Saturday, October 31, 2009

Dick Cheney Says President Obama Should Stop Dithering

On October 21, 2009 former Vice-president Dick Cheney became the 20th recipient of the "Keeper of the Flame" award from a Neoconservative Washington, D.C. based think tank from the Center for Security Policy. (CSP). Other such notables that have received this award was former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former President Ronald Reagan. Cheney gave a speech that night and during that speech he criticized President Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. He criticized the Obama administration of "dithering" and "waffling" with regards to America's war on and occupation of Afghanistan. He stated President Obama should stop dithering and make a decisive decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. Back in August General Stanley McChrystal had made a request that the administration send 144,000 additional U.S. troops to counter the resurgence of the Taliban. President Obama as of yet hasn't made a decision in regards to that matter.

Ever since President Obama has been inaugurated, Dick Cheney has been one of Obama's chief critics when it comes to the handling of national security issues such as enahanced interrogations and on how Obama has handled both of the wars in the Middle East. I will say up front that President Obama is dithering when it comes to fulfilling McChrystal's request to send additional troops to Afghanistan. I haven't approved of how President Obama has handled both the wars in the Middle East as well as how he's handled national security issues affecting America. However, much of Obama's agenda when it comes to both the wars in the Middle East has been nothing but a continuation of the policies of the previous administration. The only thing that's different is Obama deployed troops from Iraq and sent them to Afghanistan. Even though Obama is at fault for how he's handled this war in Afghanistan, the ultimate blame lies with the Bush administration. President Obama inherited these wars from the Bush administration. Even though I don't approve of Obama's handling the situation, I also disapproved of how the Bush administration handled both of the wars. Those wars could've been won under the Bush administration. I don't believe there was any excuse for President Bush to have handed down these two wars to President Obama.

One of the problems that is apparently evident in politics is hypocrisy. I've seen it with the Democrats and I've also seen it with the Republicans. Neither side is immune from it. I remember back in 2005 and 2006 when the situation in Iraq was very grave. The commanders in Iraq along with some senators such as John McCain stated that the U.S. needed to send additioinal troops to Iraq to stabilize the country. I can remember Rumsfeld and Bush dithering on that issue. It wasn't until 2007 after Bob Gates had been named the new Defense Secretary and the Iraq report had been written that Bush finally agreed to send additional troops to Iraq. At last count our troops are still in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan started in 2001 when Bush was president. Even though U.S. and NATO troops supposedly "routed" the Taliban from power, the job was not completed. We never did destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan nor stabilize that area. The situation was deteriorating in Afghanistan toward the end of the Bush administration. We had troops in Afghanistan all those years but Bush didn't do what needed to be done to win that war. Al-Qaeda is also still loose in Afghanistan.

How does Dick Cheney have the nerve to criticize President Obama for his handling the war in Afghanistan when the Bush administration didn't finish the job? How can Dick Cheney criticize Obama when the previous administration failed to end both of the wars in the Middle East? I've stated before when it came to the issue of the Gitmo detainees the Bush administration could've set up a military tribunal to have tried all the detainees from Gitmo. Obama wouldn't have had to deal with that issue if the previous administration had properly executed the war on terror. The Bush administration didn't properly execute the war on terror. It was a joke in a number of ways. To hand it over to a socialist like Obama was very foolish. I'm not a fan of Obama but I'm not going to criticize him when he's not at fault either. Obama is at fault for how he's handled the situation since his watch began in January. But the war began under the Bush administration and they're the ones that deserve the bulk of the blame.

I can remember in 2001 after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks how the media wanted to blame the Bush administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. There was a failure in the breakdown of intelligence during the Bill Clinton administration. Clinton deserves most of the blame for 9/11. Bush deserves a measure of the blame, but he was only in office for eight months when the attacks took place. The 9/11 plot was in the planning stages before Bush took the oath of office. In the case with Afghanistan, this war was ongoing for almost eight years before Obama took office. Therefore, the majority of the blame belongs to the Bush administration. It was nothing but pure hypocrisy on Cheney's part to take potshots at Obama when the Bush administration could've ended the wars under Bush's tenure.

The White House At War With FOX News

The White House has lately been engaging in a war of words with Fox News Network. On September 20, 2009, President Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Obama snubbed Fox partially because of the unfavorable coverage Fox gave to Obama's healthcare plan. Wallace responded by saying that these were the " biggest bunch of crybabies he had seen from Washington." In October White House Communication Czar Anita Dunn called Fox News "A wing of the Republican Party." "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air."

Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente, who likenss the Fox News Channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary suggested the White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett." "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming." I find it astounding the criticisms that the Obama administration uses against Fox news. CNN and MSNBC have their own opinionated television personalities as well such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Anderson Cooper. ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN are all very liberal in their orientation and have been very supportive of President Obama's administration. MSNBC has undoubtedly been pro-Obama ever since he ran for president. There's no fair and objective news coverage on MSNBC. He has all the other news networks in his back pocket. Why criticize Fox? I believe Obama feels Fox is a threat to his agenda, especially in their coverage of the healthcare bill that's currently being considered before Congress. Also, conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have been hammering away at President Obama concerning his governance of the nation.

Fox news was founded in 1996 by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Roger Ailes is the CEO of Fox News. Fox New's slogan is "Fair and Balanced." I will venture to say that Fox news isn't a conservative channel. Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteran, Geraldo Rivera, and Shepherd Smith aren't conservatives to name a few. The most outspoken conservatives on the news channel are Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. However, they are commentators and they possess the right to express their opinions in a similar manner as Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do on MSNBC. Fox News is more "fair and balanced" than all the other news networks. President Obama wants to criticize Fox News for not being very objective in their reporting. Fox is no less objective in its reporting than CNN and MSNBC. However, Obama isn't critical of those news channels because they're very supportive of President Obama's agenda. President Obama is surrounded by czars in his administration that desire to silence free speech. They want to silence those that dissent with the Obama administration. President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela himself took control of the media in 2007. In 2006 Chavez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV would not be renewed. It ended on May 28, 2007 and was replaced with a state network. Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants to control the type of information that's broadcast over the airwaves. Our First Amendment freedoms are under attack.

The Fox News Network is more supportive of Republicans than all the other cable news channels. However there are those on Fox that are liberal on some of their viewpoints. They're not all conservatives. Also, Democrats have been invited to appear on many of the programs and some refused to come. Whose fault is that? Just recently Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg appeared on the other news networks but wouldn't appear on Fox. And the Democrats want to complain about Fox catering to the Republican Party.

There are some topics that Fox won't cover such as the eligibility issue of President Obama. They won't delve into the issue of whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen. They refer to those that dispute Obama's eligibility as "Birthers" just like the other pundits do. Fox news also won't cover topics relating to the North American Union or the New World Order for example. Also when an entertainment star dies such as Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith, to name a few, they'll spend endless hours of airtime covering the details surrounding the deaths of these media superstars. Personally I believe the news channel shouldn't be the place to televise continuous coverage of entertainment stars. Those types of news items should be relegated to the entertainment channels.

Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points memo was mentioning reasons why he believed President Obama was so critical of the Fox News Channel. Some of the reasons why O'Reilly believes Obama is critical of Fox is because of Fox exposing Obama's associations with various radicals. Last year when Obama was running for president his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers was revealed. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor and he blamed America for 9/11 and was racist in his attitudes. Bill Ayers was a former "Weather Underground" terrorist and he was part of a communist terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other buildings in the 60's and 70's. Obama had ties with Bill Ayers back in the 90's and both served on the board of an anti-poverty group called "Woods Forest." Fox has also reported on all the radical czars that serve at the behest of President Obama such as Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, and Anita Dunn. Anita Dunn said two of her heroes were Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Mao was a communist who took control of China. Another reason why Obama's probably critical of the news channel is the coverage Fox news did on ACORN. Fox news did an undercover videotape of ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law to a pair of journalists disguised as a pimp and prostitute. Megyn Kelly taped a whole show uncovering the corruption that took place at ACORN a few weeks ago. Obama had ties with ACORN and ACORN even contributed to his presidential campaign. Then on top of that there are conservative critics such as Hannity and Beck continually hammering away at Obama's policies. Also much of the coverage on Obamacare hasn't been too favorable. I concur with O'Reilly's talking points.

I believe the Obama administration desires to silence all forms of dissent. Talk radio and Fox news are two of the targets that Obama is aiming at. I believe he wants to bridle them. In a fascist country, the dictator will seize control of the news media. That's what the communists in Obama's administration desires. They desire to silence all opposition. America is becoming a fascist country. It's very crucial during next year's election that we send home our Congressmen and Senators in droves. We need to drive these communists out of the White House and Congress. Time is running short. If we're going to reclaim America, we must do it now. America also needs to repent and turn to God. God is our only hope!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

In All Labor There is Profit

Proverbs 14:23 says,"In all labor there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury." We live in a society today that doesn't like the thought of having to work. We live in a lazy generation. People today aren't motivated when it comes to getting off their stool of do-nothing and work. The Bible says that if we don't labor, then we will be in poverty. That's what the scripture in Proverbs says. Some people like to sit around and socialize but never accomplish anything much. There is a place and time for socializing. However, there's also a time when we need to be busy fulfilling the call that God has given us in our lives. If a person will labor diligently regardless of their calling or the setting in which they might be in, they will profit from it. I know of people who have been diligent in their labors and they have profited mightily from it.

When one sees or hears the word "profit" we tend to think of it in terms of financial gain or benefit. That is one aspect of profit. However, you cannot limit the profit that you receive from labor solely in financial terms. It's broader than that. There have been people that have profited greatly from a hard day's labor, but they didn't become wealthy as a result. But the joy that's inside of them is immeasurable. Why? Because they understood the principle of labor. They recognized in order to succeed, you must put your hand to the plow and do it with all your might. The Bible says we are to accomplish whatever we place our hands on with all our might. If you're going to start something, then continue that work until its completion. We shouldn't start something and not complete it. Many of us including myself have been guilty of starting tasks and not completing them to their entirety. However, the profit comes from that labor when we start something and be faithful with it until it's completed. That's when we profit from it. You won't profit from your labors if you don't complete what you started.

There are different forms of profit that result from diligent labor. One of them is financial or monetary gain. Another form is a sense of satisfaction due to success. Success is also a form of profit when you complete the task and are accurate with it. One form of profit that came to my mind this week was opportunities that become available as a result of your faithfulness in your calling. New opportunities will spring forth to serve in areas that are unimaginable simply because you were faithful to labor in your vocation. Also, you can profit from labor in other settings besides the workplace. The place where you labor can be in a number of settings such as school or university, church, an organization, to name a few. There have been people that have started a particular endeavor and as a result of their labors there were new doors of opportunities that awaited them. They had the opportunity to serve in areas they couldn't even imagine. I think of the late Gospel singer and songwriter Dottie Rambo. She started out singing in local churches and writing music. She wasn't very famous at first. But as a result of her diligence, she was noticed by the governor of Louisiana at the time Jimmie Davis. He helped her in her rise to stardom in the Gospel music industry. She got to participate in areas she wouldn't have dreamed of when she was a teenager or in her twenties. Due to her diligence, new opportunities awaited her that gave her the opportunity to use her gift in other areas.

There's a young man in my church that comes to my mind when it comes to new doors of opportunities springing up for him. His name is Dr. Aaron Wells. (I refer to him as Dr.) He's in his second year in college at the University of Louisville. Since he's started college, new doors of opportunity have opened up for him at the university. He participated in a work study program and he works in student affairs. This past summer he worked on campus full-time in the Department of Student Affairs. He has an opportunity of a possible internship in Frankfort, Kentucky working at the state legislature. I'm certain there will be more doors of opportunity for him there in the future. At the church we attend, he is a former Bible quiz student. He excelled in Bible quizzing. He now helps assist in Bible quizzing at the church and even attends some Bible quiz competitions. He exemplifies what Proverbs 14:23 says when it says there is profit in labor.

Proverbs 14:23 applies to both saved and lost people alike. There have been many businessmen that are an exemplification of that verse. They started out small with an old buiding and not much capital. But later their business grew and as a result of their labors new doors of opportunity have opened up for them. They are now very successful in their corporation. They are people such as Bill Gates, the late Dave Thomas, Warren Buffet, and others. God says that if we will labor diligently, there will be profit that results from it.

Friday, October 23, 2009

He Who has the Gold Makes the Rules

Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg has ordered the executives of the seven companies that received federal bailout fund to steeply cut their salaries by around 90% of what it was last year. He said the executives of these troubled companies must trim their pay packages, according to a FOX news report. Feinberg reviewed the pay packages (stock, salary, perks, and other compensation) of 136 executives. They were the top 25 staffers at seven bailed-out firms. Feinberg's order to trim executive pay was the same thing that President Obama told executives during February. There are many critics of Feinberg's actions especially those that tout themselves as free-market capitalists. FOX analyst Andrew Napolitano says Feinberg's action leads America down a "slippery slope." Neil Cavuto was on the O'Reilly Factor Thursday evening and Cavuto disagreed with Feinberg ordering top executives of those firms that received bailout money to steeply reduce their compensation.

I can predict the response of conservative radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin to name a few on Feinberg's actions. All of these radio talk show hosts claim to espouse free market principles. All three of them would say that Feinberg's actions are unconstitutional and the the government has no business whatsoever dictating the pay scale of the top executives in the private sector. They would all say that's unconstitutional. Let's take a glimpse at this scenario real closely.

I agree under ideal situations that it's unconstitutional for the U.S. government to be stepping into the private sector and dictating the compensation of either the executives or the common laborer. To take it a step further, Feinberg's position as pay czar is unconstitutional. There's no call under the U.S. Constitution to appoint a czar. A czar doesn't belong in American government. They aren't elected by the American people nor are they accountable to Congress or the American people. That's a Russian office. I just mentioned under ideal circumstances that the federal government has no business dictating to executives in the private sector what their compensation should consist of. The question that should be asked is it ever appropriate for the federal government to dictate the pay of top executives?

If I was to pose this question to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin they would all say that it's always unconstitutional and never appropriate for the government to dictate the salaries of these executives. However, there's nothing constitutional about these giant corporations receiving bailout money from the American taxpayer. When did Congress ever receive the authority to bailout these corporations? Congress bailing out these corporations violates the principles of a free market. Under a free market a business has just as much of a right to fail as it does to succeed. If a business doesn't have the means or know-how to compete in the marketplace, then they should fail. No questions asked. Therefore the constitution was violated when the government stepped in and granted TARP money to these bankrupt firms. What right does Congress have in using taxpayer money to bailout these troubled firms? These huge corporations should've been broken up into smaller businesses, according to my view. The old adage still remains: He who has the gold makes the rules. When these troubled corporations stick their hands out asking for TARP money, then they're in essence asking for handcuffs to be placed on them. They waive their rights to run their corporation as they see fit when they ask for bailout money. It's their fault. They're saying to the government they can't run their own economic affairs when they ask the government for money.

I know some of the arguments that will be made in regards to Feinberg's actions. The argument will be made that if Feinberg will regulate executive pay from those firms that received bailout money, then he'll regulate other firms that didn't receive any TARP money. Another huge argument against Feinberg regulating executive pay is that "big money attracts big talent." Well, I'm sorry about that one. When a corporation receives bailout money from the government they have no business paying their executives huge bonuses until they've paid back all the bailout money in full. The executives should be paid handsomely when their companies are financially profitable. They shouldn't enjoy the privilege of handsome salaries when the American taxpayer is footing the bill. That's not right! I don't enjoy the thought of the government stepping in to regulate executive compensation in the private sector. However, those firms had no right to come to the government with their hat in their hand asking for money. If these corporations don't want the federal government dictating to them how much they can pay their executives, then they shouldn't be asking for bailout money from the government. That's plain and simple! I refuse to stand by and support top executives deciding their own compensation when they violated free market principles and asked the American taxpayer to bail them out. They should have their salaries trimmed back as long as the American people are footing their bills.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Where are All the War Protesters?

Last night I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on radio and the guest he had on his radio program was Cindy Sheehan, the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan in Iraq. After her son was killed she went out and protested vehemently against the Iraq War and stated that the Iraqis and our soldiers were getting killed for nothing. Back in August 2005 when Bush was on a five-week vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Cindy Sheehan established a protest camp called "Camp Casey". She would camp out as close to Bush's Crawford ranch as she could in hopes of having a second meeting with him. Sheehan wanted Bush to give an explanation of why he sent American troops to fight in Iraq. She stated the intended purpose in fighting in Iraq was based on fabrications. She has spent the last few years protesting across the country against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sheehan even went to Martha's Vineyard this past August when President Obama was on vacation to protest against the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

Cindy Sheehan was on the Dennis Miller show speaking about the life of her son when he was alive. She didn't spend too much time speaking about Casey as a soldier but rather about him growing up and being an Eagle Scout. Casey was Sheehan's eldest son. It was a polite radio interview. It wasn't terse. I for one disagree with Cindy Sheehan on many of her political views. I do sympathize with her on the death of her son. I know she is deeply hurt over that and I believe it has clouded her thinking and judgment as a result of her son's death. The Left used her to fulfill their political agenda. I will say in observing Sheehan since President Obama's inauguration I do have an element of respect for the woman. The area where I respect her is that she hasn't changed her mind about the wars simply because Barack Obama is president. I respect that. She believes in her heart these two wars are wrong, rightly or wrongly. The sad part about the whole incident is that she does have a point. The U.S. has been in both Afghanistan and Iraq a number of years and both the Bush and Obama administrations haven't had a strategy for winning. Our troops have been engaged in two no-win wars. That's no way to fight wars. Sheehan's misguided on her viewpoints but I don't believe her speaking out on the wars was politically motivated. She even stated on the Dennis Miller Show that she wasn't even thinking about politics when she stood against the Iraq War. I believe that.

I can remember during the Bush administration all the anti-war protests that took place over the war in Iraq. I can remember many of our politicians such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and others criticizing the war stating it was based on fabrications and that there wasn't any way the war was winnable. I vividly remember the Left using John Murtha (D-PA, chairman of Appropriations Committee) back in November 2005. He stated that our troops needed to be pulled from Iraq. He stated that the situation was too perilous in Iraq. Now you don't hear anymore out of him and our troops are still in Iraq. The Democrats used him to speak out against the war because the Democrats knew they had an issue they could use against the Republicans for the next two elections. They were looking to regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The Democrats have achieved their goals. They no longer need Murtha as their mouthpiece since they have the radical socialist they desire in the White House. Both Democrats and Republicans throw issues against one another in elections for the purposes of obtaining power. That's what I feel for the most part about all those that have protested against the war in Iraq. I believe it was mostly done for political purposes.

Ever since President Obama's been elected, you hardly hear all the virulent rhetoric that came from the antiwar left during the Bush administration. The reason for that was their man wasn't in office. Those that belong to the antiwar or peace movement are liberal in their politics and they tend to vote Democrat. They didn't like Bush because he wasn't their kind of president. So they used the war in Iraq as an issue against the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Since President Obama represents many of the Left's views, then the war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't such a huge deal anymore. Most of the protesting that took place was a farce. The Obama administration is still continuing the same policies in both wars that the Bush administration used. The Left wanted someone like Obama for president, so they protested vehemently against the wars in order to bolster the Democrats' chances. That's one man's opinion. You definitely don't hear as much negative rhetoric from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid about the wars like you did when Bush was president. Both Pelosi and Reid aren't favorable to increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan. However, I don't think they'll make much of an issue out of it if Obama decides to send the number of troops that General McChrystal has called for.

I believe if President Obama was to renew his commitment in Iraq and add more troops there I don't believe he would hear much of an outcry from the Democrats in Congress or the far Left. It's all politics. I believe most of the protesting that took place against the Iraq war wasn't geniune to begin with. I especially believe that since the outcry has dwindled down considerably. The Left have what they desire. They have a liberal, Democratic Congress and a socialist president.

Monday, October 19, 2009

The Lack of Temperance

Proverbs 25: "He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls". We live in a society today that lacks temperance or self-control. We find that with young children, teenagers, and even adults. There's no particular age group that's an exception. People that don't get their away express their outrage through temper tantrums, pouting, or more violent measures as all the school shootings that have taken place in America for the last 12 years or better. People have no self-control? Why? They have no temperance. They didn't receive proper discipline as a child. What is the definition of temperance? Temperance is self-restraint in conduct, indulgence of the appetites, etc., moderation. In the particular example I just mentioned, I'm making reference to a lack of temperance when it comes to behavior. I'm referring to people who become easily angered when things don't go the way they desire. Proverbs also says that those who become angry easily lack understanding. People that fly off the handle don't know how to possess their vessel.

The lack of temperance isn't just limited to becoming angry and acting irrational. The lack of temperance can be demonstrated in a number of facets. We see Americans that are intemperate when it comes to managing finances, keeping their weight under control, slothfulness when it comes to work, students not being diligent in completing their homework, and the list continues. It's a very serious problem in today's society. That's apparent as well with our lawmakers in Washington, D.C. When it comes to the issue of spending taxpayer dollars, our politicians waste money like we waste food or even worse. Today's parents have failed in properly instilling temperance in their children's lives. Today we're seeing those results manifested in our society with today's young adults. We have an impatient society that's out of control, that wants things accomplished in "microwave time", and doesn't want to exert themselves to achieve genuine success in certain fields. We're a slothful, lazy, and obese society. We postpone things for tomorrow which should've been accomplished today. We have students graduating from our public schools that can't hardly read or spell. We have young people entering the work force that lack skills necessary to be successful on a job. As a result, the turnover rate is high in many places of employment because they can't handle the stress on a job.

The Bible says a lot about temperance. Temperance is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). A Christian should live a balanced, temperate lifestyle. Many Christians today struggle in that area. A lack of self-control, regardless of what area in a person's life it is, is not a good testimony on behalf of the Christian. The world lacks balance. We as Christians should be leaders when it comes to living a temperate lifestyle. Our lives should reflect Christ and we should live a temperate life. A lot of unnecessary words have been spoken due to a lack of temperance when it comes to speech. Many Christian homes have faced undue stress due to being undisciplined in handling our finances. Every part of our lives should exhibit self-control. I appreciate Dave Ramsey and the work he does when it comes to promoting "Financial Peace". I appreciate all those that promote living a balanced healthy lifestyle. Without temperance, life will be very stressful, difficult, and complicated.

Friday, October 16, 2009

President Obama Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

On October 9, 2009, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegian Nobel Committee. What's interesting about Obama's winning the award was that he was nominated in February. He took office as president on January 20. It sounds very premature for him to receive this "coveted" award when you consider the fact he hasn't accomplished anything in regards to establishing "peace" around the world. As of yet, President Obama hasn't done anything to stem Iran's quest to create a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the face of the map or to destroy the United States and the West with a nuclear bomb. Let's take a quick look into this Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize was named after it's founder Alfred Nobel. Nobel was a Swedish chemist and an industrialist. He invented the high explosive dynamite. He was also was great in literature as well. Nobel had a will written in 1895 which left 94% of his considerable estate to fund five prizes which amounted to approximately $560 million in U.S. dollars in 2007. Nobel's will provided the money which would be divided into five equal parts. The fifth part allocated one part of Nobel's prize fund. The fifth part was the "Nobel Peace Prize" which went to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of promotion of peace congresses."

Alfred Nobel was a liberal in regards to his political thinking. When you take a look at the state of Europe today and their government, it's socialist. They have a collectivist view of society. President Obama's views mirrors those of Europe today. I believe Obama's views of government are even more radical than those of Europe. Obama is considered a "rock star" to the world. Hence, it shouldn't be surprising that he was awarded this prize. He fits well with Europe and even the Muslim world in the Middle East. Obama is a globalist when it comes to his views on foreign policy. He isn't going to stand up to the aggression that we're seeing in Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He will go to the United Nations when it comes to seeking sanctions against Iran or North Korea. He isn't the type of leader to stand in the gap and take a stand against any country that's a nuclear threat or a harm to the Western Hemisphere. Ever since he's been president he's been globetrotting around the world apologizing for America's past sins. America has had her share of problems, but there's been no country that's been the leader of the free world like America has. When immigrants leave their native countries, they choose America? Why? Because America has been a bastion of freedom around the world for over a couple of centuries. The immigrants have migrated to America in search of a better life.

What does it mean since Obama has received this "prestigious" award? All it means is that Obama is popular with Europe and those other countries around the world. Obama doesn't understand the meaning of peace. He and those that are socialist in their thinking believe appeasement is peace. You can't appease those countries that have dictators that are a threat to the structural balance of the Western world. When there's a country who has an aggressive dictator, they must be dealt with firmly and know if they use nuclear weapons in certain countries, we're going after them. Sometimes you must have war in order to have peace. If we didn't fight the forces of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II, we wouldn't know America as it is today. We would've been dominated by Adolf Hitler and would've been speaking German. Obama hasn't demonstrated he knows anything about peace. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still continuing with no clear end in sight and Iran and North Korea want to launch weapons toward the United States. What a joke that Obama has been granted this award. Obama joins past presidents in receiving this award along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Columbus Day

This past Monday October 12, 2009 was Columbus Day. The holiday is celebrated in honor of Christopher Columbus, who was the son of a wool merchant and weaver who was born in Genoa, Italy. He's a historical figure that's been widely celebrated throughout the last 500 or more years. Popular legend has it that he set sail out on the Atlantic and discovered America. According to many scholars, he didn't set sail in North America. He led four expeditions to the New World but never found a western ocean route to Asia. Tha was his original goal. The regions that he explored were already inhabited. On Columbus's first voyage, he found out the earth was not only round, but that the size of the earth was much bigger than he dreamed. He underestimated how long the voyage would take to head to the "East Indies in Southeast Asia."

On August 2, 1492, Columbus set sail in search of the East Indies. His voyage was financed by Ferdinand and Isabella. They made the city of Palos pay back their debt owed to the crown by providing two of the ships and also by getting Italian financial backing for part of the expense. Columbus and 90 crewmen boarded three ships that were to make the voyage to the New World; the Nina, Pinta, and the flagship Santa Maria. Columbus landed in the Bahamas. He also sailed to Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti). He never made it to the East Indies. He had made reference to the native peoples he saw as "Indians" because he mistakenly thought he had landed in that area. Columbus recognized how huge the earth was in making that voyage. Many people who were uneducated at the time believed this world was flat. I'd venture to guess many people thought that back then because many parts of the world at that time were uninhabited. Those that were educated knew that the world was round. However, the areas that Columbus landed in, I believe, would eventually pave the way for future explorers to set sail in that direction and to discover North America.

Many Americans have celebrated Columbus's landing since the colonial period on October 12, 1792. On that particular date New York City and other U.S. cities celebrated the 300th anniversary of his landing in the New World. In 1892 President Benjamin Harrison called upon people of the U.S. to celebrate Columbus Day on the 400th anniversary of the event. Teachers, preachers, poets, and politicians used Columbus Day to teach various rituals of patriotism. Back in the mid-nineteenth century an influx of Catholic immigrants immigrated to America and many of them supposedly had experiened "induced discrimination". As a result, a Catholic organization called the Knights of Columbus was formed bearing Christopher Columbus's name. The organization helped provide relief to those new Catholic immigrants. The Knights of Columbus played an integral part in helping to lobby for the new holiday. Angelo Noce, a first generation Italian born citizen helped lobby for Columbus Day to be a federal holiday. The first official state holiday celebrating Columbus Day was Colorado. Columbus Day was proclaimed a state holiday by Colorado Governor Jesse F. McDonald in 1905. It was made a statutory holiday in 1907.

In April 1934 due to the lobbying of the Knights of Columbus, Congress, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, October 12 was made a federal holiday. Since 1971, Columbus Day has been set aside to be honored on the second Monday in October. Over the years there have been many Native American groups along with former Ethics Professor Ward Churchill (University of Colorado) who have been very critical of Americans celebrating that holiday. Regardless of the flaws and imperfections Columbus may have had, he has definitely played an integral role in the shaping of American history. His voyage to the Caribbean helped pave the way for numerous European explorers to settle both North and South America. That helped pave the way for the founding of the greatest country of all: The United States of America.

Rush Limbaugh's Failed Attempt to Purchase the St. Louis Rams

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made a bid to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh was part of a group headed by St. Louis blues owner Dave Checketts seeking to buy the Rams. As it turned out, Rush Limbaugh was "sacked" in his attempt to purchase the Rams. Checketts, who is leader of the group said, "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis." Limbaugh was dropped from consideration in his attempt to purchase the Rams due to some controversial racial statements he supposedly made. Some of those statements couldn't be substantiated.

Last month I wrote a post entitled, "Injecting Race Into Politics" where I mentioned about race baiting being used by those on the Left in an attempt to discredit particular individuals in order to push through their adgenda. Former President Jimmy Carter made the claim that Joe Wilson's shouting "You Lie!" in regards to Obama's healthcare speech was racist. Carter was implying that Joe Wilson represented some who believe a black shouldn't be president. Carter made a racist charge against Wilson but he didn't give evidence why he believed that Wilson's statement was racist. It was Al Sharpton who was involved in trying to prohibit Limbaugh from being included in purchasing part of the Rams. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both participate in race baiting. I said that those that make the charge of racism should give ample evidence of what they are saying is accurate. Race baiting has done nothing but divide and polarize our country. There were allegations about Limbaugh that were made that alleged years ago that slavery built the South and it wasn't all bad. Another allegation that was made was that Limbaugh praised James Earl Ray in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in 1968. Limbaugh has denied those charges and none of them have proven to be true.

The only kind of racial comment I know Limbaugh made that was in poor taste was the statement he made about the Philadelphia Eagle's quarterback Donovan McNabb. In 2003 Limbaugh was an analyst on ESPN's NFL Countdown pregame show. He contended that McNabb was overrated because the news media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. That ignited controversy and right after that Limbaugh resigned from his position. That comment doesn't signify that Limbaugh is racist. However, it was very poor taste in how he made that statement. There's nothing wrong in the media desiring a black quarterback to succeed. There's nothing wrong in desiring any black to be successful in whatever vocation they're involved with. As long as the standards for achievement are equally applied regardless of race. I desire to see blacks succeed. It's great for them personally as well as it can be a motivator to the black community to show that if one black can be successful, so can others. I don't know how great McNabb was in his position as quarterback, but Limbaugh's statement in that case was unnecessary. That doesn't make Limbaugh racist nor should that have prevented him from being able to go through the process to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams.

Some of the NFL players, Al Sharpton, and NFL Association chief DeMaurice Smith spoke out against Limbaugh for being part of Checkett's group. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay declared Tuesday he wouldn't vote for a sale of the Rams to a group that includes Limbaugh. All this about Limbaugh's being a racist was conjured up to pressure the St. Louis Blues owner to drop Limbaugh from consideration in purchasing the Rams. The truth of the matter is the Left along with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't like Limbaugh because he pokes fun at Democrats and liberals. Limbaugh has been steadfast in his opposition to President Obama's policies. Of course the Left wants to say if you oppose or disagree with Obama's agenda it's because you're racist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Racism is treating a particular race as inferior or second class citizens. Making observations about a particular race isn't racism. Criticizing Obama about his policies doesn't make one a racist.

The Left knows that race baiting will give them what they desire. That's why they use it. They used it against former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 2002 and that resulted in Lott's resignation from that leadership position. That's why they want to use it in this healthcare debate in Congress. They will marginalize their opponents to push through their agenda. Al Sharpton stirred up this controversy about Rush to prevent him from purchasing part of the St. Louis Rams. The Left dislikes Limbaugh and they use race baiting against him to achieve their objectives. In this case it was to persuade Dave Checketts to drop Rush in pursuing the sale of the Rams.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Should the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy be Repealed?

President Barack Obama spoke at a Human Rights gala dinner on Saturday October 10, 2009. Obama renewed his committment to address issues that the gay mafia have been pushing for such as the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that was passed by Congress in 1993. Should the ban on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military be repealed? Let's give a little background on this issue. President Clinton in his 1992 presidential campaign pledged to end the ban that would prohibit homosexuals for serving in the military. He wanted homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the military. In 1993, there was a compromise law passed which was entitled, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The "Don't Ask" provision of the bill says that superiors aren't to directly inquire of a new service member's "sexual orientation". They can't ask whether that member is either a homosexual or heterosexual. The "Don't Tell" provision of the bill states that a servicemember can't say say they're homosexual nor participate in overt homosexual behavior. If they participate in open sexual behavior, then that would be grounds for a dishonorable charge. Homosexuals would have to keep their lifestyle private. They couldn't talk about matters in regards to sexuality in the military. The 1993 law was a departure from past precedent in the U.S. military. Prior to the 1993 compromise on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the military in 1942 considered being labeled a sodomite or engaging in homosexuality activity in the military grounds for dismissal. When the military used to screen candidates in recruiting, they would ask whether the person enlisting in the military was homosexual or heterosexual.

There have been recent efforts to lift the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuals. Colin Powell, former Army Joint Chiefs of Staff who once supported the recent "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military said that since many years have elapsed, that measure should be reviewed. President Obama in his presidential campaign of 2008 said that he would lift the ban on open homosexuality if he were to become president. On Saturday President Obama spoke at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, which is a large gay rights group. He reaffirmed his commitment to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban in the military. He said he would end it at the right time. I do believe the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military will be repealed in a matter of time. There are certain elements in American society who are under pressure by the gay rights mafia who desire to legitimatize the homosexual lifestyle in America. They desire for all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle to be considered normal and okay. Anyone that opposes homosexuality is considered a bigot. The gay rights movement has been taking place since 1969 and has gained tremendous steam since the presidency of Bill Clinton. We live in a post-Christian society today. Vice has become virtue to the media, Hollywood, our elected elite in Washington, D.C., and in academia. We have liberals trying to promote lifestyles that are anti-family and anti-God. That's one of the signs we're living in the last days.

The media shouldn't ban the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. If anything, we should revert back to the previous military policy on homosexuals and screen applicants for the military to determine if they're homosexual. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. We shouldn't promote that lifestyle in any element of American society. The basic building block of society is the family unit. Open sexual behavior regardless whether it's homosexual or even heterosexual in the military barracks isn't conducive to military morale. The purpose of the military is to defend our country, not to promote open sexual behavior. A married couple has the right engage in a sexual relationship with one another. However, there's a time and a place for that. You don't engage in sexual behavior in the military barracks being exposed to other soldiers. Just think how much worse it is when it's homosexuals flaunting their sexuality. It undermines military morale.

Years ago when Rush Limbaugh has his own television program he made a statement in regards to the purpose of the military that I believe bears repeating. He said in one of the 1992 television programs that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things; not engage in social experimentation. He was saying that in reference to former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder's desire to elevate women in positions of leadership and combat in the military. The military isn't about civil rights. It's about adequately training soldiers so they can properly defend this country. Weakening qualification standards to serve in the U.S. military will harm our military. It's important to have unity and social cohesion when it comes to the troops. Allowing immoral behavior to become acceptable in the military will undermine morale, limit military readiness, and hinder us from defeating the threats we face abroad today such as Iran. Allowing homosexuals to flaunt their lifestyle in front of other soldiers just compounds the problem.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Inspiration of Scripture

II Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." We have a Bible which is inspired by God above. Throughout the Old and New Testaments God inspired prophets to pen down the Word of God. Throughout the whole period of both the Old and New Testaments as well as the process of the cannonization of both the Old and New Testaments, every jot and tittle of the Bible is correct. Not a word is out of place. Not a paragraph is out of place. I'm thankful God kept his word together throughout that whole time so we could have a Bible to read in this day we're living in. The very fact that God was able to inspire the prophets and even Jesus's disciples and the Apostle Paul and there not be any contradiction in the Word shows that God inspired it. It's very easy humanly speaking to put together several different books and there be contradiction and incompatibilities in what's written. However, that didn't happen when it came to penning down the books because it was the Holy Spirit that gave the word to those that penned it. Praise the Lord. Many professors in liberal seminaries would make you believe the Bible couldn't be inspired by God due to all those that penned the books to the Bible for a period of 4000 years. I'm thankful God's not limited to man's way of thinking.

Those of us that speak the English language the correct English translation is the King James 1611 authorized version. It was translated from the Textus Receptus. Today's modern versions such as the NIV, Good News for Modern Man, the New American Standard, etc. were translated from corrupt texts. Many Bible scholars would dispute that fact but it's the truth. Some of these modern translations remove the blood in certain spots in the New Testament and refer to Mary as a "young woman" instead of a virgin. There's a major difference there. There are many young women who aren't virgins. Mary was a virgin who knew no man. I've heard preachers say if God was able to inspire and preserve the Word in the Greek and Hebrew language, then God was also able to preserve it in the English language as well. The King James Bible happens to be the correct translation. It was translated from the proper text. Prior to the King James translation, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale had attempted to translate the Bible in the English language, but they never completed it. But in 1611, we finally had our English Bible, which is the King James. I believe whichever language the Bible is interpreted, the proper text to translate the Bible is the Textus Receptus.

It's very crucial we daily read the Word so we can grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says we are to study the word to show ourselves approved unto God; a workman that needeth not be ashamed. In order for the man of God to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, he must read and study the Word. What a privilege it is to have a written copy of the Word. It contains all the answers to modern man's dilemma. That's never changed. The Bible has the solutions for man's dilemma today just like it did during the days that Jesus walked on earth. Today's "educated" man thinks the Bible is irrelevant to man's problems. He thinks the Koran, the Book of Mormon and others religious books have parity with the Bible. He believes man can use psychology and all these other worldly philosophies to solve man's problems. However, psychology nor any of today's religious philosophies have the ability to make a drunken man sober nor fulfill that inner void or the "vacuum-shaped" void that St. Augustine mentions that man possesses. Man has a void inside his life. He needs God. Only the God of the Bible can fulfill that void. Another thing to note is none of the gods of this world has arisen from the dead. However, the God of Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ did arise from the dead. We have a living book that's inspired by God. It's the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Negatives Come Along With the Positives in Capitalism

Filmmaker Michael Moore just recently produced another film entitled, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore is a self-proclaimed liberal who produces films for political propaganda. Moore is a liberal activist who is opposed to globalization, supports gun control, opposes large corporations, the Iraq War, former President George W. Bush, and even capitalism supposedly. Some of the most famous films he's produced are "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine", "Fahrenheit 9/11", and "Sicko". Michael Moore was a severe critic of the past Bush administration and some of his policies such as the war on terror and the Iraq War for example. He tries to propel his audience into political activism when producing these documentaries.

The latest documentary is about capitalism. In this movie Moore excoriates the banking industry and the final hectoring of President Bush. He blames the economic meltdown of one year ago on corporate greed and Reagan-era deregulation. Even though Moore is seemingly opposed to capitalism, he defintely loves the profits from his movies that support his lifestyle. Many of these political pundits that are opposed to capitalism aren't opposed to it when it comes to themselves--they're opposed to it when it comes to the general population.

I've never seen the movie nor do I know the contents of it, but Michael Moore does address some legitimate issues when it comes to the abuse of capitalism. Even though he may be very liberal, he does address some legitimate concerns. What's dangerous when it comes to people like him is that there are elements of truth in what he says, but his whole statement isn't true. For example, he blamed much of America's economic meltdown on deregulation. He promotes the belief that government must regulate business. There is a need for limited government regulation when it comes to Wall Street and regulating anti-competitive strategies in business. Hence, you have the term "robber baron" which applied to many of America's industrialists of the nineteenth and earlieth twentieth centuries which engaged in illegal, monopolistic practices which made the industrialists as wealthy as they were. However, the Democratic Party wants to micromanage corporations and propose regulations that would strangle business and make them less profitable. There are numerous mundane regulations which would make it difficult for a business to survive and prosper. Those are terrible regulations. However, the government needs to step in and regulate those businesses which engage in monopolies, which is not good for America nor common Americans.

Capitalism is like anything else. Along with the positives come the negatives. If you read American history back in the late nineteenth century you read about the era of American industrialization. It was the era of the growth of huge corporations. What was terrible was they grew so big and they engaged in illegal practices which wiped out their competitors. That's what happened with the railroad industry, the banking industry, and the oil industry to name a few. These corporations grew so large that the entrepreneurs that owned them became removed from the business laborers. There were numerous issues that arose in the workplace such as filthy and unsafe working conditions as well as employees working long hours making low wages while those at the top were amassing huge fortunes. As a result, labor unions were formed across America. They engaged in collective bargaining and sought for higher wages, safer workplace conditions, and a seat at the bargaining table. Over the years conditions did improve for the laborers. They accrued higher wages and benefits. However, labor unions over the years have abused their power as well. Back in the 1970's, there were all sorts of labor strikes and they pressed for higher and higher wages. That's fine to a point, but the unions in the automobile industry outpriced themselves that eventually it has resulted in the loss of jobs, as well as it has partially contributed to some of the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries.

There are two sides to any issue. There have been businesses that have been abusive to their workers and there have been labor unions that have tried to twist the arms of corporations to bend to their ways. Neither of those excesses are healthy. In order to run a successful business, it takes teamwork from both labor and management. Those that manage business need to have a healthy respect for their employees and pay a fair wage as well as employees need to recognize they have a responsbility to work diligently and produce. Without production there's no profit. If there's no profit, then eventually there'll be no job. Both sides must fulfill their roles in business.

The problem isn't capitalism. Some critics think capitalism is evil because of the abuses that take place within capitalism. Of course that goes with anything. There are good and bad doctors, good and bad teachers, to name a few. Technology itself has it's positives and negatives. Why don't we phase out technology since there's been a lot of evil that has arisen from it? Why don't we eliminate doctors and teachers since there are a few that are quacks? See how foolish that kind of thinking is? Capitalism has allowed America to accrue the greatest wealth and prosperity the world has ever known. Capitalism has also afforded America with opportunities the world has never known. Capitalism has also allowed for the rise of entrepreneurship. It has allowed entrepreneurs to create spectacular inventions such as the light bulb, the automobile, the computer, the tractor, and the list continues. Think of what kind of society America would be if it wasn't for capitalism. The problem isn't capitalism. It's the abuse of capitalism that's the problem. America's laws under the Sherman Antitrust Act of the 1890's allows our government to use antitrust laws to break up illegal monopolies. We also have laws which allow for the SEC chairman on Wall Street to oversee the daily activities taking place there and to regulate any business practice that's not good for America's businesses. Another practice that would help is for America's leaders to watch what kind of trade practices that it engages itself in. America's leaders shouldn't sign trade agreements that would wipe out America's manufacturing base. America's leaders need to support trade that's both FREE and FAIR. Any kind of trade agreement that would put America's industry in peril doesn't need to be entered into. We need to renege on some of our past trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA, which have allowed for America's jobs to be exported to other countries such as Mexico and China. Capitalism is good in itself--it's the negative aspects that need to be regulated.

Should the Troop Levels in Afghanistan be Increased?

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has requested to President Obama that the U.S. send more troops to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This past Sunday there were insurgent attacks in a remote area which killed eight American soldiers over the weekend. National Security Adviser Jim Jones didn't endorse calls by General Stanley McChrystal to send 40,000 additional servicemembers to join the 68,000 already committed. Jones stated "It would be, I think, unfortunate if we let the discussion just be about troop strength." Jones said that just sending more troops alone wouldn't be the only solution.

The pressure is increasing on President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama hasn't yet declared what he will do in regards to strategy and troop strength. Prominent Republicans such as Senator John McCain have supported McChrystal's call for more troops in Afghanistan. Jones said that the decision to send more troops would be made "in a matter of weeks." Jones claimed that Afghanistan is not in danger of falling to the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda presence there is diminished.

Should President Obama grant McChrystal's request to send more troops to Afghanistan? There's no doubt when U.S. soldiers are being killed in insurgent attacks that something must be done to replace the presence of those soldiers that are deceased. However, sending an additional 40,000 troops isn't going to rectify the situation alone. The problem is the "no-win" strategy that Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush have adopted in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Also, the Bush administration implemented "nation-building" policies in both countries in the hopes that both countries would become democracies. America's troops have been training the Afghans in building up their security forces when it comes to fighting the Taliban.

Sending more U.S. troops without a dramatic change in strategy and goals will be worthless. All that will be doing is placing more American soldiers' lives on the chopping block. I know it's not popular in this day to fight a real war. However, that's the nature of wars. Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made a comment in one of his television show in 1992 that the purpose of going to war is to kill people and break things. That's the truth. The objective of war is to using crushing force to break down the enemy and prevail. If that mindset is not used when it comes to fighting a war, then you're endangering the lives of the U.S. troops for nothing. There must be a military objective for victory when fighting a war. There are numerous ways to accomplish that goal, but a quick and decisive victory must be the bottom line when going to war. We shouldn't be engaging ourselves in a "police action" when fighting a war. There's a price to be paid when waging a war. If the purpose is not to defeat the forces of evil, then it's a waste of time. One of the reasons why America has a low-standing in world opinion is due to the fact we've fought a long and protracted war in both Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.

I remember back in 2004 when then presidential candidate and U.S. Senator John Kerry spoke of fighting a "sensitive" war. There's no such thing as a sensitive war. Wars are ugly and devastating. You can't dress it down. War is not meant to be pretty. It should be used when either all means of diplomacy have failed or we have such an imminent threat that if we don't join forces with our allies the whole world or the Western Hemisphere could be destroyed in a nuclear showdown. It requires strong and resolute force to defeat the forces of evil. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan should be to destroy the Taliban and any Al-Qaeda presence that's there. I don't believe the U.S. should be engaging in "nation-building" in Afghanistan because their culture and religion won't allow a true democracy to ever take place there. It's a waste of time. The U.S. mission must be to destroy the Taliban completely and to remove the Al-Qaeda threat in that country. If the Obama administration isn't going to do that, then he should send the U.S. troops home.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The 222nd Anniversary of the U.S. Constitution

September 17, 2009 marked the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The signing of this famous document took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 17, 1787. 42 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention held their final meeting that day. One important item of business was to sign the U.S. Constitution. Since May 25, 1787, the 55 delegates had gathered almost daily in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia to revise the ineffective Articles of Confederation. It became apparent by the middle of June to the delegates in attendance that amending the Articles of Confederation wouldn't be sufficient. The Articles was too inept. The federal government didn't possess the power necessary to enforce laws. So an entirely new document was designed to clearly define and separate the powers of the central government, the powers of the states, the rights of the people and how the representatives of the people should be elected.

After the Constitution was signed, Congress sent printed copies of the Constitution to the state legislatures for ratification. All twelve state delegates approved the Constitution. 39 delegates signed it. From the period of September 28, 1787 to June 21, 1788, nine states ratified the Constitution which made it effective. Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution and New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify it which was sufficient to make the new Constitution effective. In the following months following the signing James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay would write the Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution while Patrick Henry, Elbridge Gerry, and George Mason would organize the opposition to the Constitution. One of Patrick Henry's earlier objection to the new Constitution was that it didn't include the Bill of Rights. So a Bill of Rights was eventually incorporated into the new Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution contains the Preamble, seven articles, and the signatures of the delegates. Here's the words to the Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The U.S. Consitution gives an outline of the different branches of government and what their roles and limits are. There are seven articles in the Constitution. Article I is about the Legislative Branch. Section 1 of Article 1 is about the legislature. Section 2 is about the House. Section 3 deals with the Senate. Section 4 contains the information about elections and meetings.
Article II deals with the subject of the Executive Branch (the presidency). Article 2 Section 1 is about the presidency, Section 2 is about civilian power over military, Section 3 is about the State of the Union Address given annually, and Section 4 is about the disqualifications of a president. Article III is about the Judicial Branch. Section1 is about the judicial powers, Section 2 is about trial by jury, jury trials, etc. and Section 3 is about treason. Article IV is about the states of the Union. Article 5 discusses the amendment process. Article VI deals with debts, and the supremacy oaths. And article seven lists those states that ratified the new Constitution.

Following the Articles that were included in the Constitution you will find the signatures of the delegates and all the states that ratified the Constitution. Then you will find the 27 amendments to the Constitution that have been added over the years. The most recent was the 27th amendment which was ratified on May 5, 1992. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights which states the rights of the citizens that the federal government can't remove from them. We have an amazing Constitution that has lasted well over 220 years. Our Founding Fathers were very wise and they knew too much power given to the federal government could result in tyranny. We are very unique and blessed as a country to have a Constitution that has endured for so many years.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

A Computervision in 2020?

Imagine you're coming home from work one day and you decide you want to turn on the television to watch FOX cable news. As you sit on the recliner, you take your remote control and trying clicking on the channels and there's nothing on your television screen. It is blank. You turn the television on and all you see is a blank screen. You try to flip channels with your remote control but it's useless. Your television is to no avail. Your television is obsolete. Everything's now on internet.

I was talking to a man from church the other night. We were speaking a little about technology and I was asking him what does he think in regards to the future of television. He said one of these days he believes television will be internet based. I happened to agree with his assessment. I believe the day will come when all forms of communication will be hooked up to the internet. I believe television, the telephone industry, and even radio will be internet based. It will be linked to the internet. I believe in a few years if a person doesn't have access to internet in their home, they won't receive access to any of these services. I believe the medium of communication will be all linked to the internet. Anything that revolves around the communication industry will be available on the world wide web. That's my prediction.

I've felt for the last few years that the day will come when television as we know it today will be obsolete and it will be computerized. I'm going to take you to the world of imagination and let's take a look at the year 2020 and see what television's going to be like. I don't believe it will happen in 2020, I believe it will be sooner. However, I use 2020 as a target date for what I expect to have already taken place. Television as we know it today will become obsolete. The traditional desktop PC that you find at Wal-Mart and other retail stores will also become obsolete. In it's place there will be a new invention called the "computervision" for a lack of better terminology on my part. The computervision will be a combination of both television and a desktop PC. Television will be computerized. I've seen televisions at Wal-Mart and they have the appearance of a computer monitor. You can presently watch movies and certain television programs already on the internet. I've thought for a number of years television would eventually be computerized.

The computervision contains a hard drive, cable wires, a laser printer, speakers, and a monitor. The speakers will be embedded in the hard drive. You can purchase a monitor in different sizes. You can purchase a wide-screen monitor of different sizes and you can purchase a monitor the size of today's traditional desktop PC's. You can hook up more than one monitor to your hard drive if you so choose. It will also contain a keyboard, remote control, and a mouse. You can place your keyboard, mouse, and printer on a desk with layered shelves. The mouse, keyboard, printer, and monitor will hook up to your hard drive. Your hard drive will have three different CD slots. You have one slot where you can place a DVD on it. There's another slot you can play music CD's on. There's also another slot where you can use a writable CD for data storage.

The computervision will contain a number of different functions on it. There's a switch on both the hard drive and monitor you can flip on. Once you turn it on you will see the desktop with several different icons on it. You will have the option to access television. You can use your mouse to highlight the word "television" on your desktop and it'll feature an array of channels. Then you can use your mouse to highlight which channel you desire to view. Then it will take you to that channel and it will show the program the channel's currently playing. The computervision will house several different types of channels including those channels that were once formerly cable channels. There's other channels such as satellite that you can access. However, you'll have to request to have access to those channels and you'll pay a special fee on your monthly internet bill. Every household will have a monthly internet bill to pay. If you want special features on your computervision, then you'll pay extra on your internet bill.

The computervision will allow you to download all types of websites. It will have a download link on it and it will give you options on what you desire to download. You can click with the mouse or download what you want to see and listen to. You will have the ability to download music, movies, old television programs, and even YouTube clips from the internet. Many of the movies and old programs that are downloaded will require a fee to be paid with a credit or debit card. The computervision will also contain Microsoft applications and Apple MacIntosh applications. It will have all the traditional features that are currently on Microsoft such as Word, Outlook, Calendar, Windows Media, as well as new features. MacIntosh will contain the features they currently possess plus new features for the future. You will be able to use your keyboard to perform traditional Microsoft and MacIntosh functions. You'll also be able to utilize the printer to print whatever documents or graphics you desire to print. You will also be able to print from online as well. The computervision will also contain all kinds of video games which one can download. The games that are currently on Microsofts X-box will be incorporated in the computervision.

The computervision will also have access to various radio stations which you can highlight and click with your mouse. You will be able to access local radio stations in your area with the computer as well as satellite, XM, and other special radio stations. You will have to pay an extra fee on your internet bill each month if you desire special radio stations to be accessed. Also, live streaming will also be shown on the computervision. You will be able to see radio broadcasts being broadcast live streaming at the radio stations where the broadcast is taking place. There are currently talk radio programs which have live streaming on the internet such as the Jim Sumpter Show out of Salt Lake City, Utah. The radio stations will tune in clearly on the computervision. You won't have to worry about hearing static when listening to a station.

The portable laptops that are popular today are here to stay. They will continually be upgraded to meet the demands of tomorrow. They are very handy when it comes to conducting business. The new computervision will encompass tomorrow's technology. I'm positive they won't be known as the "computervision". However, I can't think of a better term to call the new televised computers of tomorrow. I do believe I'm on target when I say that the television and traditional desktop PC's of today will be obsolete in a few years. It will all be one one computer and it will all be on the internet. It will contain all kinds of accessories into one computer. All technology is being computerized and that's what it will be. All forms of electronic technology will be linked to the internet. There are no boundaries when it comes to technology. The computervision will be a spectacular computer.

Friday, October 2, 2009

The Background Behind the Song "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need"

YouTube - The Rambos - He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
Amazing Grace shall always be my song of praise
For it was grace that brought me liberty
I do not know just why he came to love me so
He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
Chorus:
I shall forever lift mine eyes to Calvary
To view the cross where Jesus died for me
How marvelous the grace that caught my falling soul
He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
Repeat Chorus:
This is a classic song that was penned by the late Dottie Rambo around 1970. Dottie had a brother named Eddie Luttrell who had cancer and was told he only had weeks to live. Dottie would pray and read the Bible to him by his bedside. She would persuade him to give his heart to Jesus. One day after singing at a concert she visited Eddie and asked him did he give his heart to the Lord. Eddie said the way he lived there's no way God would take him in. He reminded her of his addiction to drugs and his time in jail. Dottie reminded him the Lord left the 99 and went after that one lost sheep.
It was after that visit that she finished composing the song, "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need." She previously had started writing a song about the grace of God but was unable to finish it. Now she finally finished the song. One day after singing at a concert in Ohio, she felt persuaded that Eddie gave his heart to the Lord. She visited him and he said he gave his heart to the Lord. He was very weak at his bedside and died shortly thereafter. She sang the song at his funeral and has sung it countless times ever since. Many groups have sung that song over the years. It's a classic that many churchgoing Americans are familiar with today.
There's an interesting story in regards to the tune of "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need." Back in the early 60's, Jimmie Davis who was the governor of Louisiana at the time, had attended a concert in which he heard the Happy Goodmans perform. He heard them sing one of Dottie's songs entitled, "There's Nothing My God Can't Do." He enquired about the authorship of the song and the Goodmans told her Dottie Rambo wrote it. Davis contacted Rambo and he arranged for Dottie and her family to meet the governor at the mansion in Louisiana. He had Dottie to perform and as a result he offered her a publishing contract of $3000, which was more money than Dottie had ever made. Over the course of time, Davis had requested that Rambo compose a song to the tune of "Danny Boy", which was widely considered an Irish national anthem written by Frederick Weatherly in 1910. When Dottie finished the song, "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need", she set it to the Irish tune of "Danny Boy", a Londonderry Air song. Over the years, Dottie's song has touched countless lives of millions of people. If it wasn't for God's grace, imagine where we would be today. We would be in hell.