Ph: 36159673
skip to main | skip to sidebar

Who Hates America?

Conservatives have won in London! This is the latest in a long long of similar victories in elections around the world. This is another reminder that "the World" doesn't hate America; the Left does. Everything that is good for America is bad for the Left: if the war in Iraq goes well it's bad for the Left, if the economy rebounds it's bad for the Left, if crime, education, you name it, improves, then the Left has nothing to run on.

Here is an article that Prager wrote in November 2007 that details some of this pro-America trend we are seeing in the "World", contrary to what the Left is trying desperately to convince us of. In part,

"...Take Western Europe, which is widely regarded as holding America in contempt, but upon examination only validates our thesis. The French, for example, are regarded as particularly America-hating, but if this were so, how does one explain the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France? Sarkozy loves America and was known to love America when he ran for president. Evidently, it is the left in France -- a left that, like the left in America, dominates the media, arts, universities and unions -- that hates the U.S., not the French.

The same holds true for Spain, Australia, Britain, Latin America and elsewhere. The left in these countries hate the United States while non-leftists, and especially conservatives, in those countries hold America in high regard, if not actually love it.

Take Spain. The prime minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, is a conservative who holds America in the highest regard. He was elected twice, and polls in Spain up to the week before the 2004 election all predicted a third term for Aznar's party (Aznar had promised not to run for a third term). Only the Madrid subway bombings, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists three days before the elections, but which the Aznar government erroneously blamed on Basque separatists, turned the election against the conservative party.

...

Given that it is the left and the institutions it dominates -- universities, media (other than talk radio in America) and unions -- that hate America, two questions remain: Why does the left hate America, and does the American left, too, hate America?

The answer to the first question is that America and especially the most hated parts of America -- conservatives, religious conservatives in particular -- are the greatest obstacles to leftist dominance. American success refutes the socialist ideals of the left; American use of force to vanquish evil refutes the left's pacifist tendencies; America is the last great country that believes in putting some murderers to death, something that is anathema to the left; when America is governed by conservatives, it uses the language of good and evil, language regarded by the left as "Manichean"; most Americans still believe in the Judeo-Christian value system, another target of the left because the left regards all religions as equally valid (or more to the point, equally foolish and dangerous) and regards God-based morality as the moral equivalent of alchemy.

It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America."

Auction Your Soul?

Well, so it seems someone did that a while ago in order to give someone the chance to send him to a church of their choice. Here's the scoop:
"Mehta, an atheist, once held an unusual auction on eBay: the highest bidder could send Mehta to a church of his or her choice. The winner, who paid $504, asked Mehta to attend numerous churches, and this book comprises Mehta's responses to 15 worshipping communities, including such prominent megachurches as Houston's Second Baptist, Ted Haggard's New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and Willow Creek in suburban Chicago. (Mehta ranks Willow Creek as the church most likely to draw him back.) Mehta, who grew up Jain, offers some autobiographical context, then discusses nonreligious people's approach to topics such as death and suffering. But all that is just a preamble to Mehta's sketches of the churches he attended. He doesn't find much community in churches; families sit far apart from other families, and people race "out the front doors to their cars" as soon as the service ends. Churches earn high marks for Mehta when they offer great speakers and focus on community outreach, but they also do many things wrong, including singing repetitive songs and alienating non-Christians by ubiquitously proclaiming them to be "lost." Mehta's musings will interest Christians who seek to proselytize others and who want to identify their evangelistic mistakes."
This is a very interesting "social experiment", but I have one foundational error to suggest. I suppose the reason that Willow Creek got a good review and other churches didn't is because their reason for being is different. Willow was designed specifically for the unbeliever. However, that would be the foundational error I would point to. Nowhere in Scripture is the church described or designed to function as an "outreach center". The church is for believers and their instruction and edification. Non-believers were "won", or converted, outside the church and then brought into the church as a believer. The "culture" of the church is not intended to transcend a non-Christian culture. It is not supposed to be a hang-out, a social club, or a civic center. There may be activities that resemble these functions at times. But this is the byproduct, not the product.

So whatever an atheist sees as "evangelistic mistakes" may simply be the necessary distinction of a Christian community that must be translated for a non-Christian, especially as it relates to the theology behind worship (which is not just a concert), and many other aspects of what happens in a corporate setting.

Very interesting, but way off the mark, in my opinion.

Faith in a Time of Grief

While I was listening to the sermon this morning in church, I was doing some cross referencing, as usual, and came across an undated note I had written in my bible. The note was connected to John 12:3 "Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair." Later, in verse 7, Jesus rebukes the disciples (primarily Judas) for criticizing this act of worship, by saying, "Leave her alone. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial."

The note I wrote in the margin simply asked, "Why hadn't Mary used this for Lazarus' burial?" This event, after all, followed Lazarus' death and resurrection by Jesus. A proper funeral custom would be to use perfumes to cover a dead body to ward off the natural odors of death and to help preserve the body for the funeral event. This is what Joseph and Nicodemus did for Jesus when they took his body down from the cross and placed it in the tomb, "in accordance with Jewish burial customs" (John 19:39,40).

When Mary anointed Jesus' feet, she was doing this at a dinner held in his honor at Lazarus' home. But the question still intrigues me: Why did Mary save back some of this perfume when her brother died? Why did she not use it all just a week prior?

As a parenthetical comment, I was listening to Ravi Zacharius explain the meaning of suffering from a Christian world view in a podcast this week. At one point he explained that this issue can be addressed from an intellectual position, and from an emotional position. Having just lost a child, a parent is not looking for a theological treatise on suffering and the ways of God. Rather, they are needing an immediate emotional sense of hope, peace, trust, etc. Interestingly, when Lazarus died, Jesus engages both sisters in different ways: Martha got the doctrinal confirmation and Mary received the empathetic comfort (See John 11:17ff).

Well, I can only gather that even in Mary's grief, she was still confident in the identity of Jesus and the activity of God in her life. She did not lose hope in Christ, even in her own grief. There was a reserve that she kept. There was a portion of her treasure that was meant for Christ alone, no matter how much current loss she felt.

It is possible to get lost in our grief. It is even understandable to sense that the world has come crashing down when a spouse of 30 or 40 years passes away or a child is taken "before its time". But Mary demonstrated a faith that refused to abandon all hope in Christ or his resurrection, even with the disappointment that Jesus did not answer her "prayers" to come and help when her brother was sick! After all, Jesus may not want to heal the sick as much as he wants to raise the dead. And so in her grief, completely normal and human and real, she held back a portion of her perfume to anoint Jesus for his burial. In her loss, she looked ahead to another loss - Christ's death and burial! She demonstrated a conviction that this current loss would not be the end of the story, whether good or bad. There was more life (with all its give and take) ahead.

This doesn't explain it all, but it does open a window into the reality of our grief and of our faith, that can be sufficient in great loss. There is always something after. There is something more to come. This is not the end. Faith says to those in grief, there is a way out and you will make it through.

Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer

I heard an interview by Dennis Prager of Roy Spencer, the former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA and author of "Climate Confusion". Spencer has also been interviewed by Rush Limbaugh as well. Here is Spencer's own website, which is really a primary source for all things Global Warming. Interestingly, he even questions the premise that CO2 is bad, and suggests that the Earth may be starving from a lack of CO2, which is a life-growing ingredient. I mentioned this premise in a previous post as well.

Referring to the claim that a majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is man-made, Spencer pointed to the only study that comes close, a German study that asked @500 scientists in 27 countries, with 56% agreeing with the claim and 30% disagreeing. I suppose in an election for political office, all you need is a basic majority (like 56%), but that doesn't sound as convincing when we are talking about dooms-day scenarios from scientists.

On a related note, here's just one case to prove that polar bears are NOT dying off due to global warming, but rather their populations are increasing, contrary to what some would have us believe.

Obama's "Adolescent Grandiosity"

Mark Steyn has an amazing assessment of the Obama situation here, especially as it relates to his "Philadelphia speech" on racial issues and his pastor's newest comments. In part, he explains,
"...The gaseous platitudes of hope and change and unity no longer seem to fit the choices of Obama’s adult life. Oddly enough, the shrewdest appraisal of the Senator’s speechifying “magic” came from Jeremiah Wright himself. “He’s a politician,” said the Reverend. “He says what he has to say as a politician… He does what politicians do.”

The notion that the Amazing Obama might be just another politician doing what politicians do seems to have affronted the senator more than any of the stuff about America being no different from al-Qaeda and the government inventing AIDs to kill black people. In his belated “disowning” of Wright, Obama said, “What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that — that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the — the commonality in all people.”

Funny how tinny and generic the sonorous uplift rings when it’s suddenly juxtaposed against something real and messy and human....

NO Soliciting

So that's how they play?!!

Rove's Advice to Obama

Here is an amazing article written by Carl Rove (yes, that one) to Obama giving him 6 things he can do to really improve his campaign (and chances at winning the election). Shocking, but all the more credible and valuable. It reveals the grand weaknesses of Obama's campaign that many of his political enemies have fixated on, but also given him something tangible to do from someone who knows how to win elections. Kudos to Carl!

Quotes

I'm trying to find out more about Thomas Sowell since I've been reading one of his books, and my friend Jeremy has also been plowing through several himself. This many has honestly captured my thoughts. Well I found this site and stumbled onto a page of his favorite quotes. Here are a few that I found particularly poignant:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. --Paul Johnson Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! --Frederick Douglass Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis Alas, how many have been persecuted for the wrong of having been right? --Jean-Baptiste Say

"Good Times..." from a friend

Here is a great post from my friend Jeremy. I can relate to every word and thought you might get some insight into my world by reading about his. Made me laugh.

The Wright Context

I haven't really done much with this story since it seems to be getting so much attention, but thought it fit into one of my labels well. "Context is everything, right?" Well, that's what people are using as a defense for Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They say the youtube videos are soundbites taken out of context. So what IS the context?

Well,
here it is. My first reaction was, "How can this church say they're talking about "religious" things and not "political" things? This is as political as you can get without having a particular candidate stand up and say "vote for me" on Sunday.

Additionally, this makes all those claiming the "context" card look all the more foolish. There is nothing inconsistent with the soundbite and the context! The whole sermon is pretty much, "We hate America and it's corrupt government because...." Well, now you have the context.

Feed People Before Feeding Cars

Here's a great article from Hot Air that addresses the growing concern over biofuels and the soaring costs of food over the last year. In part:

"Every fill of the tank with ethanol uses the same amount of corn a child would eat in a year, and let’s not even talk about the amount of potable water used to grow the corn in the first place. Given the above, which is the better use of the corn?

If we produce ethanol from waste — such as with switchgrass, which shows promise — then no ethical problem would exist, although certainly the efficiency issues would remain. Until then, we should end the push to turn food into fuel, driven by the global-climate-change hysteria and pandering to the agricultural sector. Feed people ahead of cars. Is that really such a difficult concept?"

searchme.com

Here is a really neat website search engine that shows you the screen of the results, like an iTunes album cover menu. You have to check it out.

Divest Terror . org

Here is an amazing website for those of you who have investments in stocks and mutual funds. It identifies which major American companies do business with terror-sponsoring states and other affiliations. According to the website, the premise for what they are promoting is as follows:

"The economies of terrorist-sponsoring states are almost entirely dependent on the revenues, expertise and advanced equipment and technology provided by global publicly traded companies in which millions of Americans own stock. Accordingly, a basic premise of DivestTerror.org is that some, if not all, of these governments would likely choose to end their support for terrorism before suffering an economic collapse catalyzed by the withdrawal of these public companies.

Such was the experience in an earlier application of financial leverage -- the South African divestment campaign. Pressed by the withdrawal of public companies whose share value and reputations were under withering attack by anti-apartheid activists, the government in Cape Town ultimately abandoned its racist policies and surrendered power."

Celtic Thunder

I saw a commercial for this group tonight and had to youtube them. They have an amazing sound if you like men's harmonies and Irish music. Here is a solo song by Keith Harkin. You can check out their website here. Enjoy the beautiful melodies.

This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.



Mountains of Mourne
Oh Mary this London's a wonderful sight
With people here workin' by day and by night
They don't sow potatoes, nor barley, nor wheat
But there's gangs of them diggin' for gold in the street
At least when I asked them that's what I was told
So I just took a hand at this diggin' for gold
But for all that I found there I might as well be
In the place where the dark Mourne sweep down to the sea.
There's beautiful girls here, Oh never you mind
Beautiful shapes nature never designed
lovely complexions of roses and cream
But let me remark with regard to the same
That if at that those roses you venture to sip
The colours might all come away on your lips
So I'll wait for the wild rose that's waitin' for me
In the place where the dark Mourne sweep down to the sea.
You remember young Davey Mc Clarin of course
Well sure, now, he's round here with the rest of the force
I saw him one day as I was crossin’ the strand
And he stopped the whole street with a wave of his hand
And as we stood talkin’ of days that are gone
The whole town of London stood there to look on
But for all his great powers he's wishful like me
To be back where the dark Mourne sweep down to the sea
But for all his great powers he's wishful like me
To be back where the dark Mourne sweep down to the sea

I Used to be a Democrat, or Fighting Evil or Environmental Hazards


You can find other stories like Prager's here.

UPDATE:
Prager actually posted a more comprehensive response to this week's TIME magazine cover, which broadens the point he made in the above ad. Among other things, Prager explains:

"It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.

The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.

Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation."

Today's Worst Person in the World...

...Keith Olbermann for his stunning hypocrasy.

After lampooning Hugh Hewitt for criticizing Obama as a "Harvard Law graduate", but not mentioning Hewitt had actually gone to Harvard (undergraduate) himself, Olberman made Hewitt the worst person in the world on his nightly segment.

Well, now someone has done some research to illustrate the stunning eggs that Keith has.
Can't believe the liberal media is so blind to their own biases (or just outright flaunting them).

Complexity that Confirms Truth

I've posted other verses of Scripture that seem to contradict each other previously, but recently thought of these two. Paul states in Col 2:23, " Such regulations ["Do not touch, taste, or eat..."] indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." Yet, in 1 Cor 9:27 he explains, " No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

Again, I won't explain the verses, but you should be able to read each in context and get the point, as well as discern how to integrate both of them.

What I did want to say is whenever I find verses like this, my initial reaction is: "Amazing! The wisdom of God is profound, multi-layered, and applicable to multiple areas of life. His Word is not some simplistic "how-to" book of self-help or effective human living. There is depth to truth. This complexity validates the Bible in my eyes.

A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell, Part 1

I am in the middle of the mental quicksand of Thomas Sowell's book “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.” I am working diligently to understand what is being presented, but often feel that I am sinking into paralysis more than gaining solid ground of understanding, thus the “quicksand” reference. So here is my attempt to sift, organize, and summarize the basic premise of the first half of his book.

Sowell explains that his work is intended to explain the apparent random, yet consistent juxtaposition of common opponents in political debates. Whether on issues as diverse as taxes, war, abortion, or the environment, why is it that the same people always line up on the same, opposing sides of the debate? There must be some underlying principles/world view that govern how these issues are translated, or understood. So what are those world views?

Sowell presents the two most common perspectives (“visions”) of the world that are consistently opposed to each other: the “Constrained” vision and the “Unconstrained” vision. “A vision is our sense of how the world works” (4). The primary distinction at the heart of social visions (visions that effect society, which include government, social welfare, and even international politics, etc) centers around ones understanding of the nature of man (9). So, here is a summary of the two visions of mankind:

The Constrained Vision of Human Nature (CV)
Quoting Adam Smith, a philosopher from the mid-1700's: “Nature, it seems, when she loaded us with our own sorrows, thought that they were enough, and therefore did not command us to take any further share in those of others, than what was necessary to prompt us to relieve them.” Sowell explains, “The moral limitations of man in general, and his egocentricity in particular, were neither lamented by Smith nor regarded as things to be changed. They were treated as inherent facts of life, the basic constraint in his vision. The fundamental moral and social challenge was to make the best of the possibilities which existed within that constraint, rather than dissipate energies in an attempt to change human nature...” (12). “One of the hallmarks of the constrained vision is that it deals in trade-offs rather than solutions” (14). This is not to be taken as simply applying a moral band-aid to a mortal wound, but rather acknowledging the wound is irreparable, and therefore finding a “trade-off” to mitigate it in order to accomplish beneficial social ends. So, “man could be persuaded to do for his own self-image or inner needs what he would not do for the good of his fellow man” through such artificial devices as moral principles, and concepts of honor and nobility, etc. Ultimately, the good of society can be advanced by provoking man's intrinsic self-interest and preservation.

The Unconstrained Vision of Human Nature (UV)
According to this view, and the late-1700's thinker William Godwin, “The real solution toward which efforts should be bent was to have people do what is right because it is right, not because of [mental] or economic payments—that is, not because someone 'has annexed to it a great weight of self-interest'.... The real goal was the long-run development of a higher sense of social duty.... The 'hope of reward' and 'fear of punishment' were...'wrong in themselves' and 'inimical to the improvement of the mind.' ” (16,17). Sowell explains, “Implicit in the unconstrained vision is the notion that the potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason.... Man is, in short, 'perfectible'...(18). And thus, “A solution is achieved when it is no longer necessary to make a trade-off, even if the development of that solution entailed costs now past” (19).

So now comes the comparisons.

“The great evils of the world—war, poverty, and crime, for example—are seen in completely different terms by those with the [CV] and the [UV]. If human options are not inherently constrained, then the presence of such repugnant and disastrous phenomena virtually cries out for explanation—and for solutions. But if the limitations and passions of man himself are at the heart of these painful phenomena, then what requires explanation are the ways in which they have been avoided or minimized. While believers in the [UV] seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime, believers in the [CV] seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or law-abiding society. In the [UV], there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefor no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment. But in the [CV], whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by these civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off”(24,25).

“The dichotomy between [CV] and [UV] is based on whether or not inherent limitations of man are among the key elements included in the vision. The dichotomy is justified in yet another sense. These different ways of conceiving man and the world lead not merely to different conclusions but to sharply divergent, often diametrically opposed, conclusions on issues ranging from justice to war. There are not merely differences of visions but conflict of visions” (34,35).

To be continued...

Silence in the Face of Evil

Here is an amazing article on the significance of just showing up. Senator Obama voted "Present" over 130 times while in Illinois to avoid taking a stand on issues. Now that he is in the US Senate, where "Present" is not an option, he has missed almost 40% of the votes! That means the guy only has shown up for 60% of the time. Imagine how you would get along at a job where you were present only 60%!

The article is even more articulate regarding the actual substance of the matter. PLEASE read it.

Easy Pancakes!

I discovered this from a friend and eventually bought it to check it out. It's just like whipcream in a can. Spray and cook. You can make one or 20 and then stick it back in the fridge until you want more. There's no mess to clean up and no mixing of anything. This is a huge discovery for a bachelor. Here's the website if you want to learn more. You can find it by the eggs in your local grocery store. How much easier can it be? I highly recommend it.
 


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser