Lost In Christianity

Why I’m Coming Out as a Christian - The Daily Beast:

The title is kinda like "lost in space".

In the beginning of Christianity, there was Christ and his disciples. One went bad, all the rest save John ended up martyrs according to the best histories we know. We certainly know that early Christianity was unpopular. The writer of over half the new testament, the Apostle Paul started life as Saul and was stoning Christians around the mid 30's AD -- not very long after the crucifixion, 30-33AD.

"Coming out as a Christian" is still worthy of the death sentence in Islamic territory, but here in the old US of A, apparently some feel the greatest obstacle to confessing Christ is:

No, I’m nervous to come out as a Christian because I worry I’m not good enough of one. I’m not scared that non-believers will make me feel an outcast. I’m scared that Christians will.

Compared to having one's head hacked off, being crucified, being fed to lions, or other forms of nasty death, somehow the idea of fearing one will "not be accepted as good enough" by other Christians seems rather tame. Reading through the article though, I wonder if Ms Cox may want to contract the Ex Governor of MN who feels that sueing the widow of the most successful sniper the US has ever had is the best manner to get back into the good graces of fellow SEALS whose company he claims to sorely miss. Her article seems to be spiritually aligned with Jesse's views of the proper way to be accepted by your peers. 

The claimed origin of Ms Cox's heartfelt need to stand up and be counted as among Christendom is the following. 

I’ve lately observed conservatives questioning Obama’s faith with more than professional interest. Because if Obama’s not Christian, what does that make me?

Thankfully, she can rest her fevered mind. There have been no "conservatives" questioning Obama's faith, save the quite unlikely possible case if the reporter that asked Scott Walker about Obama's faith was in fact a "conservative reporter" (a very rare breed), actually seeking some information from Walker on the subject. 

Note, there seems a second misconception in play here. While there is a good deal greater percentage of "conservatives" that self-identify as "Christian", the correlation is FAR from unity. Something like 60% is commonly quoted, vs less than 50% of "liberals". 

"Conservatives" questioning your claims of Christianity is NOT the same as Christians possibly questioning your claim. But discounting the extremely unlikely case of the reporter being a conservative looking for real information on Obama's faith from Scott Walker, we have zero recent cases of EITHER "Conservatives" nor "Christians" questioning Obama's faith, so Ms Cox stated concerns are completely vacuous. I wonder if she would breathe a sigh of relief on that news? 

It appears that SHE is COMPLETELY certain of her Christianity, however I would be remiss as a Christian to not provide a more coherent path to saving faith than she provides. 

1. As she says, we are saved by faith in Christ, not of our own works, lest any man should boast. 
2. As we grow in faith, we regularly find that we need to repent of your own sinful desires and follow Christ instead (daily repentance and contrition) . She seems to have missed this. 
3. The means of this following -- well known nearly two thousand years, but becoming less agreed to today is Holy Scripture, Holy Preaching and Holy Communion 

The following is Ms Cox "statement of faith": 

Here is why I believe I am a Christian: I believe I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior. I believe in the grace offered by the Resurrection. I believe that whatever spiritual rewards I may reap come directly from trying to live the example set by Christ. Whether or not I succeed in living up to that example is primarily between Him and me.

The statement leaves out recognition of sinful need, repentance, desire to follow Christ and join with fellow believers, which unless we are talking a death-bed like conversion (eg. "thief on the cross"), would be key aspects of a typical Christian statement of faith.

She seems to make light of not having much knowledge of the Bible, which is an ODD Christian position given John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.".

Christ is the Word and the Word is Christ -- to know Christ, you know the Word. As a Christian, the knowledge of Christ is knowledge of the Bible and vice versa.

It is hard to read her column as being anything but a very thinly veiled smear on Scott Walker saying that if someone wants to know about Obama's Christianity, they should ask him, not Scott Walker, but I took her more seriously than that -- anyone can write something that looks bad and mean well after all.

I pray that her intent is actually an honest concern and that she will seek out the Word and a body of believers in which she can receive instruction, Communion and grow in Christ.

'via Blog this'

Prejudice, Mistaken Identiy

A Letter From Black America - Nikole Hannah-Jones - POLITICO Magazine:



The attached article is a nice long explanation justification for blacks feeling put upon by police. It ends with the specific case "proving" (if there is any point to the incident brought up at all) that police also are biased against teens, or possibly just tend to want to be certain that they person that reports an incident is not involved / has a motive other than being a good citizen.



Way way back when I was 21 and already working in Rochester I was minding my own business walking down the street street one day dressed in my favorite red white and blue denim jacket, jeans, and no doubt colorful tennis shoes. Somewhat like a St Bernard or Lab that has not figured out that it is not a lap dog, I had not wised up yet to the idea that bigger people wearing bright colored things stand out -- you do need to remember it was '78, Disco, Village People, etc as well.



A police car cruised by, slowing rather obviously, and stopping to watch me stroll by. I was unconcerned having done nothing wrong and not opposed to police. I heard the doors of the squad open / bang shut and was surprised very shortly to hear, "Please Stop, we would like to talk with you."



As I turned, I noticed the officer closest to me resting his hand on his pistol from which the strap was already undone, the second officer was off on the grass at an angle to the side so it was hard to look at both at the same time ... his hand was even more prominently resting in the draw-ready position on his unstrapped pistol.



"Do you have any identification?" ... fortunately, I did, and rather SLOWLY reached to my back pocket, got out the billfold, then licence -- they looked at the ID, looked at me for a bit, then handed it back and apologized for detaining me.



Curious, I asked what was up. Apparently, a guy of my height and weight description "dressed like me" had escaped from a holding facility at the local enforcement center. It took me a few years to kind of figure out that particular description of physical characteristics and dress might have been a bit unusual, although I STILL like to think that I blend in anywhere! Moose are hard to spot!



Bill Berg is also a common name ... maybe not as common as "Mike Smith" (if that is actually anybody's real name), so I've had more than a few cases of mistaken identity there. When a Bill Berg of about my age was killed along the highway in an accident and it was reported in the news, a NUMBER of people were sure it was me.



It is also true that "teens" of any color are "targeted" by the police for certain kinds of crime -- vandalism, stealing cars, erratic and "display of power" sorts of driving, shoplifting, etc. The reason they are "targeted" is that they have a higher rate of perpetrating those kinds of acts than say 60 year old  overweight white guys, to pick a group that MIGHT be profiled completely at random.



Is there pure racism against blacks? Sure. But there is also what I would call "legitimate profiling" -- certain groups DO perpetuate certain crimes at a MUCH higher rate than others. If I want more police attention I can just put on some leathers, and rev my Harley up a bit in some areas -- add a few tats and such and the attention will rise even more.



While as I say, I'm certain there is SOME racism, I would be strongly surprised if a well groomed middle age black man in a suit and tie isn't going to get a lot less attention than a dreadlocked 20 year old with low slung pants, a bunch of bling, a hoodie and a baseball cap cocked to the side -- add a boom box on the shoulder blaring anti-cop rap and the meter likely goes up another notch or two.



The bottom line. PERSPECTIVE. Politico puts in an article in which the bulk is opinion, completely known to any breathing American from many previous sources, and the specific incident cited point to police treatment of teens that call in crimes on a cell phone, not to treatment of blacks by police which is ostensibly  the topic.



Black, white, young, big, biker, old,  hooker, etc -- profiles and stereotypes are part of living. Hang around and you will be old and uninteresting to anyone in law enforcement as other than a victim.



You may even gain some perspective.

Alternatives 2 Hilly

While TP is the dominant party and it's potential to end the USA remains as serious as a heart attack, life is not worth living without some levity!!

Even total dominance has it's trials!

Can Illinois Be Saved?

The Weekend Interview: Blue State Turnaround Artist - WSJ:



We know that Chicago is in dire financial straits from some of the articles leaking out, but the state of Illiniois is also in deep trouble.



As the article points out, the root problem for the state is public sector unions and the kickback connection between those unions and the Democrats (TP). We may hear more of a negative nature about this in the near future as things have gotten so bad that an evil Republican has been elected and is attempting to take some baby steps to curtail the level of union rape of the public purse and the related kickbacks to TPs campaign coffers.



Although a bit longish, the entire article is worth the read -- the perils of cities like NYC in the '80s, Detroit today, and increasingly Chicago, as well as states like CA, NY and IL show us the results of single party TP rule and the direction that the US is strongly headed in.



I'd argue that CA and NY would be in the running for "worst managed", but I'm sure a case can be made for IL

Welcome to government in Illinois, the worst-managed state in the country. The Land of Lincoln is buried under staggering debts, including a projected $6.7 billion operating gap for the next fiscal year and an $111 billion unfunded pension liability. Government unions and politicians engage in legal collusion that fleeces taxpayers. Between 2002 and 2014, 86% of Illinois state lawmakers received union contributions, according to the Illinois Policy Institute.

A tiny lift of the curtain of the insidiousness of  the effects of unions and the union government connection is provided by this little piece of information that the rules applied to contracts in IL raise the costs 10-20% -- consider that ON TOP of the already higher costs incurred for government contracts (more oversight, more planning, more impact statements, etc) and one gets a bit of a hint as to why our nation now has so much trouble with "infrastructure".  Government consistently overspends buying votes with all manner of "subsidies", "grants", "aid to etc, etc", and lets the infrastructure crumble. Then, as the disrepair gets critical they demand more tax income (often gas taxes) in order to pay out yet more money to their supporters in the unions and bureaucracy. A sweet deal to all but the hapless taxpayer. 

..., Mr. Rauner wrangled approval for the mansion renovation but was told that the work, even if privately funded, had to follow the state’s prevailing-wage laws, which restrict competitive bidding and can raise costs 20% or more. 

If the new governor is serious about this we can expect Scott Walker like recall votes, destructive demonstrations and threats of violence in IL like there were in WI.



'via Blog this'

Petraeus vs Sandy Berger

A double standard on government secrets for David Petraeus - LA Times:



I had to chuckle as the LA Times got concerned because David Petraeus is "getting off easy" in their book for letting his lover / biographer look at some secret documents.



My memory is too damned good-- and having a blog and a search engine makes it all too easy.



Back in '06 I linked this little gem on Sandy Berger, seems that "good old Sandy" as Slick Willie commented took documents out of restricted areas hidden in his pants and then hid them under a construction trailer.



Naturally, even though reported in the MSM, Sandy being a member of TP in VERY good standing ... and most likely covering up for the Clintons, received NO PUNISHMENT!!!



Ah yes, such concern for "double standards"!



'via Blog this'

Unions, Terror, Walker, Reagan

Attacks on Scott Walker Remind of Reagan | The American Spectator:



Walker made a couple comments that have been jumped on relative to dealing with unions and dealing with terrorists. As the linked article coveres, Reagan did the same.



Our personal experiences tend to shape what pops into our minds. Thankfully, few of us in the US have had to deal with terrorists (yet), but more of us have had to deal with unions.



My most up close and personal  union experience was in I believe 1996 when Newt Gingrich came to Rochester for a fundraiser for then Congressional Candidate Gil Gutknecht. At the main entrance to the event at the Kahler Hotel,  a group of approximately 205 unionists were marching carrying signs and chanting -- intimidating people from entering. There were people pointing to a side entrance, but my adrenaline came up and I decided that I didn't enjoy being intimidated, so I strode toward the line at a rapid and determined pace. Apparently intimidation has it's limits;  the line parted rather quickly and even the chants went silent for a second. Nobody particularly wanted to play "Bumper Moose" that night.



Were I not as large as I am, the intimidation would have likely worked. If I had to have the courage of a Walker or a Reagan, I  would probably fold like a wet paper bag. Hope not, but like combat, you don't know until it happens. Standing up to intimidation is definitely bracing and memorable. I'm certain much more so if you are threatened with having your face caved in so you "never work in movies again" as Reagan was, or have the home of your elderly parents picketed by union thugs as Walker has.



Violence and intimidation are a huge part of the union way. "Strike breakers" are threatened with all manner of intimidation and actual violence, and it is often carried out -- in property damage, beatings and even murder. Cross a union and the threat is always implicit and often explicit.



Now unionists may be the rotary club of terror compared to ISIS -- whacking the head with a baseball bat is more the union way than severing it on TV, but the basic result can be the same. The unions are the early violence arm of TP, the shock troops.  "Labor Day" is the US version of "May Day". A day dedicated to the intimidating power of unions using both the ballot box and the baseball bat.



The union is the point at which the "mob" part of too much "democracy" starts to show it's more ugly face. The government union is the step at which the power of the state becomes a tool for union intimidation. See IRS.



Walker is going to be attacked in MANY ways if he continues to run. Make no mistake, his bravery includes bravery for his life and the lives of his family. He has directly challenged the TPs shock troops, the unions, and they believe in and regularly use intimidation and violence.







'via Blog this'

Queen@ClintonsRule.com, Git Yer Mind Right!

Clinton’s E-Mail Built for Privacy Though Not Security - Bloomberg Business:

We now know that Hillary set up her own private e-mail server to avoid the problem that Lois Lerner and many other criminals have had. A commercial server, or a server at a workplace that follows the rules and usually LAWS about e-mail retention keeps copies of emails that you delete.

Anyone remotely familiar with the Lois Lerner claims at the IRS knew that her "hard drive breaking" would not wipe out her e-mail record. It didn't -- they took a couple years now no doubt hiding evidence, but at least some of the e-mails documenting the IRS being used as a weapon against might still be found -- not that anyone really cares, we live in a one party ruled system where the the dominant party TP (The Party -D) operates with complete impunity.

The case of the Clintons shows the vast power of TP in the US. Here we have a couple that was down to their last few million at the time they left the White House and have managed to pull in 100's of millions of dollars based on their power connections and ability to influence the flow of $$$ and favors from the US government. Their personal wealth is in excess of $55 million, and many indicate when trusts and other off shore assets are evaluated, it is much higher. Guess what, nobody is checking!

Envy is a natural human emotion, how is it that the Clintons and others in TP avoid the emotion coming out against them?

The old old trick of despots is the same as is used by magicians and pickpockets -- LOOK OVER THERE!!!  ... at THEM !!! ... you know. The Jews. The "malefactors of great wealth". The "Robber Barons". The CEOS! The Koch Brothers!

FDR, LBJ and JFK are all listed in the top 10 list of wealthy Presidents as well -- but you likely think of the Bushes, or possibly even Reagan as being more wealthy. (they don't make the list). Don't feel bad, misdirection still works! If the magicians assistant is attractive enough and dressed scantily enough they could likely construct a pyramid on stage with payloaders and cranes in plain sight, and the men in the audience would say "wow, where did that come from!".

The level of manipulation of the "average American" by TP at this point is great enough that it is questionable if there are any real limits left in the ability of the TP leaders to bilk wealth for themselves and their cronies from the nation, demonize and destroy people and groups that they see as competitive to their hegemony using the power of the government, and a BO innovation, bypass the checks and balances of government via executive power to capture new illegal voters (Mexican immigrants) and set new policies to control the Internet in the way in which TP desires.

As TP becomes more and more above the law, those of us that want to resist it's power become ever more in danger running afoul of "laws", "rules", or "investigations" designed to "get our minds right".

'via Blog this'

Helping Iran Solve "The Israel Problem"

Democratic Jewish voters inch toward the GOP - The Washington Post:

The idea that Jews are still voting D (TP - The Party)  at like a 70% rate gets more incredible each day. As with the Catholic vote, the Jewish vote seems to be steadily sliding toward R, and one would hope that there is enough rationality in of all people, the Jews, who have been both among the most intellectual and most hated people in history, would realize who is NOT their friend. All can now see that TP is willing to see the Israel burn.

TP and BO certainly made it quite clear yesterday that they are ready  to trade off the Jewish vote for the Black and Hispanic vote, and why not? When your only principle is POWER, which in the current calculus is VOTES -- living, dead, purchased, virtual, illegal (as in immigrant), etc, the calculus of 1.5% of the population being Jewish makes it an easy choice to trade off an increased chance of Israel being nuked for a few percentage points in the polls.

Especially Blacks, and to a lesser degree Hispanics tend toward anti-semitism -- seeing Jews in the traditional prejudice as "upper class money grabbing explointers". Jews have been called out by black leaders like Malcolm X (one of BOs influencers) and Louis Farrakhan as specific targets of violence as the blacks rise up and "claim their just place".  Jews are not popular with the rising constituencies of TP.

TP's education arm increasingly identifies Israel as a "problem" for the US vs a critical ally of freedom in a very totalitarian region. "The Israel problem" is the new synonym for "The Jewish Problem" which Hitler worked tirelessly to "solve", and for which the mantle has now been taken up by Iran, seeking a quicker "final solution", on the order of a few seconds given our modern technical advances.

TP and it's docile followers said they needed to be "convinced" to even LISTEN to Netanyahu -- when you turn your head and refuse to listen, you are taking a very basic dehumanizing action, a refusal to acknowledge the person or position. In this case, the leader of the state of Israel.

Let's be clear, TP did not, and does not have any interest in "being convinced". They have looked at their polling in the US, and they are ready to see the mushroom clouds over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv -- the LAST thing they want to do is accord Jews and Jewish leaders anything like basic humanity, let alone even the minimal recognition it takes to listen to a speech. Some of them may feel bad when the 8 million current residents of Israel cease to exist. (don't worry, TP won't blame themselves, they never do!)

When you have made the calculus in your soul that Israel is "too expensive" to stand by, it is best to objectify the residents as "not really people" and claim "they brought it on themselves".  The behavior and reactions to Netanyahu's speech yesterday make it completely clear that TP in the US is now taking that stand -- reminiscent of the 30's in Germany, only "modernized". Iran intends to make it very quick this time.

TP is just waiting for the mushroom puff of smoke, after which they will no doubt send their unfelt condolences. Power demands sacrifices.

'via Blog this'

The NYT's "Dangerous Truth" On Netanyahu

Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress - NYTimes.com:

Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.

Imagine someone sitting in a small state surrounded by larger states that refuses to recognize it's existence and regularly call for it's destruction not having total faith in BO to stop one of those powers gets nuclear weapons?  The idea boggles the minds at the NY Times!

After all, as the the article pointed out, even if something "bad" DID happen, it wouldn't be BO's fault:

Iran’s behavior is often threatening and reprehensible, and that is precisely why Mr. Obama has invested so much energy in trying to find a negotiated solution. But a major reason for Iran’s growing regional role is the American-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Mr. Netanyahu supported, although he was not prime minister at the time. Even after a nuclear agreement is signed, some sanctions connected to Iran’s missile and nuclear programs will remain in place.

See if Israel gets nuked, it is all W's fault!!  (and Bibi's to boot) Why, if Iraq was there, I'm CERTAIN that Iran would have absolutely no desire for nukes. Right? The calculus by which having another close competitor in the region -- which ALSO wanted nukes, would somehow make Iran LESS likely to want them is one of those calculations that you pretty much have to be on the far left to even imagine.

How can anyone not totally trust BO after both did and didn't end the war in Iraq??

Naturally, BO is not responsible for anything that happened in Iraq -- nor Afghanistan, or Syria for that matter. Remember the "red line"? Remember how smart the "Russian Reset" was and how Romney was mocked by BO saying "the cold war has been over for 20 years" when Mitt correctly pointed out that we still had geopolitical conflicts with Russia? BO is simply a "proven performer" when it comes to foreign policy. Please name his greatest foreign policy "success"?  Was it handing or not handing Iraq to ISIS? Losing Egypt as an ally? It gets really tough to pick.

How could anyone whose entire existence likely hangs on preventing Iran getting a nuke not feel completely confident in the solemn and clearly competent word of a guy that promised that "if we like our healthcare we can keep it" ?

It's gotta give Israel extra solace seeing the NYT's hedging their bets "just in case" so that we all know that it was W's and Netanyahu's fault!

So even if Israel ceases to exist under mushroom clouds, the NYTs is obviously not going to be convinced that anything could have been done after W screwed it all up.

What a comforting state of affairs if you have any care for 8 million Jews or so being immolated!
'via Blog this'

What TP Doesn't Like About Hillary -- We Have Met the Enemy

Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail address at State reinforces everything people don’t like about her - The Washington Post:

Once you become dominant enough you no longer see yourself as others see you because everyone is YOU! There is no mirror to point out what is obvious about who you are.

However, on occasion, by mistake, no doubt as a result of an emotional reaction, the truth can be stumbled upon as it is here by WaPo -- four things they don't like about HILLARY / Clintons!

1. The rules don't apply to them
2. They are surrounded by enablers 
3. Their always hiding something
4. They only think about politics 

Thus, by mistake, TP has defined itself in it's own supporting media!

Of course the rules don't apply to them -- campaign finance, use of the IRS against political enemies, large numbers of them showing up as tax cheats every time they try to appoint someone, ... the list is endless. The rules don't apply to TP because they make them, enforce them selectively, and their media arm tells all the compliant not to notice any problems when they break them! 

The media ARE the enablers for TP -- not just Hillary. BO, Biden, Reid and the whole sorry bunch. 

They are hiding a lot of stuff, but they really don't have to worry because of #1 and #2 -- when the "if you like your health insurance you can keep it" lie is exposed or thousands of other lies and cover ups from "lost" IRS e-mails to targeting conservative organizations, the "exposure" is meaningless because of points one and two. 

They only care about politics? DUH! In a TP world, what else is there? EVERYTHING is "politics" -- from the weather to how much water you get to use to flush to your breathing being regulated by the EPA (CO2 is a regulated pollutant now, you breath it out!) ... to the Internet, to every aspect of your lives,  it is ALL POLITICS!!! This reporter has mistaken the TP agenda as only applying to Hillary!! 

(Insert dope slap here!) 

TP has met the enemy and it is them! 

'via Blog this'

Media Aging Hillary Private E-mail.

Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules - NYTimes.com:



It is fun to watch the difference in media handling of evil threat to America, Scott Walker and the heir apparent Hillary. For Walker, his college years are getting scrutiny, who says what in a room he is in, and no doubt the innovation will go on. The question of Mittens being a bully in HS  was big for a bit in 2012 (wow does he look fearsome in those pictures!). Perhaps Scott played doctor in preschool? Sounds like a scoop -- and hard to prove it didn't happen!



Meanwhile Hillary spends 4 years at the State department and uses her personal e-mail against government regulations. Ho hum, no sense of anything improper here, move along. OLD NEWS! or at least will be long before 2016.



Hey, there is no bias in media, the NYTs reported on it!



'via Blog this'

NYTs Figures Out Young Taught No Morals!

Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts - NYTimes.com:

BO may need to crack down on this columnist, he seems to have come to the dangerous realization that we have created a generation with no morals!! My God, the man is a menace to the entire modern progressive and Statist fabric. He clearly needs to be at least re-educated if not shot!

Read the article, it is enough to make you wonder if the Times site has been hacked by someone with a soul and a working moral compass. What part of the moral relativist canon so expertly recently used by our cipher in chief as in "get off your high horse, a lot of bad stuff has been done in the name of Christianity too!" did this guy miss out on it??? Has he been on a desert island and missed the memo on "thou shalt see all things as moral only as they are decreed by the State and it's moralist with his nose in the air ... BO"?

But no, he has the gall to say:

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

Well no, I wouldn't be, but I sure as hell am surprised that someone at the NY Times noticed!!

The article recognizes the problem, morals are not per say "facts" that you can run an experiment to "prove".  He even realizes that if one agrees with Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things", then "measuring" morals is going to be "hard" -- and that appears to be as far as his ability to grasp our peril takes him.

We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.

Hmm ... well, we MIGHT be able to "better" than just punting and calling anything moral an "opinion", but exactly "which man" might we consult to do our "measuring"? BO? The ballot box under the theory that "lots of people that have no background in morals are likely get a good answer"?

This is NOT a new problem at all! Our founders understood it extremely well:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other,"  (John Adams)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim that tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness," (George Washington)

But what "religion" was that? Guess what! BO notwithstanding, it was NOT Islam -- it had NO PART in our founding and our first contact with Islam was the Barbary Pirates, of which Jefferson said:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

Jefferson's response of course was that America ought to get off her "high horse" and accept their religious beliefs as being as good as our own and just stay out of their way --- er, actually he built six frigates out of live oak and we went over and kicked their "musselman" asses -- but our "leadership" is a lot more "advanced" today!

I'm not going to make this any longer than it is already. This problem has been covered MANY times and the only answer that has ever worked as been RELIGION, of which Christianity is the champion. For an excellent treatise, see CS Lewis, "The Abolition of Man"! 

'via Blog this'

Spock, Going Where No Man Has Gone

He Was, And Will Always Be, Our Friend: Remembering Leonard Nimoy : NPR:

When the Star Trek came out, in 1966, I was 10. I was interested in it, but I was more interested in Apollo and the Moon. When I was in college from 74-78, it was on in re-run and we tended to watch most of the shows, entertained by the imagined technology as well as the short skirts and scantily clad "alien" women -- Star Trek didn't ONLY push the envelope on racial and social issues!

Yet again, I'm struck by the incongruity of Nimoy passing at a time nearly 50 years later and finding the US unable to put a person in orbit at all, with the last trip to the Moon having been Apollo 17 in December of '72 as I approached the halfway point of my sophomore year or high school!

It is difficult to separate youth from thoughts of potential, unlimited horizons and bright outlook for the future, but here is an easy contrast. The Wright brothers first flew on December 17 1903, on October 14, 1947, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, and on May 2nd, 1952 less than  50 years later the first commercial jet flight took off. By 70 years later, we had made six successful Moon landings, but in the nearly 50 years since, we have not been back, and in fact at this point lack the capability in the US of being able to put a man into earth orbit.

Star Trek was and is popular because unlike the vast vast bulk of future projection -- both scientific and social,  it is fairly utopian as opposed to dystopian. Rather than assuming that mankind would be snuffed out by nuclear bombs, plague, war, or some other combination of greed, violence, stupidity,  or as appears to be the case, just giving up. Star Trek asserted that humans would continue to work, innovate, explore, risk, and eventually spread out into the galaxy. It was optimistic.

So far, we have managed to retreat on the space front in the near 50 year span at which our war posture would have to be called "peace" relative to WWI, WWII and Korea that marred the time from 1903-1969. The Moon landings may well be remembered as our "high water mark" in the sense of Lee at Cemetery Ridge, Hitler at Stalingrad, or the USSR in Afghanistan.

Who is "our"? -- unfortunately, it would be Western Civilization, with the USA having been the nation that carried the torch to where it was dropped. A nation and civilization that decided as many had before that concerns at home, political battles over a barely growing economic pie, and comfort for the dying embers of a once great land are more important than exploration, advancement, innovation, competition -- and yes, challenge, sacrifice, and the never certain quest for glory.

So, in the spirit of Jimmy Carter, rather than reaching for the stars, we seek to make less bother of ourselves to the planet. A quiet future, attempting to bother no one, potentially even finding jobs for wayward Jihadis as a sop to those less educated on the proper role for man to play in this universe.

"Live Long and Prosper" -- we shall do neither, as we have lost the life spirit that enables the best in humanity and have traded it for the insanely regressive.  Perhaps, to paraphrase the Klingon, Spock picked a good time to die!

'via Blog this'

Churchill and Netanyahu Address Congress

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/netanyahu-s-moment_867715.html?page=1

Netanyahu will speak before Congress tomorrow -- an event that has some parallel to Churchill's Dec 1941 speech to Congress in that Israel is in the front lines against the forces of Islamic tyranny, surrounded by nations that hate both her and the US. The fail to recognize Israel as a state at all, and often refer to the US as "The Great Satan", for example as quoted in this article covering the use of a sea launched missile against a simulated US aircraft carrier in an exercise.

"The new weapon will have a very decisive role in adding our naval power in confronting threats, particular by the Great Satan, the US,"Admiral Ali Fadavi, Iran’s navy chief, told the Revolutionary Guards' website.

The speech is differed in that as Winston appeared less than a month after Pearl Harbor, and the American public had finally woken up to the danger they were facing from the Axis -- BO and most of the American public today are still in the appeasement phase. One of Churchill's lines in the speech was "the US has released the sword of freedom and cast away the scabbard" ... along with "What kind of people do they think we are?"
Sadly, today, the kind of people we are is in much more doubt than it was in '41 -- but I suspect that the forces of Islam, China, Putin and the left in the US will continue to help us determine that question.

President Obama has not, and will not, release any swords, nor certainly cast away any scabbard. Though Netanyahu will of course focus, as he should, on the details of a possible Iran agreement—the speech will be a moment that points beyond the particulars of an Iran deal. It will be a moment that could cause us to reflect on what kind of people we are, and, with new leadership, what kind of deeds we might once again be capable of

As it will be a moment of vindication for Zionism, the cause to which he and his family have dedicated their lives. In past episodes of Jews’ being consigned by the world to their fate, they were powerless to fight. And so the world (and not a few Jews) became accustomed to Jews’ playing the role of victim. On March 3, something remarkable and historic will happen. The prime minister of Israel, speaking on behalf of not only his country and millions of Jews, but on behalf of the West itself, will command the world’s attention as he declares his refusal to appease the enemies of Israel and the West. Both Jabotinsky and Churchill, both Ben-Gurion and Truman, would appreciate the moment.

'via Blog this'

The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk

Link to book on Amazon

I gave a little preview of this book that I re-started on back in November, and I have now finished my 3rd reading of this heavily tabbed and marked work which I first read in 2005. The book was first published in 1953 -- so it is three years my senior.

I pulled these quotes from page 470, but not in order -- I'm bad with the little [...] and such and I think they hold together pretty well anyway.  

When faith in a transcendent moral order, duty to family, hope of advancement, and satisfaction with one's task have vanished from the routine of life, Big Brother appears to show the donkey the stick instead of the carrot.

There are many in all parties who look forward to time when virtually the whole of the population will be dependent on the State for the whole of the amenities of life.  

But moral systems are not constructed readily by social engineers. The old religious and ethical imperatives demolished, compulsion must take their place if the great wheel of circulation is to be kept turning. When the inner order of the soul is decayed, the outer order of the State must be maintained by merciless severity, extending even to the most private relationships.  

If Democracy cannot be persuaded, then Democracy must be intimidated. 

Or as TS Eliot put it; "If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin". I would add, Satan.

There is no way to capture the scope of this book -- the highlights of conservative thought from Burke to Eliot (as in TS), but that isn't the half of it. The various authors harken back to Greece, the Bible, Natural Law, British History and much more. The names from history flow like a wide and very deep river of genius -- Acton, Adams, Babbitt, Balfour, Coleridge, Disraeli ... and I'm only selecting a starting few from an already selective bibliography!

Conservatism is rich in history of both fact and thought because conservatives believe in the importance of history. They deny that the last instant is a privileged position to observe what is of ultimate import for man, mankind, families, communities, nations or other associations that are the essence of truly human life -- all often atomized by the oppressive Benthamite Statism we exist under today. Conservatives look for historical, even transcendent perspective, searching for principle and the hope of providence.

They deny that man is the measure of all, but oh, what men of what great measure have we been blessed to have seen rise up to contain the horrors of the French Revolution, Fascism, Communism and the ongoing onslaught of  increasingly godless, centralized,  and intrusive Statist power.

The thought upon which Britain and the US rose to our previous heights was conservative thought. Will our civilization hold out against the destructive envy of the masses, the machinations of the "sophists and calculators", those that would destroy all that transcends day to day existence and thus make our lives no more than those of the "flies of summer"? (Burke)

THAT is the ultimate earthly social question, the eternal one is like unto it -- Will you sell all you own (give up the idea of this is MY LIFE), and follow Christ!

That question is never securely settled, and has Reagan so correctly put it, the potential loss of all is never more than one generation away!