In my last post I was pretty hard on both the Republican, and the Democratic parties, and I feel rightly so. But there are others that I feel are complicit in this whole mess of a comparatively frozen job market, and excessively endless process of unemployment benefits. The narrow-minded politicians that pollute the halls of Congress with their demagogic tirades promoting either the Democrats' socialist values, or the Republicans' big business profit-stimulating tax breaks are equally guilty of callously destroying the middle-class capacity to survive in a truly robust economy. But they have had lots of help along the way. Culture-crushing greed is not confined to Congress, it is just more obvious there, because our representatives foolishly believe that their Constitutionally mandated terms protect them from responsibility for their greedy, self-serving actions. They feel that they merely have to promote popular legislation every two years, for Representatives, and every six years for Senators to protect them from the consequences of their destructive demagogic legislation the rest of the time. They are foolishly wrong, as there is definitely a God who is keeping score, and will one day settle accounts with those who do not repent.
However, in reading over the text of Matthew 20, today, I was struck by the multiple ways in which God ( through Jesus, in this case) frequently ties messages together to give valuable lessons on different levels. He frequently gives messages that relate to us not only on spiritual levels, but frequently on physical, or mental, and emotional levels as well. But sometimes the spiritual message is so important that we can easily miss the other levels, if we are not careful. Such is the case with Matthew 20, I believe.
Here Jesus recounts His parable of the owner of a vineyard who goes out early in the morning to hire his day-laborers, agreeing with them all for a wage of a penny ( which in that day was considered a fair wage for a day's labor). Later he goes out again at 9:00, 12:00, and 3:00 and finds other men who haven't yet been hired, so he hires them at the same daily wage. He does the same at 5:00, even though the work-day is apparently over at 6:00 pm. The men who were hired first are outraged when they discover that those who were hired last will receive the full wage that they themselves agreed to. They seem to feel that they should be paid more, if he wants to pay the others a day's wage, since they worked longer. He refuses, without much explanation, but I think I know what his thinking is all about, on a material level that can be applied to modern-day business practices. Ignoring the complex spiritual issues here, there are practical business issues that seem to be ignored in commerce today.
First, we must realize that the main consideration of the owner of the vineyard was getting his grapes picked as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to maximize his potential profits. Obviously, the more hands he had doing the job, the faster the job would get done. But there is a spiritual issue here that is frequently ignored, even by business people who see it carried out all the time. That is the exponential increase in the amount of labor that can be produced by additional employees, if we theoretically presume that each laborer is capable of producing at exactly the same rate, individually. The miracle here is that we assume that ten laborers, of theoretically equal production capacity would obviously produce ten times the amount of production as one. Then twenty such laborers should produce twenty times the amount of production, right? The same rate applies for thirty, forty, and fifty laborers, etc. But that just isn't so.
Adam Smith, who is generally considered to be the "founder" of "modern" economics, even though he lived in the 18th century, concluded after studying the labor practices of workers at a pencil factory of his day that more laborers produced more products than a mere multiplication of there number's labor. In other words, ten extra laborers would produce more than ten times the products. And twenty extra laborers would produce more than twice the amount that the ten extra laborers could produce. There seemed to be a miraculous exponential increase in the EXTRA PRODUCTION of each additional laborer, above and beyond the expected multiplied effect of his individual capacity. And the more additional laborers, the greater INCREASE in that extra production. It increased exponentially, not by simple multiplication. Adam Smith, who apparently was not afraid to express his Christian values in the discussion of economic principles ( as many seem to be today) referred to this phenomenon as, "The Invisible Hand of God". Apparently, Jesus was saying that this owner of the vineyard was fully aware of this miraculous principle, and therefore it was worth the cost of hiring extra labor, even at the late hour. He felt that the potential profits would more than cover the apparently wasteful expense. The reason he agreed to pay a full day's wages to the last hires was apparently because they would not be interested in working for one hour's equivalent of that wage. They needed a full day's wage just to meet their daily expenses, or they wouldn't be available to work in the future. Starvation has a winnowing effect upon any labor force.
The moral I'm trying to apply to today's business practices from this is that big business should stop lobbying Congress for legislation that allows them to offer lower wages at reduced hours, and at the same time lobby for reduction of unemployment benefits to force an increase in the available labor force, by making many people desperate for any employment ( just to survive), that will only be available for a comparative few, at wages that won't meet their minimum daily needs. Yes, applying Chinese slave-labor employment practices will profit them initially, but sooner, or later some competitor will discover that paying a wage that their employees can survive on will greatly increase their company's individual labor market, at the expense of their competitor's. Then their increased production will bring increased profits, and eventually increased market share. The moral approach is to extend reasonable benefits long enough for businesses to get so desperate for help that they will be willing to pay a wage that people can survive upon. I'm not talking about those idiot labor unions who think McDonalds employees should get $15.00 per hour, as "minimum wages". There needs to be a reasonable balance between what the employees need and what the employers can pay. That balance will be discovered when employers get off their greedy little behinds, and take a risk by raising the wages they're offering to the point that those invisible job-seekers start crawling out of the woodwork. Then they can experience the miracle of exponential increase in productivity that will more than pay for the increase in salaries. But cutting the unemployment benefits prematurely eliminates the incentive for businesses to offer decent salaries, without giving employees the wages they need to survive. If only Congress could be made to understand this.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Evangelical Conservative; Or why I Won't Register Republican
I can't help feeling a bit traitorous to, "the cause" ( as if politics could be monolithically categorized as such), but the whole debate in Congress over extending unemployment benefits, or not, makes me politically want to puke. These idiots who presume to represent us are so short-sighted that they seem to feel the issue boils down to the morality of spending more money inefficiently, or not. Can there really be such an absence of compassion, tempered by reasonable understanding congregating in one building anywhere else in the country, if not the entire world? Guess what, you jack-asses? All government spending is by it's very nature wasteful, and inefficient ( DUH!!!). That's what government is reluctantly established to decide when, and where, and if it should be spent; and if so, then how much to spend without interfering with the more efficient Free Market principles that stimulate maximum employment. The only thing government does well is performing necessary tasks that are too big, or too expensive for the free market to do profitably. The down side of this is the consequential wasteful spending, and corruption that government spending produces. That will unfortunately be the case until Jesus returns to thankfully save us from our own corrupt natures. The trouble is when we have knee-jerk Republicans trying to reign in the wasteful spending of knee-jerk Democrats, when the only apparent consideration is whether or not they can earn any political "browny-points" for their cause, then they risk creating chaos in the market that is greater than the alternative.
If this economy were as robust as Wall Street analysts would have us believe ( bearing in mind that these "analysts" are paid to tell us only the part of the truth that makes us want to invest), or if it were rebounding due to the natural stimuli of supply and demand then I would not find fault with the Republican effort to let expire whole segments of the unemployment compensation benefits that have been necessary for the past five years, or so. It's surely true that there must be many healthy, able-bodied former workers who prefer to exploit the benefits opportunity, rather than take the effort to look for profitable employment for which they are easily qualified. But there are just as surely many people who are unable to find work that they can qualify for that will pay them a livable wage, in an era when Congressional edict has made it more profitable for businesses to scale back on both wages, and full-time hours to offer their employees. Obamacare is just another example of legally punishing businesses for having too many full-time jobs, and encouraging them to turn them into multiple part-time jobs. This makes the knee-jerk-liberal Democrats feel good because they have "created more jobs". Yeah, but at the expense of eliminating full-time jobs. Now you have twice as many employees willing to work who can't earn enough on one job to pay the bills for themselves, let alone their families. So, they have two logical choices: 1) work multiple part-time jobs, if they can find them. And this increases the transportation costs, and lost time in commuting from one job, to another. Or, 2) continue to receive unemployment benefits, which barely cover expenses, until the economy really rebounds sufficiently to offer employment that will pay for their financial needs. Another consideration is that those benefits are calculated by 50% of their last full-time salary, or wage. If they were last paid an inflated wage before the deflationary effects of the recession, then a new job may not pay as much as the old one, even if it pays more than the unemployment benefits do now. So, if the risk of being laid off of the new job is considerable, they would face future benefits that were less than they receive now, which might not be a survivable income. Concern for their families survival certainly takes precedent over the moral issue of whether their drawing benefits is perceived as idleness, or laziness by some pompous Congressman who draws a fat government salary, and foolishly believes that he deserves every penny of it.
This economy is made "out of whole cloth", or is constructed out of "chewing gum and baling wire", or whatever flimsy euphemism one cares to apply. We are in an excessive inflationary economy, built upon the paper stimulus of the Federal Reserve, and trending dangerously close to a runaway Hyperinflationary economic disaster of absolutely historic proportions. The only reason we don't feel the horrible effects of it yet is because we have been inflating our currency since 2007 to keep from sliding into the Deflationary Depression that we were naturally entering after more than 75 years of profligate governmental inflationary spending. If the economy is really recovering from the worst recession in history ( at the very least), then the job market will have to improve considerably in order to tempt workers off the unemployment benefits line (which amounts to subsistence living) by offering employment which will meet their financial needs as well as the ability to actually save money. When that happens there will be a flood of able bodied workers fighting over the available jobs. That's the time when Republicans should talk about reducing the money for benefits, not before. To foolishly think that kicking people off of the benefits roster will necessarily create a better job market, out of employee desperation, is as stupid as the Democrats' belief that all problems just naturally go away by throwing tons of money at them. But in this case the gross lack of compassion on the Republicans' part for the people who will not be able to survive without living "on the streets" is so insensitive that it boggles the mind. This will have the effect of creating more die-hard Democratic voters for years, if not permanently. What kind of party idiots are running the show here? How many people have to freeze to death in the winter, or beg for food on the streets, just to give big business a little bigger work force to hire from, without the concern for paying a livable wage? Rather, if the economy is genuinely rebounding, restoring the unemployment benefit for a while longer will create the "greed-stimulus" for those companies that are desperate to take advantage of increasingly ripe opportunities to produce profits that they will gladly create better paying job opportunities which will naturally attract the workers they need. Have you Republican Congressman forgotten the overwhelming efficiency of the law of supply and demand? The only way it doesn't work is when impatient Congressmen try to artificially create either the supply, or the demand with their bone-headed meddling in the natural economic trends.
This is why I can't bring myself to register as a Republican. I see too little difference between the bone-headed meddling from Democrats, who want to throw enormous amounts of wasteful tax money at whatever current issue is deemed popular at the moment; and the big business, butt-kissing Republicans who want to stop the wasteful spending on programs that actually help desperate people in times of comparative emergency. Don't cancel programs prematurely just because the spending is wasteful. DUH!!! All government spending is wasteful, especially Defense spending! But Defense spending serves a very necessary purpose, even if Democrats prefer to pretend that it doesn't. I don't think Republicans want to cut spending on Defense, even though it is the most outrageously wasteful part of government spending. But it is wasteful spending that profits corrupt businesses, which in turn kick back money to the Republicans who protect their programs, so they can fund their re-election campaigns. This is reprehensible to me, but the alternative is worse, if the Democrats get their greedy little fingers into massive disarmament legislation. We nearly lost World War Two because of the pre-war disarmament policies of the 1930's. ( Back then, Congress thought money for more Army Cavalry units meant purchasing more horses, rather than building new Tanks.) But for the Republicans to callously end unemployment benefits before the economy creates sufficient jobs with livable wages, is not only immoral to me, but it stupidly enhances the roles of die-hard Democratic voters. What kind of moronic, self-serving, short-term thinking is this, anyway?
Now you know why I feel the only recourse I have is to say, "a pox on both your houses", and stay reluctantly registered as an Independent. When the Republican party can figure out how to balance a reasonable degree of compassion for Americans, even if they might vote Democrat, with their self-serving needs to support big business, then perhaps I'll consider registering as a Republican. I'd be too ashamed to do so now, even if I must vote Republican, for lack of a better alternative. Chris Christy for President in 2016,...yuck, what a horrible thought!!! How many more John McCain, and Mitt Romney clones do we have to reluctantly support for lack of an alternative, rather than deal with another Obama clone, like Hillary, or John Kerry??? While the Lord tarries, it almost makes one wish for the second coming of Ronald Reagan!!!
UPDATE; -- 4/25/2018;
All right, I admit my humiliating hypocrisy!!! I still feel the same as I've written above, but I have swallowed my pride, and registered as a Republican, in spite of my feelings.
I was surprised to find out that if a candidate claimed something in the primary that only registered party members were allowed to vote, in those primaries. This happened. locally, in the 2016 election, and I was unable to vote for a friend of mine, as were others, including Democrats, who were also personal friends of his. (I know, it's hard to believe, but some Republicans can actually have Democratic friends!!!)
So, I have been forced to swallow my pride, and join a party that combines sincere, concerned, people (including many "Born-Again" Christians), with people of varying degrees of sincerity, along with people whose values vary little from the self-serving liberals who are dragging this country down! (May God have mercy on my soul!!!)
If this economy were as robust as Wall Street analysts would have us believe ( bearing in mind that these "analysts" are paid to tell us only the part of the truth that makes us want to invest), or if it were rebounding due to the natural stimuli of supply and demand then I would not find fault with the Republican effort to let expire whole segments of the unemployment compensation benefits that have been necessary for the past five years, or so. It's surely true that there must be many healthy, able-bodied former workers who prefer to exploit the benefits opportunity, rather than take the effort to look for profitable employment for which they are easily qualified. But there are just as surely many people who are unable to find work that they can qualify for that will pay them a livable wage, in an era when Congressional edict has made it more profitable for businesses to scale back on both wages, and full-time hours to offer their employees. Obamacare is just another example of legally punishing businesses for having too many full-time jobs, and encouraging them to turn them into multiple part-time jobs. This makes the knee-jerk-liberal Democrats feel good because they have "created more jobs". Yeah, but at the expense of eliminating full-time jobs. Now you have twice as many employees willing to work who can't earn enough on one job to pay the bills for themselves, let alone their families. So, they have two logical choices: 1) work multiple part-time jobs, if they can find them. And this increases the transportation costs, and lost time in commuting from one job, to another. Or, 2) continue to receive unemployment benefits, which barely cover expenses, until the economy really rebounds sufficiently to offer employment that will pay for their financial needs. Another consideration is that those benefits are calculated by 50% of their last full-time salary, or wage. If they were last paid an inflated wage before the deflationary effects of the recession, then a new job may not pay as much as the old one, even if it pays more than the unemployment benefits do now. So, if the risk of being laid off of the new job is considerable, they would face future benefits that were less than they receive now, which might not be a survivable income. Concern for their families survival certainly takes precedent over the moral issue of whether their drawing benefits is perceived as idleness, or laziness by some pompous Congressman who draws a fat government salary, and foolishly believes that he deserves every penny of it.
This economy is made "out of whole cloth", or is constructed out of "chewing gum and baling wire", or whatever flimsy euphemism one cares to apply. We are in an excessive inflationary economy, built upon the paper stimulus of the Federal Reserve, and trending dangerously close to a runaway Hyperinflationary economic disaster of absolutely historic proportions. The only reason we don't feel the horrible effects of it yet is because we have been inflating our currency since 2007 to keep from sliding into the Deflationary Depression that we were naturally entering after more than 75 years of profligate governmental inflationary spending. If the economy is really recovering from the worst recession in history ( at the very least), then the job market will have to improve considerably in order to tempt workers off the unemployment benefits line (which amounts to subsistence living) by offering employment which will meet their financial needs as well as the ability to actually save money. When that happens there will be a flood of able bodied workers fighting over the available jobs. That's the time when Republicans should talk about reducing the money for benefits, not before. To foolishly think that kicking people off of the benefits roster will necessarily create a better job market, out of employee desperation, is as stupid as the Democrats' belief that all problems just naturally go away by throwing tons of money at them. But in this case the gross lack of compassion on the Republicans' part for the people who will not be able to survive without living "on the streets" is so insensitive that it boggles the mind. This will have the effect of creating more die-hard Democratic voters for years, if not permanently. What kind of party idiots are running the show here? How many people have to freeze to death in the winter, or beg for food on the streets, just to give big business a little bigger work force to hire from, without the concern for paying a livable wage? Rather, if the economy is genuinely rebounding, restoring the unemployment benefit for a while longer will create the "greed-stimulus" for those companies that are desperate to take advantage of increasingly ripe opportunities to produce profits that they will gladly create better paying job opportunities which will naturally attract the workers they need. Have you Republican Congressman forgotten the overwhelming efficiency of the law of supply and demand? The only way it doesn't work is when impatient Congressmen try to artificially create either the supply, or the demand with their bone-headed meddling in the natural economic trends.
This is why I can't bring myself to register as a Republican. I see too little difference between the bone-headed meddling from Democrats, who want to throw enormous amounts of wasteful tax money at whatever current issue is deemed popular at the moment; and the big business, butt-kissing Republicans who want to stop the wasteful spending on programs that actually help desperate people in times of comparative emergency. Don't cancel programs prematurely just because the spending is wasteful. DUH!!! All government spending is wasteful, especially Defense spending! But Defense spending serves a very necessary purpose, even if Democrats prefer to pretend that it doesn't. I don't think Republicans want to cut spending on Defense, even though it is the most outrageously wasteful part of government spending. But it is wasteful spending that profits corrupt businesses, which in turn kick back money to the Republicans who protect their programs, so they can fund their re-election campaigns. This is reprehensible to me, but the alternative is worse, if the Democrats get their greedy little fingers into massive disarmament legislation. We nearly lost World War Two because of the pre-war disarmament policies of the 1930's. ( Back then, Congress thought money for more Army Cavalry units meant purchasing more horses, rather than building new Tanks.) But for the Republicans to callously end unemployment benefits before the economy creates sufficient jobs with livable wages, is not only immoral to me, but it stupidly enhances the roles of die-hard Democratic voters. What kind of moronic, self-serving, short-term thinking is this, anyway?
Now you know why I feel the only recourse I have is to say, "a pox on both your houses", and stay reluctantly registered as an Independent. When the Republican party can figure out how to balance a reasonable degree of compassion for Americans, even if they might vote Democrat, with their self-serving needs to support big business, then perhaps I'll consider registering as a Republican. I'd be too ashamed to do so now, even if I must vote Republican, for lack of a better alternative. Chris Christy for President in 2016,...yuck, what a horrible thought!!! How many more John McCain, and Mitt Romney clones do we have to reluctantly support for lack of an alternative, rather than deal with another Obama clone, like Hillary, or John Kerry??? While the Lord tarries, it almost makes one wish for the second coming of Ronald Reagan!!!
UPDATE; -- 4/25/2018;
All right, I admit my humiliating hypocrisy!!! I still feel the same as I've written above, but I have swallowed my pride, and registered as a Republican, in spite of my feelings.
I was surprised to find out that if a candidate claimed something in the primary that only registered party members were allowed to vote, in those primaries. This happened. locally, in the 2016 election, and I was unable to vote for a friend of mine, as were others, including Democrats, who were also personal friends of his. (I know, it's hard to believe, but some Republicans can actually have Democratic friends!!!)
So, I have been forced to swallow my pride, and join a party that combines sincere, concerned, people (including many "Born-Again" Christians), with people of varying degrees of sincerity, along with people whose values vary little from the self-serving liberals who are dragging this country down! (May God have mercy on my soul!!!)
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Celebrating A Very Cynical Un-Birthday
I wonder who of us care more about Christmas time; devout, Bible-believing Christians, or God-hating, cynical Academics, posing as "experts" in the field of Biblical History? Because they erroneously attach the word "history" to their pompous title, these "experts" seem to give credence to their opinions concerning the credibility of various stories of the Bible that are clearly meant to edify the faith of those who are truly interested in learning the true nature of God, throughout the Old Testament; and the power, and mercy of the salvation of Jesus Christ in the New. It simply boggles the mind to try and understand why anyone on the History Channel, or the Washington Post ( to name only two sources that promote anti-Biblical cynicism, especially at Christmas time) would think that Bible believing Christians would be interested in reading, or listening to some pseudo-intellectual cynic expound on what amounts to their own baseless opinions, wrapped around some somewhat-relevant historical facts that they laboriously try to weave into a reasonably believable argument explaining why the particular account in the Bible must not be accurate. Close examination of their viewpoints invariably reveal that their basis for stating their opinions stand upon nothing firmer that the fact that they simply can't believe the Bible is true!...EXCUSE ME???...Can't the History Channel executives manage to find any Bible Historians in all of Academia that actually believe in the Bible, and use their faith to help them discern between relevant facts that add to our understanding of various biblical stories, and those facts that are obviously irrelevant? There are Bible Colleges, and Seminaries all across the country that have plenty of such qualified Academics, but it seems that expressing opinions that show they believe in the truth of the Bible is a disqualifying attribute, rather than a recommendation for their programs. Of course, the History Channel grabs our interest by titling their shows with names like, "Mysteries of The Bible", when the only "mystery" they leave us with is "where the heck did they get these belligerent cynics" that they audaciously use for the "expert" information?
To date, I have seen several shows that labor fruitlessly to try and convince me that God never parted the Red Sea. These cynics would rather believe that Moses led the Children of Israel due east from the land of Goshen, in Egypt, across a marshy area where a strong northerly wind would dry the mud sufficiently to keep the Isrealite's sandals clean, rather than swallow the Biblical account of God's leading them three days' journey into the desert ( which would necessarily be to the southeast), where He caused the wind to blow strongly enough to cause the waters of the Red Sea to stand up like a wall on both sides as they walked through "dryshod". The whole debate here centers on the fact that these selected "experts" simply choose not to believe the Biblical account, and they wish to trivialize the truth in order to discourage others from believing that which they are unable to accept. Shame on them for expressing their opinions in ways that seem to be irrefutable facts, and shame on the History Channel executives for obviously seeking out these cynical historians who are clearly expressing the History Channel's own collective cynicism, while giving them deniability that they don't deserve. This is obvious by the overwhelming air-time given to those who express their "Bible-debunking" cynical opinions, versus those who expound the Biblical accounts credibly. One must wonder how the History Channel's ratings would fare if they titled their shows more honestly like, "Mysteries Of The Cynical Bufoons", or "Worthless Crap Intended to Confuse The Ignorant"?
To date, I have seen several shows that labor fruitlessly to try and convince me that God never parted the Red Sea. These cynics would rather believe that Moses led the Children of Israel due east from the land of Goshen, in Egypt, across a marshy area where a strong northerly wind would dry the mud sufficiently to keep the Isrealite's sandals clean, rather than swallow the Biblical account of God's leading them three days' journey into the desert ( which would necessarily be to the southeast), where He caused the wind to blow strongly enough to cause the waters of the Red Sea to stand up like a wall on both sides as they walked through "dryshod". The whole debate here centers on the fact that these selected "experts" simply choose not to believe the Biblical account, and they wish to trivialize the truth in order to discourage others from believing that which they are unable to accept. Shame on them for expressing their opinions in ways that seem to be irrefutable facts, and shame on the History Channel executives for obviously seeking out these cynical historians who are clearly expressing the History Channel's own collective cynicism, while giving them deniability that they don't deserve. This is obvious by the overwhelming air-time given to those who express their "Bible-debunking" cynical opinions, versus those who expound the Biblical accounts credibly. One must wonder how the History Channel's ratings would fare if they titled their shows more honestly like, "Mysteries Of The Cynical Bufoons", or "Worthless Crap Intended to Confuse The Ignorant"?
Friday, December 20, 2013
Sodom's Ugly Head Vs. Duck Dynasty
The devil is trying to raise his ugly head above the Church of Jesus Christ, again. This time he wears the mask of that poor "down-trodden persecuted minority", the so-called "gay rights movement", that has been increasingly given more, and more political power and undeserved cultural legitimacy by the incessant media brain-washing of the Left, and the conspiratorial lobbying of their billionaire bullies who fund their perverse aspirations. Now they are taking on the First Amendment to the Constitution; namely the rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and (in a modern era stretch) Freedom of the press. And, oddly enough our Champion of the Hour is every bit as unlikely in appearance as that belligerent young lad who had the audacity to face off against the loud-mouthed Goliath, and give him an eternal headache!
Our unwitting, and unintentional Champion is none other than "Duck Dynasty's" patriarch, Phil Robertson; who is already prepared for the battle that appears to be looming, decked out in what seems to be his "24/7 Camo- P.J.'s". Why, he's so anxious for battle that he even forgot to shave today, or this millennium, for that matter. Or even much of the last, I guess. Anyway, Phil had the audacity to say that homosexuality was a sin, according to the only document that has any righteous credibility to make judgment in that regard, the Bible. He also mentioned that there are many other things listed in the same context as sinful, like adultery, murder, theft, lying, stealing, etc. But none of those sinful preoccupations has any Billionaires lobbying the Media to promote their political interests. There doesn't seem to be a movement for the promotion of "Adulterers United", although having mentioned it, there probably will be some idiot trying to start it up tomorrow. Nor do we hear about the oppressive persecution of serial murderers, who by the same logic should be allowed to practice their quirky little obsessions, so long as "they aren't really hurting anybody". Homosexual lobby groups would have us believe that what they practice behind closed doors is perfectly harmless to the rest of society, and therefore no one else's business. Christianity, and the Bible, counter-argue that the moral perversion they promote does not stay behind closed doors; it's very nature is both exhibitionist, and promiscuous, and has therefore a culturally degrading effect upon their converts, who in turn promote their twisted political values upon society as a whole, eventually leading to the moral collapse of any such culture, as was the case for both the Ancient Greek, and Roman societies ( as
described in, "The Fall Of The Roman Empire".
Now, that bastion of moral integrity known as the Washington Post has weighed in on the matter ( guess which side). They have come down on Fox News for their "ignorance" of the Constitution since the only body restrained from persecuting those exercising their First Amendment rights is the government (and the Congress ,in particular). While they are correct in this point, they show their moral insensitivity, along with their own ignorance of the spirit of the First Amendment by implying that only the letter of the law must be considered, and that beyond that anything else is acceptable. This is typical of Liberal/Socialists' tactics, who are great believers in the principles of lying, or cheating in any way necessary to convince the ignorant to support their cause. But try and turn the tables on them and try to shut them up from their freedom to promote their perverse values and you'll hear a loud crescendo of outraged cries of "violating their rights". You see, Liberals only care about the Constitution when it serves to protect their efforts to destroy it's authority. The average Liberal voter doesn't realize how much the real power-brokers of their Socialist movements actually hate the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Once they could manage to gain absolute political control over the Government, without fear of a significant revolt, they would certainly abolish the Constitution, dismissing it as an old and obsolete document that needed to be brought up to date. Thus the political efforts to abolish the second amendment right to "keep and bear arms". They don't care as much for the slaughter of innocents, by the evil and insane, they are afraid that enough people with guns might revolt against an ultimate Socialist power grab, and they're right! Then they would as certainly create a new document that would guarantee that their Socialist control of the government would be permanent, and that personal freedoms would be inviolable, but only for those who agreed with them. The rest of us would be doomed to the kind of persecution that the Coptic Christians are now suffering in Egypt, at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. There, they endure threats, their Churches are burned, and they are constantly in danger of Muslim riots that can easily turn murderous, without risk of police interference, or arrest. Yes, Liberals truly care about the First Amendment protection of our freedoms, but only as it applies to themselves, and those who agree with them. Keep listening to the Media debate over Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind openly, in condemning homosexuality as a sin, and you will see just how serious the Left is about honoring the spirit of the First Amendment, when it is applied to those who disagree with them. This will serve as a preview of things to come, when that ultimate Socialist Dictator, the Antichrist will apply the same tactics on a world-wide scale in his temporarily successful bid to take over absolute control of his one-world government! Stay tuned!
"Even so, come Lord Jesus and count us worthy to escape the wrath that is to come!"
Our unwitting, and unintentional Champion is none other than "Duck Dynasty's" patriarch, Phil Robertson; who is already prepared for the battle that appears to be looming, decked out in what seems to be his "24/7 Camo- P.J.'s". Why, he's so anxious for battle that he even forgot to shave today, or this millennium, for that matter. Or even much of the last, I guess. Anyway, Phil had the audacity to say that homosexuality was a sin, according to the only document that has any righteous credibility to make judgment in that regard, the Bible. He also mentioned that there are many other things listed in the same context as sinful, like adultery, murder, theft, lying, stealing, etc. But none of those sinful preoccupations has any Billionaires lobbying the Media to promote their political interests. There doesn't seem to be a movement for the promotion of "Adulterers United", although having mentioned it, there probably will be some idiot trying to start it up tomorrow. Nor do we hear about the oppressive persecution of serial murderers, who by the same logic should be allowed to practice their quirky little obsessions, so long as "they aren't really hurting anybody". Homosexual lobby groups would have us believe that what they practice behind closed doors is perfectly harmless to the rest of society, and therefore no one else's business. Christianity, and the Bible, counter-argue that the moral perversion they promote does not stay behind closed doors; it's very nature is both exhibitionist, and promiscuous, and has therefore a culturally degrading effect upon their converts, who in turn promote their twisted political values upon society as a whole, eventually leading to the moral collapse of any such culture, as was the case for both the Ancient Greek, and Roman societies ( as
described in, "The Fall Of The Roman Empire".
Now, that bastion of moral integrity known as the Washington Post has weighed in on the matter ( guess which side). They have come down on Fox News for their "ignorance" of the Constitution since the only body restrained from persecuting those exercising their First Amendment rights is the government (and the Congress ,in particular). While they are correct in this point, they show their moral insensitivity, along with their own ignorance of the spirit of the First Amendment by implying that only the letter of the law must be considered, and that beyond that anything else is acceptable. This is typical of Liberal/Socialists' tactics, who are great believers in the principles of lying, or cheating in any way necessary to convince the ignorant to support their cause. But try and turn the tables on them and try to shut them up from their freedom to promote their perverse values and you'll hear a loud crescendo of outraged cries of "violating their rights". You see, Liberals only care about the Constitution when it serves to protect their efforts to destroy it's authority. The average Liberal voter doesn't realize how much the real power-brokers of their Socialist movements actually hate the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Once they could manage to gain absolute political control over the Government, without fear of a significant revolt, they would certainly abolish the Constitution, dismissing it as an old and obsolete document that needed to be brought up to date. Thus the political efforts to abolish the second amendment right to "keep and bear arms". They don't care as much for the slaughter of innocents, by the evil and insane, they are afraid that enough people with guns might revolt against an ultimate Socialist power grab, and they're right! Then they would as certainly create a new document that would guarantee that their Socialist control of the government would be permanent, and that personal freedoms would be inviolable, but only for those who agreed with them. The rest of us would be doomed to the kind of persecution that the Coptic Christians are now suffering in Egypt, at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. There, they endure threats, their Churches are burned, and they are constantly in danger of Muslim riots that can easily turn murderous, without risk of police interference, or arrest. Yes, Liberals truly care about the First Amendment protection of our freedoms, but only as it applies to themselves, and those who agree with them. Keep listening to the Media debate over Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind openly, in condemning homosexuality as a sin, and you will see just how serious the Left is about honoring the spirit of the First Amendment, when it is applied to those who disagree with them. This will serve as a preview of things to come, when that ultimate Socialist Dictator, the Antichrist will apply the same tactics on a world-wide scale in his temporarily successful bid to take over absolute control of his one-world government! Stay tuned!
"Even so, come Lord Jesus and count us worthy to escape the wrath that is to come!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)