Obama’s America

The following piece consists of excerpts from the Democrat National Committee 2008 platform. It provides an accurate profile of what we can expect from President Barack Obama and his administration. You can access this platform online at many Democrat sites and verify this for yourself. His programs will sail through a congress that has a super-majority of Democrats, unimpeded by filibuster or extended debate.

A World without Nuclear Weapons.

America will seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. We face growing threats of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or the means to make them with more countries seeking nuclear weapons, unsecured nuclear materials in many countries, and of the potential spread of nuclear technologies. As George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn have warned, current measures are not adequate to address these dangers. We will maintain a strong and reliable deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist, but America will be safer in a world that is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminates all of them. We will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans

If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare.

The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care. While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process.

Ending the War in Iraq

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. Our civilian leaders have failed them. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9-11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.

We will re-center American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions. We will give our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people. We will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely remove our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect to complete redeployment within 16 months.

After this redeployment, we will keep a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.

At the same time, we will provide generous assistance to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. We will launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic surge to help broker a lasting political settlement in Iraq, which is the only path to a sustainable peace. We will make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. This is the future the American people want. This is the future that Iraqis want. This is what our common interests demand.

Global Warming

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man- made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world, including much of the eastern seaboard. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries curb deforestation and leapfrog the carbon5 energy-intensive stage of development.

We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. China has replaced America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.

This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers.

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Minority Rights and Same-Sex Marriage

We are committed to ensuring full equality for women: We reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and will urge passage of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We will pursue a unified foreign and domestic policy that promotes civil rights and human rights, for women and minorities, at home and abroad. We will pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, because hate crimes desecrate sacred spaces and belittle all good people. We will restore and support the White House Initiative on Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, including enforcement on disaggregation of Census data. We will make the Census more culturally sensitive, including outreach and increased confidentiality protections to ensure accurate counting of the growing Latino population.

We will sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That is the America we believe in. It is not enough to look back in wonder of how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

Choice of Judges

For our Judiciary, we will select and confirm judges who are men and women of unquestionable talent and character, who firmly respect the rule of law, and who listen to and are respectful of different points of view and who represent the diversity of America.

We support the appointment of judges who respect our system of checks and balances and the separation of power among the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judiciary– and who understand that the Constitution protects not only the powerful, but also the disadvantaged and the powerless.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. It makes freedom and self- governance possible, and helps to protect our security. The Democratic Party will restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to our to our best traditions–including our commitment to government by law, and not by men.

So, what do different people and groups think of Obama’s America? Take a look.

Dem platform called ‘strongest ever’ on gay rights
Document calls for ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity’ protections
By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade | Aug 11, 7:10 PM

A final draft of the Democratic Party’s 2008 platform strengthens the party’s support for gay civil rights and calls for an end to discrimination based on gender identity.

The document, which is to be presented to the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month for final approval, also includes what party officials described as strongly worded language opposing the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which precludes openly gay people from serving in the military.

But the platform draft approved Aug. 9 by the party’s 186-member Platform Committee apparently omits any mention of the words “gay” or “lesbian,” which had been included in the Democrats’ 2004 platform.

The document, discussed by Democratic officials and gay activists during a conference call Monday with reporters, was not publicly available. The Democratic National Committee has yet to release a final draft of the platform approved in Pittsburgh.

The document also apparently omits a provision in the 2004 platform that declared the party’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which the older document called a divisive effort by President Bush to “politicize the constitution.”

Leaders of six national gay and transgender advocacy organizations, including the National Stonewall Democrats, nevertheless hailed the 2008 document as the strongest platform on gay and transgender issues ever approved by a major U.S. political party.

Democrat platform on health:  It’s not just the uninsured

Los Angeles Times, 5:11 PM, August 25, 2008

For the first time since healthcare has been written into political platforms, people are proposing ideas that look beyond the bottom line issue of how to deal with the problem of the uninsured. The new U.S. Census Bureau national statistics on health insurance are due out Aug. 26, and many experts believe they will show an increase over last year’s 47 million uninsured Americans. (*In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau’s figures released today, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, showed a drop in the number of uninsured, to 45.7 million, primarily due to an expansion of government-provided services to children.)

That this year’s Democratic platform calls for affordable coverage for all Americans is no surprise. But it also calls for a new emphasis within the healthcare system on prevention and wellness.

“We need to promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention and management especially with health promotion programs at work and physical education in schools. All Americans should be empowered to promote wellness and have access to preventive services to impede the development of costly chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. Chronic care and behavioral health management should be assured for all Americans who require care coordination. This includes assistance for those recovering from traumatic, life-altering injuries and illnesses as well as those with mental health and substance use disorders. We should promote additional tobacco and substance abuse prevention.”

The United States has epidemics of chronic diseases that are largely preventable, including diabetes, heart disease and obesity. “If we’re going to deal with the affordability of healthcare, we’ve got to do a lot more about preventing diseases,” says Dr. Ken Thorpe, professor of health policy at Emory University and executive director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. “About 75% of healthcare spending is associated with chronic disease. This has percolated up to become a center stage issue.”

— Susan Brink

The Evil of Modern Technology

“Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”  Daniel 12:4

Here I am, sitting in a house heated by a gas/forced air furnace, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, writing down my thoughts on a computer screen, accessing the internet by a wireless connection and weighing in against modern technology. I will be the first to tell you, however, that I don’t want to go back to the way it was, even a few decades ago, when I shivered over a lone heat register in the kitchen, pounded out my writing assignments on an ancient typewriter with a faded ribbon, waiting for my water to boil on a gas stove and my cinnamon toast to bake in the oven. Daily life has been so revolutionized by a steady progression of technological improvements that few of us can imagine living any other way. Conveniences have become such necessities that anyone who has no microwave, cell phone or digital alarm clock is considered deprived.

Man’s inventive genius continues to prolifically breed new technologies, and with each new technology, a cottage industry springs up to feed, clothe and shelter it. Computers have generated software, music, movies, photo-shopping and enough peripheral gadgetry to fill a catalog. With the cell phone came personal ringers, phone cameras, text messaging, GPS capabilities, internet access, ebooks, and on and on. Automobiles can now do much more than transport passengers. They can pamper, comfort, entertain, advise, warn and tell drivers how to get to their destination. We now foresee the day when we won’t even have to steer the machine down the highway. There seems to be no end to our fertile imaginations. But I am haunted by the words of an old evangelist. He said, “Man will never hold out long enough morally to do what he wants to do scientifically. Even as we mount up to the heavens in the space age, we mire down in the mud of sin and shame.” I see this chilling prediction coming true before our very eyes and ears in the twenty-first century. Our heads cannot out-smart our hearts.

Something is insanely wrong with all of this progress. Not only have promises of utopia not materialized for the bulk of civilization, in many cases we have regressed back to prehistoric levels. We have not eliminated murder; we have made murder easier. We have not eliminated theft; we have made stealing easier. We have not eliminated racism; we have made racism easier. We have not eliminated pornography; we have made pornography easier. Inherent within the new technologies we find all the old maladies. Good things undeniably come from our scientific and technological breakthroughs. Unfortunately, these developments have also been subverted for evil purposes. Indeed, the evil we have enabled may end up canceling out the good we have created in society at large.

The most obvious example of this is nuclear technology. The fascinating capabilities of nuclear fission for energy also gave rise to the most destructive weapon ever invented. Regardless of how atomic weaponry is used—whether for defensive purposes or aggressive military action—the fact remains that it is used to kill and destroy. Other scientific discoveries have also been channeled into military uses, like rocketry, aerodynamics, fiber optics, laser beams, radar, modulated radio and television signals, satellites, etc. If it helps, we can make it hurt. If it heals, we can make it injure. If it does good, we can make it do bad. This position has been argued in philosophical terms as well. Regent University’s website on communication contains this paragraph:

“Whether one accepts the neutrality of technology depends on one’s valuing philosophy—whether one tends toward the pragmatic and situational, or the absolute and authoritarian. Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that “guns don’t kill people, people do”, or that a knife can be used to “cook, kill, or cure.” Those who believe the opposite counter with evidence that technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Monsma (1986) argued for the “value-ladenness” of technology (chapter 3). He based his premise on two traits that he believed are common to all technological developments: (1) technological objects are unique; they are designed to function in a particular and limited way, and (2) technological objects are intertwined with their environment; they interact in unique ways with the rest of reality.”

In medical science we can find an alarming example of the limits of technology. Jerome Groopman wrote an article in the New Yorker Magazine, August 11, 2008, entitled “Superbug: The new generation of resistant infections is almost impossible to treat.” He said, “In August, 2000, Dr. Roger Wetherbee, an infectious-disease expert at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, received a disturbing call from the hospital’s microbiology laboratory. At the time, Wetherbee was in charge of handling outbreaks of dangerous microbes in the hospital, and the laboratory had isolated a bacterium called Klebsiella pneumoniae from a patient in an intensive-care unit. “It was literally resistant to every meaningful antibiotic that we had,” Wetherbee recalled recently. The microbe was sensitive only to a drug called colistin, which had been developed decades earlier and largely abandoned as a systemic treatment, because it can severely damage the kidneys. “So we had this report, and I looked at it and said to myself, ‘My God, this is an organism that basically we can’t treat.’ ”

Much of the toxic social climate we experience today comes to us at the hands of modern technology. Who can dispute the widespread conviction that television has had a deleterious effect on culture? It is a waster of time, numbing minds and killing creativity. It has also piped pure filth from a godless and immoral Hollywood into the living rooms of the world. The radio has dispensed anarchy, vulgarity and corruption through the powerful medium of music, especially targeting adolescents and teenagers. In the last decade, pornography has spread wildly throughout the internet, victimizing viewers who would seldom or never come in contact with sexual perversion any other way.

Amazingly, these same technologies have transmitted as much or more truth, virtue, goodness and love as they have depravity. How is this possible? Is technology, then, culpable? Innocent? Morally neutral? In The Gutenberg Galaxy (1962), Marshall McLuhan wrote, “The theme of this book is not that there is anything good or bad about print but that unconsciousness of the effect of any force is a disaster, especially a force that we have made ourselves” (p. 248). Regent University comments “Insert any technology for the word “print” and you realize that for McLuhan it is not the content that really matters. In this case it is not even the channel but rather our knowledge and understanding of the medium’s potential impact.” They then ask, “Is print an amoral technology? Can any technology be amoral? These are issues that must be addressed and answered before we can begin to develop a philosophical system to address the convergence of media and technology, and its impact on society.”

I contend that communication technology has the greatest potential for evil of all the developments of modern science. This should not surprise us who are in the business of spreading the gospel. After all, Jesus commissioned the church to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” The very means and methods used by the church to carry out the work of Christ has been co-opted by Satanic forces to destroy the gospel and spew corruption throughout the world. The advent of the online community was initially envisioned as a dynamic way to connect the inventive genius, the soaring imaginations and the scientific knowledge of individuals, groups, schools and cultures together, thus exponentially multiplying the positive impact they were making on the world. But in the parallel universe of evil, it was also appropriated by malevolent forces to connect with people who shared the same destructive designs. Roger Cohen expresses the same view in the New York Times column of March 10, 2008.

“The main forces in the world today are the modernizing, barrier-breaking sweep of globalization and the tribal reaction to it, which lies in the assertion of religious, national, linguistic, racial or ethnic identity against the unifying technological tide.

“Connection and fragmentation vie. The Internet opens worlds and minds, but also offers opinions to reinforce every prejudice. You’re never alone out there; some idiot will always back you. The online world doesn’t dissolve tribes. It gives them global reach.”

The very internet I access to research my topics is simultaneously used to teach people to build bombs, incite hatred, instigate anarchy, commit fraud, buy and sell illicit drugs, learn witchcraft, poison minds and dismantle Christian traditions. More specifically, it provides a way for terrorist organizations to plot destructive acts, devise conspiracies, obtain funding for their violent activities and inspire each other’s dark causes. If this world is facing global chaos and apocalyptic demise, it will undoubtedly be facilitated by the technology now in existence or soon to be developed. Groups of people who otherwise had no way to unify and combine forces to wreak havoc upon the world now find it easy to locate each other and strengthen their hands. One only has to recall the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to know that cell phones and the internet aided nineteen terrorists to coordinate their diabolical plan. Without the assistance of technology, their deed would not have been possible or would have been infinitely more difficult to carry out.

Technology may not be inherently evil, but neither is it inherently good. We are unforgivably naïve to trust in scientific advances to spread the gospel or do the work of the church. Technology certainly will never be our savior. In fact, the future holocaust it will most assuredly precipitate may well eclipse any good that it has ever done for us. The best gifts to mankind do not come from himself, but from God. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17. This warning may find application at the local congregational level where churches are growing increasingly dependent upon technology for worship, singing, preaching and witnessing. But technology in the larger arena of the world needs to be viewed by the church as suspect. It’s potential for evil means that it will never be the best friend of the church. Let us use it, work it and enjoy it. Let us also keep it at arms length, distant from our souls. We do not need computers, cell phones, radios, televisions, headphones, iPods, CD’s, DVD’s, satellites, telescopes or any other technological devices to have a meaningful relationship with God. Paul’s Mars Hill sermon said this, “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:  For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Acts 17:27-28.

The greatest technology to ever come to man may be the glorified body that God has prepared for them that love him. How close will that body allow us to be to God in a physiological sense? I’m not sure, but I do know what the scripture says. “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2. (NIV) That’s the technological advance that excites me more than any other. In an instant, all worldly innovations will be rendered obsolete. We must not sell ourselves short by losing our soul to earthly things.

---

.

Sharpening the View

<Click.> “How does this look?” <Click.> “How about this?” <Click.> “And now?” Click. Click. Click. Read these letters. What number do you see? Cover this eye. Is this better? Worse? Ah, the delight of myopia. It dragged me into the optometrist’s world with its phoropters of multiple whirring lenses, of alphabet charts and an array of annoying choices. Sometimes the difference between views was so slight that I felt like I was only guessing. Selecting frames, adjusting the frames to my face, sidewalks coming up to hit my chin, shrinking stairways and the ensuing headaches while I got used to the new glasses compounded the confusion. That was the pre-bifocal stage. Now, I have progressive bifocal lenses that make it seem like I am permanently stuck on a rocking ab machine. 

The ordeal of getting prescription glasses, painful though it might be, pales against the frustration and hazards of blurred vision. It started with my inability to read the blackboard from my grade school desk. It worsened with the trouble in reading traffic signs at seventy miles per hour. Now, my driver’s license has a check mark in the little box for corrective lenses. Without glasses, my vision was limited to large nondescript objects and general views. The fine lines, small print and the infinite range of subtle differences didn’t materialize for me until they were twelve inches in front of my unaided vision. Finally, no longer able to negotiate my dim view of life, I succumbed to the eye doctor’s torture chamber. After my geeky glasses were perched on my nose and strapped around my ears, a brand new world immediately appeared to my wondering eyes. And, in getting a better handle on the basics of life, I also discovered that much of life’s enjoyment comes from delicate nuances that I formerly missed altogether.

The old adage is that “the devil is in the details.” Whoever originated that saying clearly needed glasses because the truth is that God, not the devil, is in the details. Frequent passages throughout the scriptures pound the point home that God brooks no cursory examinations. Those who have no patience for seeking, studying, analyzing, meditating and sometimes laboriously exegeting difficult verses never tap into the mother lode of spiritual wealth. In fact, spiritual near-sightedness should generate extreme skepticism in Bible-believing Christians. It is precisely by drawing close to God, by bringing him into sharper focus, that one begins to discern his meticulous work with the nuances and critical differences. To think that knowing God must be so tortuous that man has to reduce him to fuzzy ideas like nice, wonderful love and peace in order to be relevant is a dangerous point of view. Don Koenig, a specialist in Bible prophecy says,

“Now a new name has popped up…called the emerging church. The philosophy behind this growing movement is that purpose driven churches were designed to appeal to baby boomers but now they need churches that will appeal to the post modern younger generations. The emerging churches will be more experience orientated and will rely more on story telling on Sunday than on teaching scripture. Some in this movement have called the teaching of Christian doctrine divisive and say that everything has to be redefined in the light of modernism. After all, the post modern generation has no moral absolutes and neither will these churches. One should wonder what they base their Christianity on? I will tell you. They base their Christianity on a Jesus conjured up in the crystal ball of their own mind. They embrace mystical experiences, feelings, and goose bumps instead of biblical truths! Their beliefs are very compatible with those of Eastern religions. Jesus just happens to be their personal Guru.”

Some default to the blurred outlines of vague doctrinal statements out of indulgence or laziness. Others suffer from some sort of theological attention deficit disorder which interferes with any substantial thought being held in their minds for more than a few seconds. But there are other apologists who genuinely feel that the more attention we pay to details, then the more exclusive we become as a church or an organization. In their opinions, setting the bar too high denies worthy souls access to redemption. Several vital points need to be established here.

We are commissioned to preach the Word…nothing more, nothing less. If our credibility consists of our appeal to the infallible Word of God, then to venture outside of its parameters or to omit significant portions of doctrinal truth leaves a so-called preacher with no credibility at all. Jesus, in fact, anticipated the rise of this breed of preacher. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14. (NIV) A doctor cannot practice his own private brand of medicine and keep his license. An attorney cannot choose his own set of statutes to guide his cases and remain credentialed. A policeman’s authority is strictly limited by the law. Likewise, any preacher who sweeps away Bible doctrines because they don’t fit with his private interpretation or that simply get in the way of his personal ambitions disqualifies himself from the ministry. The Apostle Paul took this conviction seriously. “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts 20:26-27.

Preaching less than the scripture demands creates a false hope in people. I can think of nothing as cruel as to sell souls an incomplete gospel, leading them into a false sense of security. Unlearned souls who feel the attraction of Christ’s love rarely question the details of message preached to them. In their innocence and sincerity, they feel the compelling hand of God on their hearts and want to respond. They grant implicit trust to the person who represents God’s Word to them. It is a crime of the highest order to mislead innocent people who seek God. Those who do so are the brutish pastors of Jeremiah and the hirelings of John chapter ten who have no regard for souls but for their own carnal welfare. The Apostle Peter issued a strong warning against those who exploited men’s souls for personal benefit. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof , not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:2-3.

The less we require, the less will be given. It is a scriptural truth, but it is also a universal principle that a man reaps what he sows. Productivity responds to the demands of leadership. Each time we lessen the demands that the Word of God makes on us, each time we eliminate one more distinction that the scriptures establish as integral to the believer’s relationship to God, we ensure that people will not only sink to that minimum, they will undoubtedly fall below it. Water, as we know, seeks the lowest level available to it. If much is required where much is given, then when little is required, little is given. It is the Adamic nature. One can judge the teacher by the class; one can judge the coach by the team; and, one can judge the preacher by the church. Regardless of his motive, a preacher who decides to lessen the impact of the gospel on the lives of his people violates his commission and demeans his calling.

The scriptural progression always goes from the less defined to the more defined. God lets us start out at the elementary levels but he continually presses us to upgrade and learn more. “For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews 11:6. In creation, God started with darkness and void. He then progressed to light, then water, earth, plant life and animal life. His crowning achievement was man. Again, he first created the body, then he gave it life and finally transformed man in to a living soul.  It goes from the general to the specific, from low definition to high definition, from fundamental to complex.

We often see this principle illustrated in the trades. A painter, for example, becomes increasingly more careful as he gains experience in his trade. He selects his paint carefully, usually that manufactured by one or two companies; he only purchases certain brands and types of brushes; he settles into a routine of preparing surfaces, getting his materials ready, applying the paint and meticulously cleaning his tools at the end of the day. He probably learned the hard way that the extra time and effort to do the job right paid off in the end.

The implementation of mature growth principles suffers seriously when we blur our view instead of sharpening it.  Those who deny this progression end up with regression. This purpose of discipleship as succinctly spelled out in Hebrews. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14.

Finally, Christ’s parables speak strongly against relaxing our efforts. One need only to reference the parable of the talents to show this principle.  The Lord’s greatest displeasure was reserved for the man who did little or nothing with his investment, whereas his fellow recipients busied themselves with the strictures of profitability. They did not slough off, but redoubled their efforts to please their master. We are not told all the excuses the third man used to justify his idleness. Perhaps he said, “Oh, my master won’t care about this. He just wants me to be me. He just wants me to be honest and real. (Interpretation: he knows I’m lazy and he wants me to be true to myself.) No. The master wanted to turn a profit. He will not conform to our indolence; he intends for us to conform to his excellence.

Does God require less and less? No, quite the opposite. Remember the guest who entered without a wedding garment? Today, some would pat him on the back and tell him not to worry, that he was just fine the way he was. But the parable is clear. He was not welcome. “And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.”  Matthew 22:11-14.

One could go on citing many more examples of sharpening the view. When we sharpen our view, we bring better detail, thus greater understanding to the Word of God. The dumbing down of America has become the bane of this culture. In it are the seeds of eventual demise. This must not happen to the church. We need more, not less. We need more doctrinal teaching, not less. We need clearer teaching about lifestyle, not less. We need greater spirituality, not less. We need more of the Bible, not less. We need a deeper understanding about discipleship, not something thinner and shallower.

“And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.” Revelation 19:6-9.

No bride approaches this day with a casual, haphazard attitude. A bride, with painstaking care and rapt attention, makes herself ready. After all, her wedding day is the most important day in her life. The event ahead of us calls for the best within us.

Was Jesus A Communist?

Huge social, economic and religious issues have been rising over the past two decades in this nation. The Apostolic church has not spoken out as clearly as many think it should, largely because our focus has been primarily spreading the gospel and leading people to a higher spiritual experience and relationship with God. We have taken our basic mission from the words of Jesus when he said, “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.” Luke 19:10. We accomplish this by adhering to Paul’s words. “We preach Christ crucified.” 1 Corinthians 1:23.

But a series of national and global upheavals in the last two centuries have thrown Christianity into a crucible of agonizing decisions about who we are and what we believe. This is not necessarily about our theology, but about our ability to live in this world as law-abiding citizens and yet remain true to the teachings of scripture. Here are some of the issues we face which have become dilemmas for believers:

• Abortion
• Stem-cell research
• Capital punishment
• Homosexual rights
• Corporate greed
• Casino gambling and lotteries
• Sex education in school
• The liberal agenda (Green America, school curriculum, etc.)
• Socialized medicine (national health care)
• Socialistic, communistic politics

One of the driving forces behind the current financial crisis we are in concerns the enactment of socialistic ideas into law. Banks were forced to lend money for home mortgages to people who could not pay them back. This was called an “affordable homes initiative.” This concept has been known by other names in the past. “Taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.” “The Robin Hood doctrine.” “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” “Redistribution of wealth.”

Some deny that blatant socialism was behind this, but others are more honest. There are those who really believe that wealthy people have too much money and that it is only right and fair that their wealth be taken from them and divided equally among all people in a society. These are called socialists because they believe that the welfare of society at large takes precedent over the welfare of individuals. The other term is communism or collectivism. These people believe that no one should own private property and that no one should own the means of production. Only the state, which would be “the people” own anything. This was the basis for the communist revolution in Russia in 1917 and the rise of the U. S. S. R., or the Soviet Union.

The question for us is what does the Bible say? Is communism in the Bible? Capitalism? How does our belief system impact the way we live our lives?

Christian communism (adapted from some Wikipedia material)

Christian Communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It holds that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus’ death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

History

In general, the history of communism as a political movement can be divided into two periods: early (pre-Marxist) and contemporary (Marxist and post-Marxist) communism. In the early period, communism may have played a major role in everyday Christianity.

Plymouth Colony

The Plymouth Colony was established by English and Dutch pilgrims in order to flee religious persecution and search for a place to worship as they saw fit. They incorporated their religious beliefs into the social and legal systems of the colony.

Communistic ideas were tested by the Plymouth Colony settlers. In 1621, they selected William Bradford as governor of the group and he served in that capacity for the next 30 years. Bradford’s journal, Of Plymouth Plantation, is considered the authoritative work for the Pilgrim experiment and the Colony they founded. Bradford provided posterity with insightful comments on the issues the colony faced with communal living:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

Too many troubles resulted from the Plymouth Colony communism (lack of production and general discontent), and so Bradford stopped it and reverted to capitalism. This form of economy eventually became the standard practice in the United States):

At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves […] This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

True Levellers

In the 1600s the True Levellers, followers of Gerrard Winstanley, believed in the concept of “levelling men’s estates” in order to create equality. They also took over common land for the “common good.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Contemporary Christian communism

Pre-Marxist Views

• All communism was rooted in religious principles.
  • During the mid-to-late 1840s, the largest organization espousing communist ideas in Europe was the League of the Just, whose motto was “All Men are Brothers” and whose aim was to establish a new society “based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbor, equality and justice”.
• Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels joined the League of the Just in 1847.
  • Under their influence, the organization became secular and atheistic and changed its name to the Communist League.
  • The League invited Marx and Engels to write a programmatic document that would express communist principles, and they obliged, producing the Communist Manifesto.
  • The practice of communal living among the early believers should be considered as an emergency lifestyle to “jump start” fledgling Christianity.
    • The wilderness wanderings were the O. T. counterpart where things happened that were emergency miracles, i.e. manna, water from the rock, quail, clothes and shoes not wearing out, etc.
    • When people were bitten by snakes, a brass serpent was held up for people to “look and live.” This was not repeated in the Israelite culture or religion.
  • The selling of goods and possessions was strictly voluntary.
  • The practice was not continued because private property and personal possessions were mentioned in the later church age.
    • Acts 21:8 (The house of Philip, the evangelist)
    • Acts 28:30 (Paul rented his own house.)
    • Many individuals were cited who had their own houses. (1 Corinthians 1:11; 11:22; 16:15; 16:19; Colossians 4:15)
    • Paul taught that believers were to work for one’s own welfare. “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; ¹² That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12.
    • “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. ¹¹ For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. ¹² Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
    • Are we to work to support free-loaders?
    • Are we to support abortions, stem-cell research, sex-education, blasphemous works of art and other programs that violate basic Christian principles?
    • Should we rob people of their incentive to work, create and improve their lives?
    • Who will make decisions for us?
    • Should someone else decide where you will go to school, what you will study, what your occupation will be, where you will live, etc.?
    • We should work with our own hands. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
    • We should seek first the kingdom of God. (Matthew 6:33)
    • Wealthy people should not trust in their riches. (1 Timothy 6:17)
    • We should care for others out of compassion, not necessity. (2 Cor. 9:7)
    • We will answer to God for our own decisions. (Romans 14:12)
    • We should not be envious of the wealth or accomplishments of others. (Galatians 5:26)

  The Teachings of Jesus

  In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:

  49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

  One of Jesus’ most famous remarks regarding the wealthy can be found in Matthew 19:16-24

  16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

  Jesus also described “money changers” (i.e. those engaged in currency exchange) as “thieves” and chased them out of the Temple in Jerusalem. This is described in Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16. The text in Matthew reads as follows:

  12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

  The phrase “love thy neighbor”, repeatedly spoken by Jesus, is rather well known. Christian communists point out that Jesus considered this to be the second most important of all moral obligations, after loving God. Thus, they argue, a Christian society should be based first and foremost on these two commandments, and it should uphold them even more than it upholds such things as family values. The relevant Biblical verses are Mark 12:28-31:

  28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

  Finally, Jesus gave an account of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, in which he identifies himself with the hungry, the poor and the sick, and states that good or evil done upon “the least of [God’s] brethren” will be counted as good or evil done upon God himself. The fact that nations rather than individuals would be judged according to the characteristics of their societies, would thus directly imply that political and economic systems were being heavily critiqued as well:

  31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

  In addition, communist references can be found in Leviticus 25:35-38: “If one […] becomes poor […] help him […] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God […] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the L ORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.”

  Controversy Atheism and communism

  The Christian communist view of Karl Marx is mixed. On the one hand, he gave the communist movement a solid foundation in economics and sociology, and took it from relative obscurity to a position of significance on the international political stage. On the other hand, he was the first to divorce communism from Christian principles, and, following his lead, there was a strong association during the 20th century between communism, and atheism or agnosticism.

  The communist movement has been highly fragmented since 1990; while Communist Parties worldwide continue to have millions of members, there is little coordination between them. As such, there is no reliable statistical data on the religious views of communists as a whole. It is commonly assumed, and likely, that the majority are still atheists.

  Communists and the Classless society

  Both Old and New Testaments of the Bible fail to condemn the institution of slavery, rather they directly sanction and/or regulate slavery. Moses and Paul both sanction the institution and counsel slaves (or servants) to show obedience to their owners (or Masters). Jesus mentions servants in parables, but there is no record of him condemning or sanctioning the institution. Anti-communist Christians^[who?] argue that the Bible cannot promote communism because it allows for a class system. They note the lack of a scriptural condemnation of slavery by Jesus, who would have been familiar with the institution due to its use in ancient and contemporary societies. Relevant passages include Exodus 20:17, Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, and Ephesians 6:5-9.

  Government

  Communists support the eventual dissolution of government, at least theoretically. The Bible, however, teaches an intrinsic, hierarchical government to the kingdom of God. Most notably, Biblical prophecy in the Book of Isaiah 9:6-7 holds that the Second Coming of Jesus will result in the creation of a government by God on Earth:

  6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the L ORD of hosts will perform this. (King James Version)

  Establishing Christian communism

  There is also the question of how a communist society should be actually achieved. While most secular communists advocate a form of revolution, Christian communists almost universally insist on nonviolent means, such as passive resistance or winning elections. Regarding the issue of the nationalization of the means of production, which is seen by some Christians as theft, Christian communists argue that capitalism itself is a form of institutionalized theft in the manner that capitalist owners exploit their workers by not paying them the full value of their labor.

  Not all Christian communists seek to achieve large-scale social change, however. Some believe that, rather than attempting to transform the politics and economics of an entire country, Christians should instead establish communism at a local or regional level only.

  Free will

  The establishment of a large-scale communist system would infringe on people’s free will by denying them the freedom to make decisions for themselves.

  Christian communists, however, reply that this argument is inconsistent: if there should be no restrictions on the human exercise of free will, and if no one should be denied the freedom to sin, then all crimes, heinous or not, should be legalized.

  Acts 5:1-10 provides additional evidence that the Apostles and early Christians did not view communism as something optional:

  1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (King James Version)

  Christian communists hold that this passage explicitly shows how communism - that is, the sharing of all wealth - was considered so central to early Christianity that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for keeping part of their wealth for themselves. Some Christian communists go further and use these verses as an endorsement of the view that society should be communistic even against the will of some of its members; and that refusing to share one’s wealth can be regarded as a crime and punished as such.

  On the other hand, Peter was not disturbed because Ananias and Sapphira were not faithfully practicing communism or because they failed to share all their wealth, but because they had lied to God (verses 3 and 4) and thereby “tempt[ed] the Spirit of the Lord” (verse 9).

  Peter also made it clear that the possession and money belonged to Annanias and Sapphira to do with as they wished, and so supported the notion of private property.

  2 Corinthians 9:6-7, states:

  6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (King James Version)

  Early Christians were urged to share their wealth with those who were in need, but they were not compelled to do so.

  Other disagreements

  Finally, a fair amount of controversy between communist and anti-communist Christians is focused on a few parables told by Jesus - particularly the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 (a “talent” was a form of money).

  Questions about compulsory communism and socialism:

  The Bible teaches:

The Communist Manifesto has had an enormous influence on the communist movement. These communist and socialist groups were then absorbed into the wider socialist political parties and trade unions. For a time, socialists were more or less united under the umbrella of the Socialist International. After WWI, Communists and the rest of the socialist movement went their separate ways. World events took place in rapid succession for the next few decades - the creation of the Soviet Union, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and World War II. This is where so-called “Christian communism” reasserted itself. As early as the 1940s, Pierre Théas, a French bishop, stated:

“Urged on by unrestrainable forces, today’s world asks for a revolution. The revolution must succeed, but it can succeed only if the Church enters the fray, bringing the Gospel. After being liberated from Nazi dictatorship, we want to liberate the working class from capitalist slavery.”

Now, however, Cold War politics meant that communists were immediately associated with the Soviet Union. And this was even truer in North America, where McCarthyism held sway. Christian communism had a hard time re-establishing itself in its old European and North American homeland.

However, the Christian communist movement re-emerged in Latin America. This was a separate development from the earlier European and North American movements. Latin American Christian communism is a strong trend within liberation theology, which is a specifically Christian movement concerned with social justice and equality that incorporates both communists and other socialists. Liberation theology is predominantly Catholic in origin, given that Roman Catholicism is the dominant Christian denomination in Latin America. Liberation theology grew during the 1960s and 70s, and many liberation theologians (including bishops and other prominent clergymen) supported the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Christian communists were also found among Christian missionaries in China, the most notable being James Gareth Endicott, who became supportive of the struggle of the Communist Party of China in the 1930s and 1940s.

Biblical citations

Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship […] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version)

Objections:

Mainstream Media Prostitutes

Nothing is quite so ridiculous as wrinkled-skinned, age-spotted, raspy-voiced, cigarette-breathed, half-smashed old prostitute who has dolled herself up with barn paint smeared on her lips, a frosted wig perched on her head, Christmas tree ornaments hanging from her ears, crooked mascara lines zigzagging across her brow, sashaying down the street in search of a hapless client. So goes today’s media, whose rabid partisanship has savaged any noble ideals of fairness in journalism that was once the hallmark of their profession. Not only do their presses churn out toxic propaganda sewage, they have deluded themselves into believing that they are neutral. It’s hogwash straight from the nations pig farms.

Their hyprocisy makes their pontificating and preachiness to the public that much more repugnant. Where do this media get off lecturing politicians about proper subject material to address in their campaigns? Why should they even think they can determine what we should talk about and what we should avoid! What unholy trinity of demi-gods sits in a penthouse boardroom in mid-town Manhattan and thinks it can say what is news and what isn’t; what should be reported and what shouldn’t; what should be investigated and what shouldn’t? Their lopsided liberalism, their globalism, their socialistic ideas and their anti-capitalistic mindset has so skewed their objectivity that they have gone beyond a simple violation of trust. They now represent a danger to America.

These are strong words. I’m tempted to say that, in the vein of the contemporary media, I need no verification. To say it makes it true. I have too much respect, however, for the intelligence of my readers. So, how is the media a danger to America? Witness their kid glove treatment of Ahmadinejad. Analyze their selective reporting of news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch them circle the wagons around sworn enemies of America to mute any criticism of them. Examine the inordinate amount air time and print space they give to their pet causes that are too often degrading, embarrassing or harmful to American interests. (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib.) Weigh their relentless skewering of a President who is attempting to make America safe. Note how many times they run to advocates of their philosophies and quote anything they have to say—a sophomoric practice that provides them cover against criticism for being biased. “We’re just reporting what they said!” Yeah, right. These are more than political positions which are fair game for criticism. Too often they have crossed the line into treasonous statements and have dealt a staggering blow to the morale of United States troops.

Somebody needs to stand up to the media and put them in their place. They should no longer set the tone and parameters for presidential debates. They should no longer be given a carte blanche to campaign reporting. The media good-old-boy networks that dominate all press releases and effectively cordon off all alternative news outlets should be stripped of their privileges and thrown into a lottery system to gain access to any national event so they have to compete for the chance just like everyone else. The alphabet soup networks have had a monopoly way too long in this country. They have turned the free reign with which they have operated into corruption and an abuse of power that would bring down most private corporations in a landslide of lawsuits and prison sentences.

I am tired of the media acting like the fourth branch of government. I am tired of people whom nobody elected and over whom nobody has control wielding such enormous power in this society. Yes, free press and free speech is a constitutional right. Exclusive access to privileges by and through which a few people can maintain a stranglehold on a nation is not a constitutional right.

I have two theories, both of which are related. First, I believe it is obvious in the extreme that the mainstream media acts in conjunction with all its sympathetic players. Otherwise, how can ten or more news outlets hold almost the identical view on almost everything? Moreover, how can all the outlets come out with the same story on the same day, and most of the time use identical terms and phrases to write or report their story? The law of averages militates against it. It may not be conspiratorial, but it is, at the very least, coordinated and orchestrated.

My second theory is that the mainstream media has been greatly threatened by the presence of talk radio. Therefore, they have banded together to throw their weight to the other side of the spectrum in an attempt to regain their influence and to assert themselves in the political process. If this means that they lose any vestige of objectivity that they may have had in the past, so be it. If this means that they become intrusive, obnoxious and shrill in their political advocacy, so be it. They may think they have nothing to lose. The print media has steadily lost ground over the past few years due to the rise of the internet, so they are desperate. The television media has seen its viewing audience shrink in the same time period to the point that they need act boldly in order to reclaim their share of the market. Hence, their non-published goal is a no-holds barred partisan power-grab. Their published goal, however, remains to simply report “all the news that’s fit to print.” Foot note to the media: you have zero credibility in my book. A growing number of people agree with me. Officiating at funerals is my specialty. Call me.

34 Rules of Writing

Here’s a tongue-in-cheek list recently sent to me.  Since it made me laugh, I’m passing it on. Actually, though, most of the “rules” are pretty useful—as guidelines. (Sent by Dean Hunt, copied from his website at http://deanhunt.com/bloggers-are-terrible-writers/.) 1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects. 2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with. 3. And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction. 4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. 5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They’re old hat.) 6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration. 7. Be more or less specific. 8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary. 9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies. 10. No sentence fragments. 11. Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used unless you don’t want to seem too formal. 12. Foreign words and phrases are not always apropos. 13. Do not use more words, phrases, sentences, or other linguistic elements than you, yourself, actually really and definitely need to use or employ when expressing yourself or otherwise giving voice to what you may or may not be thinking when you are trying to say how many words you should use or not use when using words. 14. One should NEVER generalize. 15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches. 16. Don’t use no double negatives. 17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, i.e. etc. 18. One-word sentences? Eliminate. 19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake. 20. The passive voice is to be ignored. 21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas. 22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice. 23. Kill excessive exclamation points!!! 24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others elude to them. 25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas. 26. Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed. 27. Eliminate distracting quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have once remarked, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” 28. If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly. 29. Puns are for children, not groan readers. 30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms. 31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed. 32. Who needs rhetorical questions? 33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement. And finally… 34. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. Original Source: Unknown (Seems to have been around for decades)

The Bailout Jump: Pray that the Chute Opens

The big question is not whether we have a monumental crisis on our hands. The outrageous and criminal abuses of executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae, enabled by scandalous, socialistic politicians gave us the crisis. Bad mortgage deals that trashed all accepted lending practices have been leveraged many times over against debt. Banks will not lend money to each other, to most businesses or to most consumers. Without credit, business cannot buy raw material for their industries, pay their creditors or make payroll. Without payroll, workers—by the hundreds of thousands—will not be able to keep their households going. The economy slows down to a crawl, exacerbating an already toxic situation.

According to the terms of the bailout, the government will spend $700 billion that it does not have. It can either print or borrow the money. If it prints the money, dollar will be devalued. If it borrows the money from foreign nations, we will be a debtor nation beyond present levels which are already unprecedented. When it buys the mortgages, the government will own up to 50% of the housing market in this country. It plans to sell this real estate off to the highest bidders in a series of auctions. This compounds the problem.

Much of the real estate that the government will own is barely worth half of its original value. Many of the properties are worth scrap value only, and many of them were fraudulent transactions or never even existed. Even if every one of these properties were sold, there is not enough equity to avoid the greatest hit on our economy since the Great Depression, if not greater. The truth is that the loss of this money can never be recouped.

What will the impact of this enormous fiasco be on the average American? There will be a jump in inflation. Food, gasoline, heating oil and other basic commodities necessary to live will experience an historic climb. There will be a steep hike in unemployment. Industry and corporations will institute wage and hiring freezes. All of this economic turmoil will likely foment a rise in civil unrest. This creates a scenario of looting, crimes against property and protest marches that could easily turn violent.

My suggestions to you for the coming weeks and months are the following. Make sure you pay all of your notes—mortgage, car note, credit cards—on time. Bad credit could cut you out of the credit market. Pay close attention to the liquidity of your banks. If you have investments, talk to a knowledgeable person about their security. Be careful about taking on any additional financial risks.

Further, ask yourself these questions: If you can’t go to the store for a while, do you have necessary supplies to keep going? If things get very tight financially, how much of a cushion do you have? Can you do without certain purchases or expenditures? If you can cut the fat or non-essential items out of you budget, do it. It may not be time for a full-blown panic, but it is always time to be prudent.

The people who usually know about these things, the ones we look to for guidance are as puzzled as we are. When the experts don’t know what to do, it’s time to be concerned.

The most important thing you can do goes beyond the financial matters. Do you have a deep, inner peace? Do you have a source of strength that has nothing to do with money or material possessions? It is time to come to terms with your soul. It is time to pray. When everything spins out of control, your relationship with the eternal God will keep you sane and sensible.

Jesus told us not to take thought of tomorrow, of what we would eat or drink or what we should wear. This was not to encourage irresponsibility, but to give us a security resident in Christ that cannot be found anywhere else.

If Christ packs your chute, it will open.

The Bailout

Years ago, a friend of mine thought he was buying a video camera from a street merchant in New York City. The heavy package appeared unopened and in mint condition. When he got back his hotel room and opened up the box, he found two nice sized bricks. The tuition in the school of hard knocks cost him about two hundred dollars.

What does this have to do with the bailout? Well, a lot of banks and investment firms thought they were buying good mortgages from FHLMC (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation),and FNMA (Federal National Mortgage Association). The packages looked good and had all the proper guarantees attached to them. Plus, they were backed up by federal regulations and the United States government. But when they began to inspect the contents, they found out that they bought nothing but bricks. In this case, the bricks were foreclosed mortgages, extremely risky loans and bankrupt patrons. Basically worthless financial assets.

Let’s take it a step further. Say my friend met another friend on the way back to the hotel room and showed him the video camera package. His friend was impressed and offered him three hundred dollars for it. Repeat this process five times and add one hundred dollars for each exchange. Suddenly, two thousand dollars worth of business would have transpired on the basis of a couple of worthless bricks!

Now throw another wrinkle into the mix. Say friend three and friend five didn’t have the cash to buy the package and so they went out and borrowed the money using the package as collateral. Their lenders let them have the money on the basis that they could confiscate the camera and get their money back in case of default on the loan. That means that a thousand dollars of the two thousand dollars has now turned into bad credit. Not only have the lenders been ripped off, there was no camera in the box to begin with. Who is the real culprit? The street merchant who cooked up the hoax in the first place. Good luck catching him.

Multiply the money in the example by billions. Nobody can pay back the loans because it is just too much money. That’s why FMAC and FNMA are now on the hot seat. They were overseers, promoters and participants in cooking up bad loans upon which billions of dollars were invested.

Two more twists. What if my friend would have gone to a group of a hundred friends and offered to supply them with video packages just like the one he bought. They all eagerly gave him up front money to the tune of $200,000! He takes the money, spends it and then cannot find the street merchant who sold him the worthless merchandise in the beginning. Now, we have a huge mess. There is no way to recoup the losses for each customer because it was all paid for nothing.

Last, who is to be blamed? What if the street merchant said to my friend. “If you don’t buy my camera, I know where you and your family live and I will pay you a not so friendly visit some time?” What if Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae agents went to banks and said, “If you don’t make loans to people who can’t afford to pay you back, we will cause you so much grief that you will go out of business?” Hmmm?

Finally, what if the street merchant who caused the entire fiasco in the first place dressed up like a federal representative and got all the investors together and said, “If you lend me the money, I will get you out of this mess…maybe?” We would like to tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail. We can’t. He’s the sheriff, the chief of police, and the mayor all rolled into one.

Unless we can fire the congress, we’re stuck. They invented Freddie and Fannie. They ran it, expanded it, exploited it, lied about doing it, cursed anyone who tried to stop them from doing it, and now they want us to give them money to fix it. They have the nation over a barrel.

America is in trouble. And we elected the very people that did this to us.