compensation." Are you kidding me? Do we really want the government to tell me how much I should be compensated? Is it their right to tell me I've either overly or underly compensated? "Excess risk-taking." Again, who is Obama to tell me how much risk I should take? This is socialism people!

"I hope Wall Street and the marketplace doesn't think we can return to business as usual." At this point the Markets are down 50 points. If we want to return to growth and prosperity, perhaps we ought to not let Obama to run this country into the ground!

"The buck stops with me." More messianic praise for himself. Sure he's trying to play off FDR, but the buck does NOT stop with Obama. It stops with the Law. We are a nation built upon the basis of law. Obama has set himself up as a King who decides the law. This is sick, and something that everyone of our founding fathers fought against. Does anyone think that our founding fathers ever believed that ONE MAN should ever hold so much power? That was the point of the Revolution! At CPAC, after Rush Limbaugh's speech, he was presented with a document written by Ben Franklin. The presenter compared King George, who Franklin fought against, with Obama who Limbaugh fights against. I think that comparison is getting closer and closer to the truth. How much longer until the economy gets to the point where we rebel against the government in power just so we can get back to individual prosperity? Can't Obama just step back, let go of his Binky, shut up, and let the Markets correct themselves? This is a sick intrusion of emotion into how business is done.

Journalism Bias

CNN is now running a segment called "If they fail, we fail" on Anderson Cooper 360. They would seem to be covering the hatred over AIG bonuses. I would love to see anyone in media (besides Rush Limbaugh) point out that the reason that AIG execs can get these bonuses is because TARP was not specific on restructuring the companies. Who is to blame for this? Not AIG-if nothing else the bonuses give stimulus to the private sector while encouraging positive growth (which AIG is reporting!). The people to blame are Congress and President Bush (and Paulson by extension). And last time I checked, Obama, Biden, Franks, and Dodd all have a hand in writing TARP. Where was anyone then adding a clause about restructuring the business so that money didn't get given out as bonuses? Thanks a lot for nothing Obama. Fein righteous hatred today, but you had a hand in this event.

The reason why I label this journalism bias is because I fully believe it. I wish I could suggest a way to protest against the cable news networks, because they all are terrible. They don't listen to complaints, and are even supported by people because journalism is "of course" a specialized field. I can only suggest that people listen to talk radio, where at least recent polls have shown that people who listen to Hannity and Limbaugh (one can add the other talk radio hosts) are more politically attuned to the issues while being much more intelligent about the facts as well. Note, this goes for liberals and conservatives, so one does not have to agree with the talk radio hosts, but at least you have a better chance at listening to a different point of view.

(X)ush

I do hate to stay on Rush Limbaugh, but I saw a smart comment on some site last night as I was checking my conservative blogs (my apologies, but I cannot find it again, so no linkage). But it made point that Democrats of course have a on-going hated of George W. Bush. But go through the iterations:

Bush---->_ush---->Rush

Coincidence? Probably. But I find it apprehensible that hatred has been allowed to remain in this country for 9 years now. It was used to elect the current POTUS, and now because of political games is now being encouraged towards another target. We have raised a new type of political machine from the slums of inner cities to the national level. Go back and read "Plunkett of Tammany Hall" and you'll find similar tactics. As much as I disagree with the liberal agenda in the past, it is this type of governing style which makes me feel terribly ill to my stomach.

Ladies and gentlemen, I must confess that I do not think prayer will do much. I wish I could be optimistic, and I know that we are commanded to do it anyways. But I do not think it will help. President Obama is not interested in changing his mind on anything. One must wonder if God has not already hardened his heart. If not already, then a miracle must happen soon so that he will turn this country around and lead it as a responsible person above these petty politics.

As I am always challenged with solutions instead of just bitching: pray despite my pessimism. Get yourself educated on these issues, and start thinking critically instead of just optimistically about the current administration. And ask your pastors (or if you are a pastor, listen closely!) to approach this issue of hatred front on. Call it out and condemn in the same way that our Lord condemned it:

Matt 5:21-22: You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca," is answerable to the high courts. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Rush in a Christian context

I watched to Rush Limbaugh's first ever national television address over the weekend (twice actually) and considering recent conversations on here lately (thanks B.) I wish to mention a few points that he made. While Rush does not articulate the specific issues in such a way that I would like to see, I think his outrage of the present political scene is on the same level of my own.

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals."

There has been a great trend since before Karl Marx to trend towards utopian societies. Most of these societies are centered on human progress towards their definition of perfection of course. Christianity has so much to say towards this that it is a shame that we do not say more. Perfection is not possible because of our sinful humanity first and foremost. It is because of God's intervention that we look forward to the final eschatological utopian kingdom. Until that time we are to proclaim the message and live our lives in the present as if we were already within that utopian and eschatological kingdom. So we should denounce these progressive attempts towards utopia.

The reference to Karl Marx is intentional. Marx believed that humanity progressed naturally towards these utopian societies. Capitalism and individuality stood in the way towards the true utopia that constituted Socialism with emphasis on the larger community. Communism is the system that puts the needs of the state over the individual, and while Spok's great line that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" might have been in context of great personal sacrifice, it can easily be the tagline of any Socialistic project. The individual is not given the choice of self-sacrifice since all self-choice is given up at the time entrance into the greater society.

I think that Rush makes a great point: we conservatives wish to emphasize the individual. Whereas many intellectuals and laypeople wish to rejoice in the greater community, I think Christianity lends itself towards individual rights. After all we look towards one individual as our Savior, not the larger community we belong to. I think this type of relationship is similar to how conservatives view the United States. We are individuals first, and we retain our individuality within the greater society under the Constitution. As such individuals can be either successful or may fail according to their own desires.

One part of this is the right of property. Today Rush went on to define Socialism. He mentioned as part of that definition that the state owns all property. There is no individual right to property. Now within Christianity there is always the argument of whether there should be private property or if it should be given up so that it should be shared (to take care of widows, poor, etc). But I need to point out that before you can voluntarily give up private property, you must first have private property. Why should a Christian be supportive of state ownership of property? Why should we allow the government decide where our money goes, whether in the form of wealth redistribution (which is what most of Obama's policies are) or not giving tax deductions for charitable giving (another Obama policy)? Should it not be up to the individual who deserves help? Perhaps its just because its an old proverb, but for some reason we ought to take seriously, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for life." The church has always been a great distributor to the poor (always better than any government), and we should take up this cause again.

"We believe that the preamble to the [Declaration of Independence] contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault."

I won't say much about this one. This is more than just one's political affliation, so this means more than just voting Republican. Rush said later that most people already hold these values and live as conservatives. This is true! Now we must claim it. For issues of life, I do not understand how a Christian can be pro-choice, and I can never understand. Obama was right when in the Saddleback Conference he said that he can disagree with people who aren't willing to discuss the issue because they hold it at such a philosophical level (I am paraphrasing and translating Obama). True, because it is a philosophical disagreement. At my level it is a theological disagreement, and I cannot check God at the door when I enter into political discussion. I can defend my belief without mentioning God so its not like I'm forcing my religion on people, just my morality. The same goes for end of life issues as well. These issues must be made by the individual families, and the most I can do is to voice a defense for any who are defenseless. That is the most the government is allowed to do as well.

There can be a lot said about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is never enough said because of other moral issues such as abortion or gay marriage. The fact that President Obama belittles the Constitution because it is only negative regulations on the government is concerning. Whereas he thinks that the government have many things that it should do-such as ensure people are fulfilling the American dream (i.e., assurance of happiness) by having an unaffordable house-I do not believe that Christians can accept this. Is the government the source of true happiness, or is it God? The government is God's way of protecting people, but it should not stand in place of God. The hope should not be what the government can give to you, but the reassurance of what God has already done for you. Why are we not preaching this gospel while tolerating gospels of prosperity?

It amazes me how far the Democrats have come from JFK (not even close to a good president, but a great spokesman for that generation): "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Now we have people asking that the country give them health benefits, houses, jobs, etc. I do not need to be a prophet to foresee that personal responsibility will be the main talking point in 2010 and 2012 elections for Republicans.

"You think Obama has any intention of paying for all this spending? Folks, if he had any intention of paying for it, he wouldn't do 90% of it because we don't have the money. They don't care about paying for it. All that's just words. All that's just rhetoric paying for it because he knows you have to worry about paying for it... In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster. "

I think there is so much more here that could be articulated. I would phrase it like this: How is it morally responsible to place debt upon one's children? Obama is out of office in eight years at most. He will not be around when this debt is paid back. Our entire generation may not be around. I would like to see the great theologians of our time (while they are still alive) to take this upon themselves and discuss this issue. Are we really comfortable with our children paying for our comfort today? As I said before, is it even moral? I'm sure most will agree with my gut feeling that it isn't moral in the least bit.

Another point this brings up deals with enslavement. Any debt makes one enslaved to another. Paul puts it another way in Romans 13 (in context of being submissive to government no less).

5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually on this very thing. 7 Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor. 8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

This money will be paid back one way or another. Certainly it will be by way of increased taxes (which get ready to see if you already haven't this year). We must pay our taxes, and even do it cheerfully. But perhaps we could ask those who represent us if they are doing the morally right thing as well. Are they running the government as if they owe no one anything? In my mind it was one thing for way of protection (defense spending), but for an untried spending system that has not passed the test of question if it will actually help the current economic recession.

"Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image. "

The same issue, but better articulated by Rush. I particularly agree that the politicians are only "temporary stewards of this nation." I also think that most politicians forget this fact as quickly as they get to Washington D. C. In this great nation we ought to always remind our representatives that they are our stewards and demand that they recognize this fact. Insist that they give answers to satisfy the answers our questions of morality. All have e-mail addresses, and most might actually answer the question, "How is X morally responsible taking into account Y?" That's a tough question that we ought not have to make, but if the press will not make it then it is still important to have the answer.

"See, if you think that John Thain or the Northern Trust CEO, if you love them getting attacked, if you love them being ripped, ask yourself the next day, do you have any more money in your pocket? Is your life any better because that guy got taken out or down by some haughty senator from Massachusetts? If you ask yourself this, you'll realize your life is no better off. That the Democrats and Obama are asking you to feel better simply on the basis that they're going to get revenge for you, but your life isn't going to improve, somebody else's is just going to be destroyed and they want you to be happy over that. That's sick. And that is not the United States of America. "

Another issue that I think Rush got it spot on correct. How is it morally responsible for anyone to rejoice in the destruction of someone's life. This is more common on the left than anyone would like to admit, and many on the right are guilty of it as well. As Christians we are called to be above this. As Christians we are called to at least point out how morally bankrupt this attitude is among the world and especially within our own ranks. Rush might phrase it as "That's sick." I proclaim that "That's the human predicament, and God wants us to be better than that."

"Freedom -- freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as we were endowed by our creator. And the United States of America is the place in the world where that yearning flourishes, where freedom is expected because it's part of the way we're created."

I would like to explore this theological insight by Rush a lot more, and I might later. How this might play out in theological understanding would be more complex that how he put it of course. But of course anyone who believes the Declaration to be true knows that it proclaims that our Creator does endow us with freedom. Are we created with the actual freedom to pursue what is right, or is it only given by way of the Holy Spirit? It's part of the larger theological discussions of course, but it's a really interesting thought nonetheless.

Now you can probably imagine where I come down on this issue. To some extent we are given freedom by God at birth. We might be enslaved to sin, and we cannot escape its power over us without God's intervention. But we are endowed by our Creator with the understanding that the world around us is not the way it should be. We recongize evil around us and realize it should not be there. And we yearn for some type of understanding of this reality. We are free to question to imagine better times. The reason why people can imagine utopian societies is because we can imagine and yearn for a progressive agenda where our situation can be bettered. I explain this by agreeing with Rush; we are able to yearn for a better life-even if we can only proclaim a better life as one that is submission to God-because of the freedom given to us all by our Creator. I do not know if Rush is a religious man; he is definately not a professional theologian. But there seems to me here some theological insight that should be discussed more.

"Don't be afraid to tell children that they're wrong. They don't know what you do. They simply haven't lived long enough. It's not their fault, but they're being fed a bunch of garbage in school and don't be afraid to tell them that they're wrong... But you owe them the truth. You owe them the truth about things. You owe them the truth about morality. You owe them the truth about values."

I remember the great Proverbs which speak of how to raise your children. "Spare the rod and spoil the child." About half the book of Proverbs seems to be about how to raise your children. Can we really tolerate the liberal agenda to not raise our children as we see fit? In England there is a push by such atheists like Richard Dawkins to protect children from Christian influences in the home. In parts of Canada, as other progressive countries, it is against the law to spank children even in the home. The moral outrage articulated by Rush here is wonderful. I can usually only start screaming something like "How the hell do you get off telling me how to live my life or how to raise my future children [if God so blesses]" when approached with such issues.

I hope that this shows that Rush is much more than the radio personality that he puts on. He has some legitimate concerns and raises serious issues that should be addressed within the political and theological scheme. We Christians should at least take these issues seriously. We can take part of these larger political discussions-and we should! We can ask the tough moral questions of our representatives. We can demand that our rights, endowed by our Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence, are not infringed upon by the government. We do not all have to be Republican or Democrat, or even conservative or liberal. But we should be ready to give an answer as to our decision. And we should be ready to take seriously the concerns of others and never write them off as either racist (or some other derogatory term) or "just" a layperson or entertainer. Be prepared to give an intellent answer as well, more than just simple emotions. We owe it to ourselves, our properity, and our God to do more.