Nancy Pelosi Eats Her "Words"

I loved this "split screen" of sorts for two reasons:

1. No one with any sense on either side of the political isle actually believed her when she uttered these words about her favorite "Word" evidenced by the lack of outrage that normally accompanies a politician saying this sort of thing. It does make me wonder... who was she speaking to?
2. I can just imagine a twenty-year-old Nancy Pelosi calling some person of authority, over thirty I would presume, to account on some words they had spoken earlier; Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals tucked snugly under her arm.

I love the way she moves right along by quickly calling on another reporter. Just a quick note: she was not in a church in either of the clips.

Taxes And Slavery

The Volt was introduced today with a price tag of around 40K. But that's OK for the person rich enough to afford one you will be helping to pay for it through deductions from your paycheck.  The wealthy person enjoys the car.  You help pay for it with taxes.

To be sure, conservatives are not against taxes. They know that roads, bridges, law enforcement, and all the other things part and parcel to a civil society are not free. But then again, all the things that are part and partial to a civil society are worth the price.  It's when you find your check getting smaller because of grand ideas and political schemes, like paying for a car you don't get to drive, that raises the conservative's ire.  

The fact is that such things are tantamount to slavery.  It's simple.  The slave works, but the plantation owner enjoys the fruit of his labor.  The slave doesn't participate in that fruit, nor does he have a say in how it is used.  Of course it's not quite as simple as the old plantation days wherein  a man's  entire being and life was enslaved.  This slavery is much easier to swallow because it happens a little at a time.

Consider that a man works for fifty years of his life.  Now consider that every year a percentage of income was confiscated; not for things that he needs and uses, but things he doesn't need, want or use... like say Chevy Volts.  In other words, someone else enjoys the fruit of his labor and he has no say in it is used.  Let's say that twenty percent of his time on the job is actually stolen from him for, say, political whims or vote buying.  That would mean that ten years of his life he was a virtual slave.  Ten years of his life has been stolen.

Someone might say that such things are democracy in action; that the majority decides how tax dollars are spent and it doesn't equate to slavery.  There's one problem with this argument.  The  actual people being enslaved by our current out of control spending can't vote.  They can't vote because they haven't been born yet. 

Appeasing Islam

I'm not the smartest turnip that ever fell off the truck but even I realize the truth about appeasing the Radical Islamist; a truth that seems to have eluded some of the smartest amongst us.

There are exactly two ways to appease them; no less, no more.

1. Convert
2. Die

Voters would serve their own self interest to learn this.

On Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Remaining true to this law, in a comment string I was involved in at 4Simpsons recently I brought up the name of Hitler to which I received the reply: "as a general rule once someone brings up the name of Hitler you've won the argument".

While this was a clever way to avoid the point I was making (it didn't work) it did give me reason to do a little research on and contemplation of this matter. I discovered this "Law". Upon examining my thinking and asking the question as to why we bring up the name of Hitler often enough to warrant a "law" I came to a couple of conclusions:

1. The prevailing worldview of the West is one of relativism. The very nature of relativism renders words like "good" and "evil" meaningless. Communication, as a result, are now devoid of a means of articulating these concepts without some widely known universally accepted objective means such as an example. Hitler fills that bill for "evil".
2. Concepts like Godwin's Law either intentionally or unintentionally poison the well. Anytime I find myself increasingly reluctant to do, or especially to say, something, like mentioning Hitler's name in discussions, I am immediately suspicious of this tactic. It is amazing how effective these things are on us.

There is some truth however to the point the blogger made about the use of Hitler's name signifying that you have conceded the argument. The only problem is that he used the wrong name. The correct name that makes this assertion true is George Bush.

The World V Marriage, a comment

Stan at Winging It did a post on Marriage today that is well worth reading. Following is A well written comment left on his post The World V Marriage that is just as important by Stacey from Scotland.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is a bastion of liberality, total-control politics, and the "nanny state." In fact, the nanny state, while telling us we cannot help our neighbours due to the possibility of a lawsuit, is also the forerunner for government support of all things aberrant (e.g., your tax money paying for the unwed teenage mother to have her baby, get paid for it, and be given a house, to boot). Marriage is completely mocked over here. I live in a village of 1800 people. Most of the adults are "co-habitating." The favourite word here is "partner." Everyone has a partner, but no one has a spouse. People are seriously opposed to marriage here because chances are, they will lose their state benefits. Anyway, in a village this small, everyone is related to everyone else, usually because of sleeping around. They all share mothers and fathers. The school system is a nightmare, trying to keep up with who is related to whom. So, if your commenters think marriage is not under attack -- think again. Europe is usually a bit ahead of America when it comes to all things liberal and bad. The UK, and Scotland in particular, has completely marginalized the Christian faith; churches are empty or up for sale; marriage is a relic of the past; and it is no big deal if a kid has no clue who his father is. Commonplace. And very scary.

My husband and I are Christians. We are mocked all the time. The people in this village are angry at us constantly, and all we are doing is living a quiet life, doing our best to keep marriage sacred. The sad thing is, if we slept around and hung out at the pub "religiously" every weekend, we would be completely welcomed and no one would say a word against us.

Your blog is right on about the ills of society, and my husband and I are living in a society that has long since thrown in the towel. Whatever view of the UK it is that Americans hold, I can tell you, it is antiquated and inaccurate. The UK is a mess. And UK culture is swimming in sin.

One final example: a radio ad for a product called IRN BRU. It is a high calorie, high sugar canned drink. The ad features a young man singing and whistling about his wonderful girlfriend, until she drinks his IRN BRU. Then, he tells us gleefully that she is a "numpty," (American equivalent: moron), but he's okay because now he's "shagging my girlfriend's mother." We complained to the appropriate authority here about this ad, and the response: it is totally in line with British culture and they see no reason to pursue our complaint.

Americans: if you want to see what could become of the country, look to the UK. It's a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Who is it who wants to undermine marriage? Practically everybody these days.

John Piper On The Prosperity Gospel

On Static Thinking

"Static Thinking" is a phrase I coined for myself to sum up an explanation for my own personal financial woes. I have come to realize however that this phrase can be applied to more areas than just finance. Today I'll apply it to helping the poor, but first a few things in description.

• Static Thinking is thinking within a snapshot in time; it is static. It doesn't consider history, cause, ramifications of past choices or consequence. It is the kind of thinking that will cause a person to burn down his barn to get rid of the rats not considering the fact that tomorrow he or the rats either one will have a barn.
• Static thinking sees what is and assumes that it's fixed in time. Not only were rich people never poor or poor people never rich, but poor people will never become rich or rich people poor. Never ever in a million years will that change. They are fixed.

Connecting The Dots of Static Thinking and Helping The Poor

Sue is poor. She is an unaborted single mother with 3 unaborted children from 2 different unaborted dads neither of whom live with her in her government-provided apartment. Her plight however is not a static one. You see, the idea of a good family home in her world was outdated. June Cleaver and Ossie Harriet as role models had become relics of a bygone era, worthy only of disdain and ridicule. They were replaced by the sensuality of MTV, do what you will, and the materialistic world of feminism. 

Sue was educated in a government school where the concept of God was banned and replaced by the meaninglessness of evolution. The intellectuals thought this best for her. Her neighborhood is crime-ridden. The government - confounded by its self-imposed restraints brought on by its Marxist mindset, and by the resulting sub-society living according to the standards taught to it by the educational institutions - gave up on trying to control anything but the most violent of criminals in her neighborhood.

Sue is unemployed. Businesses that may have employed her, or her husband had she thought it necessary to have one, having themselves given up on trying to do business in an area where the criminal is the protected one, moved to safer havens, even to other countries where they could escape runaway risk of lawsuits and bureaucratic red tape. 

Sue's neighborhood is drug-ridden. More government indoctrination passing itself off as "education" as it turns out, was helpless in helping those who live there escape a meaningless and hopeless existence It requires more. Unfortunately, drugs are the easiest, and perhaps the only accessible escape. So they abound.

Sue's neighborhood is marked by blight. Having been trained that "others" will take care of her, she feels no responsibility for making her neighborhood look nice and desirable. Her peers deface buildings in the same way they deface their own bodies with graffiti and piercings. Besides, to fight the blight would be a hopeless endeavor. She would wake each day to find that the graffiti and trash had reappeared. The liberal intellectuals and "theologians", and the weak-minded people who listen to them, look at Sue's plight and see only what their materialistic worldviews allow them to see: a lack of material. Or to put a finer point on it, more cash. So demands that more material be taken from someone else to assuage her situation, and their guilt, are made in the name of "compassion". THIS... is static thinking. Related Post

Peace and Love, Not To Mention Transparency and Tolerance

From the Things-You'll-Never-See-On-CNN/MSNBC-repeated-ad-nauseum files, here is a clip of one congressman's aahhhhh... gracious response to the simple question: "Do you support the Obama agenda?". Hmmmm, a simple yes would have probably sufficed, yes?

Hat Tip Carol's Blog.

The 501(c)3, Should Be Reconsidered

Is it time to rethink the 501(c)3 tax exemption for churches?  I think so.  What started as an exemption to encourage charitable giving has since morphed into a gag order on pulpits.  The government can now operate without fear of the enormous force for good resident in the Church. As a result, God has been expelled from our nation at a cost of enormous suffering to its people.

A Brief History

During WWI, taxes were increased to new highs. (15% for incomes over $546,500) This raised concerns that the wealthy would no longer give to those organizations that depended on philanthropy. Exemptions were then created in response to those concerns. With these exemptions, the fact that the tax code could be wielded as a punishment/reward program was not lost on politicians and lobbyist and so a monster was born that would never stop growing. By the 1950's it had morphed into a monster containing about 100 sections. Today it contains about 700 sections. In the bowels of this monster were marionette's string for pulpits waiting for a savvy politician to happen along and put them to use. That politician's name would be Lyndon B Johnson.

In 1954 the section of code that interested the then Senator Johnson was numbered 501, and it dealt with exemptions on charitable giving.  Of particular interest to him was sub-paragraph (c)3 which exempted giving to houses of worship. The reason for this interest? Johnson saw the raw federal power enjoyed by the IRS, and since he was facing an uncertain campaign to hold a previously ill-gotten seat, he needed that power to squash what was at the time a powerful force in its own right, the Body of Christ. And that he did. Yanking on the strings he effectively pulled many a preacher's mouth shut, at least as it pertained to shining a light on government evils.

For several generations now the government, through the IRS, has been supplementing the tithes of the faithful by means of a tax refund check. But thanks to Johnson, those refunds now come with strings attached; strings that are now accepted as good and right, Biblical even. 

The impact of several generations living with this code as their compass brought about changes in mindsets. There are many who now consider it a sin for a church to venture into the arena of politics. There are, as always, exceptions to this modern "sin". We know, for example, it's okay to talk about politics from the pulpit when discussing government intervention between sin and its consequences by promising promiscuous women a check for fatherless children.  And it's fine to talk about the government being magnanamous by confiscating from one neighbor and giving to another. 

A de facto alliance has emerged between the state and the Church as a result. In this arrangement, government gains power by doling out cash and the pastor and congregate get to claim credit for righteous giving simply by casting a vote and being "for" the right "issues".  But in the economy of love these arrangements have proven to be bankrupt. As it turns out, throwing other people's money at symptoms brought about by the Church's retreat from the public square is not an act of love at all, it is idolatry.

Why Did The Church Agree To This Restriction?

Keep in mind that all governments legislate morality.  Also, modern governments have taken on the responsibility of arbitrating what is right and wrong, and then instituting their arbitrations through the public schools. These realities should raise a question in the Christian's mind.  Why would the American Church willingly agree to withdraw itself from the arena where the morality that will be taught to the next generation is determined? That is a question for the ages.

One sad answer may simply be "mammon".  If this is the case, the Church has proven itself incapable of serving only one master. It perhaps could be said in defense of pastors that they may have rightly assumed that if their congregations suddenly lost those government refund checks, giving would wane. This may have been a precarious position for the man of God given the debt many Churches were struggling beneath. Or, other pastors may have rightly concluded that the congregation was no longer willing or able to withstand the loss of a portion of their tax refunds in exchange for removing the government mandated restrictions on what is said from the pulpit.

But a sadder answer yet may be that pastors didn't want to delve into the ugly world of politics.  This "law" simply gave them the cover they needed. Considering that the government had already become a benevolent benefactor in the minds of many congregates, politics had perhaps become a potential division bomb. "Good" may have no longer been a matter of Christ-likeness but rather seen as free government handouts to the poor.

Sadder even yet is the fact that many churches then--and more now--having dumped the concept of a spiritual realm accessible through Biblical truth, aligned themselves with spiritual forces of evil that are in opposition to God's Truth. Under the guise of so-called Social Justice, a justice based on pure materialism, these churches have become increasingly natural and materialistic. For them there was no discernible difference between "the church" and the government party with which they have become aligned. What the party said went regardless of whether or not it aligned with Biblical teaching. The Bible is simply twisted to suit utopian fantasies. How ironic it is that this same party also now finds itself aligned with organizations that are hostile to Christianity.

The Ramifications

As a consequence of the Church's withdrawal from the public square, a great light has gone out in the halls of government leaving it to operate at every level without fear that that light will be shined onto its activity again. Many Christians are now at best woefully ignorant of a Biblical understanding of government in regards to its function and purpose, or worse, they have bought entirely into the social-justice lies that see Government as a God-like entity capable of ending the curse. In this darkened state many Christians also see the murder of millions of children in the womb as an acceptable price to pay in exchange for material ends that they desire. In this new world, the hunger and thirst of the spiritual man are, by decree, denied through the auspices of "separation of church and state". Simply put, government cannot give aid (tax-breaks) to philanthropic activity if that activity does not align with the morality it arbitrarily decrees.

Many generations have passed since the 501(c)3 was passed into law and it is as if God gave us the ultimate desires of our heart.  We, even in the midst of an economic down-turn, are a wealthy nation oblivious to the fact that we are also spiritually poor, blind, and naked. Many local churches are now either completely apostate, or they're hospitals dedicated to applying salve to the lives that have been wrecked by a culture that has institutionalized sin. Or worse, they have simply become centers of feel-good-therapeutic-theistic entertainment that have passed the buck of the hard work of caring for the poor to impersonal, uncaring, and well-paid bureaucrats. And at the center of all this is what has become the giant pink idol that no one wants to talk about standing in the of the middle of the Sunday morning sanctuary, the Democrat Party.

Conclusion

There were attempts a few years ago to change the law so as to give pastors more freedoms in the pulpit while allowing the congregants to keep their subsidies. But God would not have this. The attempt was thwarted. A bill entitled " Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" was voted down. As one could reasonably expect, the votes were mostly along party lines, the true alliances of the Democratic party in plain sight for all who cared to look. But why should have Democrats voted to cut loose its control of pulpits? They are perfectly capable of selective enforcement of this code. Those who support democrats do so without fear.

It should also be remembered that nations which do not enjoy freedom of religion still have churches, they're just state-sanctioned. They are simply controlled, eerily, through similar restrictions on speech that we see being exacted on churches in America now through the tax code.

America has only ever had one hope, the Church of Jesus Christ. Unless that Church comes to its senses, America will continue its descent into darkness and suffering. Furthermore, all our attempts to alleviate that suffering by mammon will only put us in a deeper spiral which will lead to increasingly radical "fixes".  Our nation awaits salt for its preservation, and light for its vision. Whether that salt will arise from under the foot of man, or that light will shine, remains to be seen.  But this we know, God will prevail and His Son's Bride will emerge spotless.

Jan Brewer

Brewer is meeting with the president today. And if there is one thing all "conservative" politicians have in common it is disappointment amongst their constituency. In my opinion, Jan Brewer is not necessarily going to be any different. I don't think that she wanted to sign SB1070 but had no choice given the overwhelming support for the bill in Arizona. She was silent, as far as I know, during the debates on the bill, and it was hoped by Arizona leftist that she would veto it. No one knew what she would do, I don't think she did either.

Just so you know, Brewer was not elected but became governor when Janet Napolitano left that post to become Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. That said, Brewer DID want to become the elected governor of AZ and in the end did sign the bill. I still don't know if she truly supports the bill. I think however that she is relishing her surge in popularity, a popularity that will probably propel her into the governor's mansion come November. But how this will all play out with her as an elected governor is still yet to be seen. I've heard conservative pundits praise her aplenty, but as for me, I'm withholding my praise too loudly for the time being. I prefer instead to be optimistically cautious, and I would suggest to those inclined to lay too much praise on her to do the same. As someone once said, if you don't want to be disillusioned, don't be illusioned.