skip to main | skip to sidebar

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Romeny, abortion

Romney and Abortion
by David Kincade
Here is an analogy recently made by a Romney critic who plans to vote third party because in allowing exceptions to abortion for the reasons of rape, incest, and mother's life, Romney is not sufficiently pro-life:

"Suppose a man wants to kill all the children in the school down the street. Suppose another man calls and says he will go and try to save the rich white children, willingly leaving all
the others to die. I suppose you might be thankful if he saved any children (but do you really believe him?), but do you call him a great hero? Is he a saint?"

Here is my reply:

"Your analogy about the school children is erroneous. Here is a more accurate analogy. A fire is raging that threatens the lives of 100 children. Three men apply for the position of fire chief. The first applicant states he will not try to save even 1 of the 100 children, and in fact wants to use public funds to pay for the scorching of the children. The second applicant states he will work to save 97-98 of the children from the fire and opposes public funding of the fires. The third applicant vows to save 99 of the children, but in further review, this man is actually on the other side of the country and cannot possibly physically arrive in time to try and rescue the children. Given such a choice, please tell me why it would be wrong to pick applicant #2, realizing that he is wrong about the 1 to 2 additional children he is willing to allow to die in the fire as opposed to just the 1 child who #3 would be willing to allow perishing."

Vote Obama, if...


Vote Obama (or throw away your vote on a third party), if you like:

1. More regulation of the auto industry: smaller, more dangerous cars; the feds tell them what to make and not make, not the market.
2. Higher gas and oil prices, since O doesn't like to drill into the sacred mother earth (at least in the US).
3. More attacks on US citizens abroad, since O does little to protect our own embassies and is cutting back the military.
4. Sustained high unemployment, since Keynesianism never produces new jobs (except for the bureaucrats).
5. If you want to pay for abortions and Obama appoint 2-3 pro-abortion Supreme Court justices.
6. If you support same-sex marriage and think that humans define what marriage means. If so, anything goes.
7. If you want less religious liberty.
8. You want Joe Biden a heartbeat from the presidency.

If not, Vote: Romney-Ryan.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

It is not enough to not vote for Obama.
You must vote for Romney.
Otherwise, if you vote third party, you waste your vote, or:
You withhold a vote from the only person who can win against statist, pro-abortion, incompetent-to-protect-our embassies, debt-mongering Obama is office for four more years. After that, it will be too late to turn back

Rolling Excrement

Every once in awhile I get up the nerve to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I am disgusted by its intellectual flippancy, scatology, and general bad taste. One benighted bloke writes that because he is sick of election politics, the state should limit campaigns to six weeks and ban polls. Has he ever heard of the First Amendment: freedom of speech? One wonders. Moreover, the electioneering does not bother me since I do not watch TV and make my decisions based on the candidate's political philosophy and track record. But that is, well, old fashioned. Better to have the state take over the whole blasted thing, so as to not upset the entertainment addictions of addled journalists.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Voting for Romney: One Last Stand Before Election Day


Voting for Romney: One Last Stand Before Election Day

by Sarah Geis, MA

I mailed in my ballot about a week ago, which contained a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Many conservative voters have been hesitant to vote for Romney, and some have decided to support third-party candidates instead. There are many reasons for this, but I am convinced that the Romney-Ryan ticket is the right choice, despite the fact that I do not consider Governor Romney to be a true conservative. While this little essay may be an exercise in futility, I hope it will serve as an explanation of why I believe that conservatives and Christians can and should vote for a politically moderate Mormon (this time around, anyway).

The first step in my argument is to address just what I hold to be the purpose of post-primary voting. Many people, including individuals whom I know and respect, believe that we should vote for the person who most closely aligns with our values. But this is not always so. If voting equals support for the person most closely aligned with our values, then we should not feel confined to voting within the two-party majority. The problem is, why limit your selection to the people listed on the ballot? Is not the person most closely aligned with your values you yourself? It seems that this view would at the very least allow, if not compel, people to write in themselves (or at the very least their best friends) at the voters block. Take care not to misunderstand here, for values is still a vital consideration. However, it is not the only consideration.

In addition to considering the candidates’ values (such as ethical theory, political philosophy, voting record, religion, etc.), the other main quality to consider is electability. In my estimation, this is the most important principle of major voting decisions. The reason for this is simple: if we assume that all candidates are imperfect (a safe assumption, that), I am most concerned that my vote represent one less vote for the candidate whom I believe to have a real chance to do the most damage to the country. In other words, we should vote against the greatest of the evils. After the primaries, according to this view, voters have the responsibility to find out who is the most dangerous of the frontrunners, and do everything in our power to ensure that the worst of the lot does not get elected. This requires a very different approach to the vote. It requires that we not view a vote as an endorsement, as a claim to identify with a certain candidate, nor as even a vote for. Rather, it is a strategic vote against. A vote, in this view, is a strategic move to ensure the preservation of our country. In the two-party system, the only way to take votes away from the worst candidate is to vote for the other major contender. Thus, to those who hold to this view, a vote for a conservative third-party candidate is, in fact, a vote taken away from the Republican candidate, and therefore, increases the gap between the Republican and the Democrat candidates. This is how voters of this mindset can, in good conscience, say that a vote for a conservative third-party candidate is a vote for the Democrat (in this case, Obama).

The next task becomes to determine who is, in fact, the worst candidate. This season, we have a major candidate (Obama) who poses a direct threat to our Constitutional system as we know it (my purpose is not to convince the reader of this here—the evidence is all around for those who care to responsibly research), and the other major candidate (Romney) represents a religious group-- theologically a cult-- which is fundamentally opposed to historic Christian orthodoxy. However, Romney does still believe (generally) in the founding political principles of this nation. What is a politically conservative Christian to do? Are we not to oppose all perversions of the faith? Yes, the Christian should of course be primarily concerned with preserving and defending historic, biblical Christianity. However, without the religious freedom provided by our Constitutional system, the defense of the faith becomes exponentially more difficult. Moreover, the role of politicians is to protect and uphold the Constitution, not to defend the Christian faith. The uniqueness of the Constitution is that it is a Natural Law document. The candidate who believes that all rights come from God, not from the almighty State, is going to be more predisposed to limit the role of the federal government. When rights are believed to be given by the State, then those rights can also be revoked by the State. Given these considerations, the greatest threat to America is the candidate who believes (at least in practice—deciphered by past speeches and voting record) that rights come from the State, not from God. That candidate is Barack Obama. Yes, Mormonism is heretical, and idolizes America and the Constitution for religious reasons. However, it is better to vote for a non-Christian who makes the mistake of too much reverence for our Country and founding documents than a (possible, but unlikely) Christian who wants to “fundamentally transform America” and believes the Constitution to be outdated.

So, I am not voting against my conscience. My conscience tells me to preserve the American experiment as long as possible, for although ailing, it is America qua America that is the last great stronghold of religious freedom, justice, and economic prosperity. A vote for Romney-Ryan is intended to stop the bleeding, and set us up for greater reform later. A vote for Obama—whether directly or indirectly—is a vote to pull life support, and we may not have the chance to reform later. Therefore, I voted strategically for Romney, even though I do not endorse him politically or religiously. And given the reasons discussed, I am not compromising my values by so doing.

Fourteen Liberal Lies

Many liberal lies (off the top of my head, but deep in my soul)

1. Conservativism is bad for the poor. No it creates opportunities and happiness through achievement (see Arthur Brookes).
2. The rich are rich because the poor are poor. No the rich create jobs and services and give away much money to charity. Bill Gates: 28 billion.
3. The poor are better served by the state than by private and chu
rch charities. Bureaucracies glog up everything; all state aid must be religiously neutral.
4. If you are nice to your sworn enemies, they will be nice in return. Yes, they love that jugular vein.
5. Progressive taxation means people "paying their fair share." No, you are unfairly taxing them at a higher rate. The OT civil government supported a flat tax.
6. No one is pro-abortion, not even those who support abortion on demand and want tax money to pay for it. No, you are encouraging abortion at every turn.
7. Capitalism is based on greed. No it is based on achieving in a free market according to industry and hard work.
8. Green energy must be pushed at all costs. No, it has been a disaster, a liberal (pot) pipe dream.
9. Anyone who criticizes Islam is islamophobic--a mental disorder. No, consider its history and the number of terrorists named Mohammad (or similar Islamic names).
10. The Constitution is a "living document" (meaning that progressives can manipulate it any way they want).
12. Heavily taxing "the rich" will help the economy. No, it decapitalizes them, thus taking away jobs and services and tax revenues.
13. Individuals should not take credit for accomplishments; without the omnicompetent state, they could do nothing. "You didn't make that." No, it is the man working in a free community, working hard and smart that achieves much.
14. If the private sector is not doing X well, the state will do better. This is just absurd if you think about it.
15. Enough for now.

The Need for Christian Education


Douglas Groothuis

Many arguments are marshaled against Christian schools and Christian home-schooling. Those, such as myself, who categorically reject state (public) education as insufficiently Christian, inefficient, and inherently unfair are, in for some lively debates. The objections raised must be met.

Objection #1. “If you send your children to Christian schools they’ll be in a sheltered, hot-house environment and will be isolated from the ‘real world.’ ”

Non-Christian education is what shields a child from the “real world,” the world God created and the world God speaks of in the Bible. Education ungrounded in God’s truth from beginning to end is necessarily poisoned with un-reality. Christian children should be exposed to non-Christian thinking later in their education through a thorough grasp of Christian apologetics (the defense of the faith). Biblical truth must be instilled before error is confronted.

Objection #2. “You should send your children to public schools to evangelize other children and teachers.” Soldiers are not sent into battle immediately after being drafted. They require training in the skills of combat. Thus so with Christian children. The young are not equipped to adequately counteract the entrenched secularism of the public schools. Those in the state schools can be evangelized in other contexts.

Objection #3. “Christian parents can debrief their children after school to counteract the non-Christian thinking.” This could be called “anorexic education.” The child is gorged with secularism seven or eight hours a day and then coaxed to vomit it up after school. If Christian education was pursued such extremes could be avoided. It is also questionable how effective such a method can be. Can a few hours a week of discussion really neutralize the teaching of an entire week? While an antidote may neutralize the effects of a poison somewhat, the best course is to avoid the poison to begin with.

Objection #4. “We must improve our public schools.” These are really “state schools.” We must here squarely face a neglected dilemma. “Public” education supposedly belongs to everyone. We all pay for it through taxes; we all have access to it; we all must send our children there (compulsory attendance laws) or to an “approved” alternative. Yet how can public school curriculum fairly represent all those who finance it? How can it become “all things to all people” It cannot. All education proceeds according to its worldview. Facts and values cannot be separated. Education is not ideologically neutral. Eliminating “sectarianism” (specifically Christian ideas) from state education certainly will not fumigate the schools of religion. The religion of Secular Humanism will simply take its place. A look at the history of state education will show that its instigators, by and large, were far from Christian. This is especially the case with Robert Owen (atheist socialist), Horace Mann (Unitarian), and John Dewey (atheist socialist). Their goals have been implemented and are deeply engrained at every level. On this, see Rousas John Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education.

Equal access for Christian ideas in the state schools (such as Intelligent Design) should be viewed as an emergency measure, not a final solution.

Objection #5. “But the public schools are free.” No, they are not. We pay a high price of taxation (whether we use them or not). Because of the inefficiencies of statist bureaucracy, private (free) education is more cost-efficient. No culture can afford to subscribe to secularism (see Proverbs 8:36).

Objection #6. “But how many people can afford Christian education?” This is a difficult matter. But we must think according to biblical principles first and foremost. It’s been said that Christians cannot afford not to send their children to Christian schools. They must not relinquish their children to institutionalized error about the things that matter most. Financially, sacrifices might need to be made. The church should band together in this, sharing her resources. Tithing and giving must be applied to this end. In the long run, if state education is dismantled—or even if an voucher system was put in place—more money would be available for private education.

Objection #7. “But so many Christian schools are unaccredited.” This may be so. But who is the ultimate accreditor, Jesus Christ or human institutions? We must work to build a Christian counter-culture not dependent on the recognition of the non-Christian world. But this counter-culture should advance the kingdom into every area and so become the dominant culture over time. We are not there yet. Yet we should not sell our educational souls for the sake of accreditation. We must not be “unequally yoked” to apostate curriculum.

Objection #8. “We’ve had some bad experiences with Christian education.” Undoubtedly, many have had this happen. We also have “bad experiences” with poor preaching, bad meals, and irritating relatives. But this doesn’t lead us to condemn preaching as such, give up eating, or hate our family members. You are either part of the problem or the solution. If you jettison Christian education because of a few bad experiences you are definitely part of the problem. You are also illogical. A few bad experiences cannot be universalized to apply to all Christian education. Furthermore, bad Christian education is better than good State education. State education (see #4) is beyond reform in principle.

Objection #9. “It’s too late. How can we change it all now?” Some thought it too late to deal with the institution of slavery. But it was not. Christian ethics is governed by truth, not expediency. Our culture gives us the context for our ethical deliberation and action but it should not determine them. If it does, we have been conformed to the world (Romans 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:15-17). We must expand our Christian vision, not give in to the circumstances.

Objection #10. “If we disestablish public education, many will not be educated.” We forget that mandatory, State education is not as old as America. We did well without it for a good long time. And state education today is not doing a sterling job of decreasing illiteracy as is. Education should gradually be returned to the family and the church, instead of being monopolized by the State. Christians must also open their Christian schools to those who cannot afford to go elsewhere. This is a long-term, gradual solution. We need the fortitude and patience that only the Holy Spirit gives to be successful over time.


Recommended Reading:

1. Blumenfeld, Samuel. Is Public Education Necessary? (Old Greenwich: The Devin-Adair Company, 1981), 263 pages. A scholarly and cogent treatment of the development of public education. Dissipates a score of popular misconceptions. Excellent.
2. Gato, John Taylor, Weapons of Mass Instruction A Schoolteacher's Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling (New Society Publishers, 2010.
3. Kienel, Paul A. The Christian School: Why It Is Right for Your Child (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1974), 131 pages. Short, but cogent.
4. LaHaye, Tim. The Battle for the Public Schools (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revel, 1983), 283 pages. LaHaye is sometimes simplistic, but he exposes just what is happening in the State schools and what can be done about it.
5. Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Messianic Character of American Education (Ross House books, reprint, 1995.)

This goes in the regular mail tomorrow:

Dear Boulder Atheists:

I asked Denver Atheists and Freethinkers to have me speak to their group in a Q&A session. They declined.

Please consider having me speak to your group for no fee. There will be no lecture, nothing sold, and no sign up sheet. I simply would like to have a civil discussion.

Best,
Doug Groothuis, Denver Seminary

Remember, or Perish


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Young Voters, Unite and Loose Your Ignorance


Young voter, please consider:

1. You were emotionally manipulated to vote for Obama. Most of you did not know the issues and did not understand Obama's ideology: far left, anti-colonialist, anti-American exceptionalism.
2. You were won over by an almost entirely pro-Obama mainstream media. You did not seek out alternative views.
3. You loved the "hope" theme; but you should now see that long-term unemployment, fantastic debt, an expanding federal government intent on taking away your freedoms (particularly economic and religious freedom), and Obama's inability to protect our troops abroad, has shattered the dream of hope.
4. Mitt Romney may not be as "cool" (in postmodern, debased ways) as Obama. Get over it. What counts are:

(a) Character. The man has donated all his pay for holding office back the government he served. He does not seal most of his past, as does Obama.

(b) Track record: Romney saved the Olympics, got bipartisan support in MA and is a successful businessman: meaning he created thousands of jobs.

(c) Political Philosophy: Romney is far more American (in the best way) than Obama, who is anti-American. He supports our founding ideals, found in the Declaration and Constitution. Read them some time. 75% of college grades cannot explain the purpose of the First Amendment. That is part of the reason they voted for Obama.

I could go on, but I urge you, I implore you, to not just sit out the vote, but to vote for Romney-Ryan. If you like youth and hope combined, look to Paul Ryan: a brilliant and knowledgeable, and honorable man.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

From Romney Facebook

Let's take a lesson from Barack Obama. This is what he wrote his millions of email recipients, today: "This election will come down to one thing: how many folks get out there and vote. It's that simple.
Today, I'm meeting up with a neighbor and heading to the polls in my hometown of Chicago. Will you join me? No reason to wait for November 6th in Ohio. Confirm your early vote polling place, vote with me today, and yes, bring a friend with you."
Okay, Barack, finally a good idea. But we're voting for Mitt Romney and the whole conservative slate because we want our country back!

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Logos Prayer, inspired by St. Patrick

Prayer (John 1:1-18)

Logos above me,
Logos within me,
Logos behind me,
Logos ahead of me,
Logos beyond me.
Logos before creation,
Logos in creation,
Logos unto the Eschaton.
Logos forever.

Thank you, Logos.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Health Care Exchanges

HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES: THE WORST IDEA YOU NEVER HEARD OF
By Eric Novack
Eric Novack, M.D.Danger ahead: with the passage of President Obama's health care law by Congress in 2010 and the affirmation of its constitutionality by the Supreme Court in 2012, our country is on track for a health care system that combines the spending indiscipline of the Pentagon with the utter unaccountability of our public schools.
Such will be the legacy of the sadly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), barring a political U-turn in the future. Fortunately, that can occur. We still have an opportunity to get it right—but this will require Americans to see past the smokescreen put up by subsidy-seeking special interests and look carefully at actual policies and their impact.
Obama Promised but Didn't Deliver
Remember the landscape before PPACA was enacted? For millions of our fellow citizens, access to quality health care had long been a problem. The cost of health care was a huge issue for everyone. And politicians' promises about the future of Medicare and Medicaid were becoming ever more empty. So when Barack Obama pledged to make reforms that would address these exact issues, an overwhelming majority cheered.
What the president delivered, however, is a series of policies that will demonstrably make access worse, especially for the needy; that will make costs skyrocket for families while enriching special interests from insurance companies to hospitals; that will imperil Medicare's and Medicaid's very existence; and that will place health care decisions that rightly belong to patients and families in the hands of politicians and their pals. Thanks for nothing.
The hated individual-mandate provision is the best known of PPACA's many bad features. But perhaps the most insidious of the law's provisions is the creation of health insurance exchanges as a state-by-state “marketplace” for purchasing insurance. It will place control over massive flows of federal, state, and personal dollars in the hands of a few corporations with minimal oversight and accountability.
This is why the insurance industry, hospital associations, state and regional chambers of commerce, and other “pro-business” groups avidly support the exchanges—and have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to convincing state legislators and governors that somehow this is a free-market solution for health care. It's nothing of the kind.
Faux Markets, not Free Markets
In the coming decade, insurance companies, along with hospital corporations functioning as insurance companies, stand to get 800ドル billion in taxpayer subsidies to sell policies through exchanges. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. But a more accurate ten-year price tag, since the program is not slated to begin until 2014 and takes several years to ramp up, may approach 2ドル trillion.
In some states the amount of money flowing through the exchanges each year will rapidly become larger than the entire state budget. As this happens, since dollars translate directly into political power, the companies whose representatives legally hold majority (or even super-majority) control over the oversight boards of the exchanges will, for practical purposes, rule the state.
Political Cartoon
Once entrenched, these exchanges with their vast control over rulemaking—including access to care, creation of new health care facilities, and the stifling of competition—will be nearly impossible to displace. The subsidies are attached to patients and families, who will be treated (as they increasingly are already) as commodities worth government funds rather than, well, patients.
But it gets worse because, stunningly, the enormous sums being thrown at insurance and hospital companies will not even be close to enough. Economist Austin Frakt, writing on Ezra Klein's liberalWashington Post blog, noted that the subsidies may be much lower than expected in terms of total insurance costs, and that many children may not be eligible for subsidies.
Paying More for Less
Under PPACA, after 2018, the subsidies allowed will be below the projected rate of rising health care costs. When this intentional shortfall is added to Obamacare's 18 different tax increases (not including the individual mandate, now judicially certified as a tax in itself), the result will be that American families will be paying even more, for less.
States that are moving forward to establish the exchanges as called for are already spending billions of federal dollars just to help begin implementing the complex bureaucracy and even more complex technology platform that will be required. Not only must policymakers integrate what is, in many states, a completely outdated Medicaid computer system with the exchanges, but the technology platform must also have the ability to collect and analyze eligibility data and then transmit that data to the federal government.
That's because the IRS will need access to all the data from each state in order to advise the exchanges how much of a subsidy is available for insurance companies to buy down the cost of coverage for policyholders.
This past August, President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services handed out another nearly 900ドル million to eight states working on implementation of their exchanges. California recently signed a 360ドル million contract with a company to help them just get an exchange up and running. Massachusetts spends over 30ドル million per year on administrative costs for their exchange.
The kicker: due to administrative costs, an identical policy will be more expensive when purchased through an exchange than from outside. Even before the exchanges begin, new insurance broker fees and other hidden taxes are being piled on families and businesses.
Lobbyists on the March
Interest groups have deployed lobbyists to every crevice of state legislatures and governors' suites, peddling the poll-tested language of “free-market reforms,” “state-based control,” “keep power away from Washington,” and “won't our state do a better job of making decisions for our residents than politicians in D.C.?”
What they fail to reveal is that—in spite of everything—states will have little control over the fundamental rules under which the health insurance exchanges function.
State legislators and governors must have very short memories if they forget that Medicaid was supposed to be a state-based program too—but now states must go hat in hand to Washington, when controlled by either party, to make even minor changes to their Medicaid programs.
If that is not enough, the checklist for states to comply with the exchange rules runs 27 pages long, with many tasks being so vaguely defined as to make it nearly impossible to know in advance if time and money spent will be adequate.
Resistance by States Could Stymie Feds
But here's a ray of hope: states that resist the lobbying onslaught and refuse to begin establishing these puppet exchanges may be taking a large step toward blocking PPACA's implementation, period. You see, the law does not appear to give a federal exchange the authority to offer subsidies to insurers, without which the whole scheme would collapse.
While the administration will try to laugh this out of court, no one can predict how judges will rule. Scoffers should recall that litigation against the individual mandate and the Medicaid mandate was also deemed hopeless not long ago.
We the people and our elected state legislators should just say no to these market-fixing, government-created, and ultimately government- and corporate-crony-controlled health insurance exchanges.
This is a top priority for every American who believes that the Obama's health care law has put us on the wrong path—everyone who wants decisions made by patients and families, not politicians and their pals. Cronyism and collectivism, to which both parties unfortunately are susceptible, must not go unopposed. Let's raise our voices accordingly.
Eric NovackEric Novack (M.D., University of California) practices as an orthopedic surgeon in Phoenix and is chairman of the U.S. Healthcare Freedom Coalition. This essay is adapted from his speech at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on June 29, 2012.
Centennial Institute sponsors research, events, and publications to enhance public understanding of the most important issues facing our state and nation. By proclaiming Truth, we aim to foster faith, family, and freedom, teach citizenship, and renew the spirit of 1776.
CENTENNIAL REVIEW is published monthly by the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University. Designer, Danielle Hull. Illustrator, Benjamin Hummel. Subscriptions free upon request. Write to: Centennial Institute, 8787 W. Alameda Ave., Lakewood, CO 80226. Call . Or visit us online at www.CentennialCCU.org.
John Andrews
Please join the Centennial Institute today. As a Centennial donor, you can help us restore America's moral core and prepare tomorrow's leaders. Your gift is tax-deductible. Please use the envelope provided. Thank you for your support.
- John Andrews, Director
CI Logo
John Andrews is the director of the Centennial Institute and a former president of the Colorado Senate.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Truth


Facts on the ground: Election 2012.

1. Obama cannot run on his record; it is awful. People are waking up to this.
2. His ads are unfair and take Romney out of context.
3. He relies on nonsense mantra such as "you want the rich to play by a different set of rules." He never, ever explains what this means, because it is nothing but baseless class envy.
4. The major media are biased toward Obama, even the debate moderators. Notice this, please.
5. No Christian should vote for Obama. He is against religious liberty (the HHS mandate), against the unborn (tax-payer support for abortion), he does not know how to manage money: consider the debt. The Bible says, "The borrower is the slave to the lender." Do we want to be slaves to communist China?
6. Obama is not on the side of the poor. He wants to spread money around through the state. This does not empower people, but makes them dependent and fosters an entitlement mentality: the opposite of a biblical ethic.
7. His vice president (one breath away from the presidency) is an abject buffoon and radically incompetent.
8. He does not protect Americans abroad in our own embassies.
9. He is gutting the military in an increasingly dangerous world. Our enemies understand strength. They will not change if we are "nice" to them. They lick their chops and lunge for more power over us.
10. Vote for Romney-Ryan. They believe in a saner approach to civil government; they will deal with the debt; they will cut spending; they will support the military; they will be far more pro-life than Obama, who is the most aggressively pro-abortion and infanticide president in our history.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012


“The chasm [between Islam and Christianity] cannot be bridged by rickety planks of compromise.Syncretism would be equivalent to surrender; for Islam thrives only by its denial of the authority of the Scriptures, the Deity of our Lord, the blessedness of the Holy Trinity, the cruciality and significance of the Cross, (nay, its very historicity) and the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ as King and Saviour.And this denial is accompanied by the assertion of the authority of another book, the Koran, the eclipse of Christ’s glory by another prophet, even Mohammed, and the substitution of another path to holiness and forgiveness than the way of the Cross.These denials and assertions are imbedded in the Koran and are the orthodox belief of ninety percent of the people.On every one of these points the true Moslem stands arrayed in armor against the missionary and the Truth, of which he is the custodian and preacher.” (Samuel Zwemer, “The Chasm” The Moslem World, vol. IX, no. 2/April 1919, pp. 112-113)

More Obama Nonsense (to put it nicely)

Obama: "Romney has a one-point plan: let the rich play by a different set of rules."

Groothuis: This is meaningless nonsense (on stilts). What could it mean? The "rich" live under the same Constitution and laws that everyone else does. The rich pay a higher percentage of tax than do lower income groups. They also pay more in absolute money than any other group. So what could Obama mean? It means nothing, nothing, nothing. Rather, it stokes class envy. The rich do not play by a different set of rules; rather, they play the rules in such a way as produce a different outcome from what many achieve: great wealth. But Obama thinks that if the rich are rich, they must have cheated. Why think that?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012



“I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years.” – Mitt Romney

Truth


Doug Groothuis
Thoughts on truth, inspired by Bertrand Russell
Any concept of truth that deemstruth to be somehow dependent on our culture or our minds or wills makes truth into something that we (either collectively or individually) create and control. This is the case for all views of truth that abandon correspondence as the essence and meaning of truth. This disregard for reality encourages what Russell called “cosmic impiety.”
The concept of “truth” as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hitherto has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness—the intoxication with power.[1]
Russell is on to something deep and rich—a truth about truth and untruth. When people untether themselves from any responsibility to get reality right, to be true to the truth come what may, they forfeit the humility of being beholden to a reality outside of themselves—a reality that may prove one right or prove one wrong, but which one does not command. One must rather obey—or disobey. Whether one is an atheist or a theist or anything else, cosmic piety means submission to the truth of reality, come what may.

1. Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p. 818.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Darwinism against science


The Darwinian paradigm, with its exorcism of intelligent causes, may in fact retard scientific pursuits in some areas. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Darwinists believed that much of DNA is “junk” (nonfunctional) because it is the remains of previously functioning DNA from earlier stages of evolution. This would fit the Darwinist model. However, one who believes the genetic code was designed, would have more incentive to scientifically investigate whether or not this DNA is truly junk, since the assumption would be that it probably serves some purpose. The same holds true for supposedly vestigial organs, as discussed in the previous chapter. As noted in the previous chapter, Darwinian anthropologists have repeatedly been too eager to confirm human evolution and have jumped to unreasonable conclusions. Moreover, a plethora of scientists have been fruitfully motivated to find design patterns in nature precisely because of their antecedent belief that some design was forthcoming.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Schaeffer on Nothing


We are considering existence, the fact that something is there. Remember Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that the basic philosophic question is that something is there rather than nothing being there. The first basic answer is that everything that exists has come out of absolutely nothing. In other words, you begin with nothing. Now, to hold this view, it must be absolutely nothing. It must be what I call nothing nothing. It cannot be nothing something or something nothing. If one is to accept this answer, it must be nothing nothing, which means there must be no energy, no mass, no motion, and no personality.

My description of nothing nothing runs like this. Suppose we had a very black blackboard which had never been used. On this blackboard we drew a circle, and inside that circle there was everything that was -- and there was nothing within the circle. Then we erase the circle. This is nothing nothing. You must not let anybody say he is giving an answer beginning with nothing and then really begin with something: energy, mass, motion, or personality. That would be something, and something is not nothing.

The truth is I have never heard this argument sustained, for it is unthinkable that all that now is has come out of utter nothing. But theoretically, that is the first possible answer.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, Ch. 1)

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

A Vote for Obama


Again:

A vote for Obama is a vote for:
1. Abortion on demand. 50,000,000 have already been killed.
2. Tax supported abortion. That means you.
3. Limiting the free exercise of religion, since O's secular laws will conflict with the religious conscience of many.
4. America being humiliated globally as he cuts the military. Think of the non-response to our embasasies being trashed and our people killed.
5. Huge, staggering debt, mortgaging our future and that of generations
6. State take-over of health care. This is worse for the poor and everyone else. Quality goes down, scarcity increases. The federal government is already broke.
7. A man of intense arrogance, a poor work ethics, and overweening pride as President.
8. More unemployment as the state increases power.
9. More people on food stamps, which encourages dependence and sloth.
10. Same-sex marriage as normative at all levels of life.
11. Rising energy costs as he pursues idiotic "green" solutions that solve nothing. Think: Solyndra.
12. I could go on. If so, how can you go to the voting booth and chose against America, goodness, and truth?
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
 

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /