1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straight forward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he DOES, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President, ever, who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He would like to blame all problems on Bush, from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (the Dr. IS a psychiatrist)
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense and State's Rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The Media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a Pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10 When Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. If the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country before it's far to late.
Look what's coming
Here's looking at you kid
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Thursday, January 1, 2015
The True Meaning Of "Scapegoat"
As The World Turns
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)