Vocabulary Test

schoolHate, Fear, Propaganda, White Supremacy, Judgmental, Homophobe, Islamaphobe, Misogynist, Social Justice, Compassion

Imagine you’re back in school for a moment and the teacher has just announced that you’re going to take a “pop quiz” on some vocabulary words as they’re used by the Left. The words you’re being tested on are above.

Are you ready?

Go!

How did you do?

Here are the answers:

Hate – a word used to transform anyone that is guilty of wrong doing into a victim so as to make them appear innocent

Fear – a word used to create a flaw in the character of a person who is articulating an argument a Liberal can’t refute

Propaganda – any platform that rightly differs from the liberal mindset

White Supremacy – anything championed by a Caucasian that doesn’t unjustly favor a minority

Judgmental – what a guilty person says when they’re being criticized for doing something immoral

Homophobe – a combination of “fear” and “judgmental.” A tactic used to criticize the character of anyone who supports conservative Christian values.

Islamaphobe – again, another combination of “fear” and “judgmental.” A tactic used to minimize the toxic dynamics of militant Islam while simultaneously highlight the abuses and distortions of the Christian faith. This works well too as far as redefining out nation’s Christian heritage as something ignorant and sinister.

Misogynist – someone who isn’t willing to force an employer to finance a woman’s sexual practices

Social Justice – a form a financial favoritism that awards people things they would otherwise have to earn.

Compassion – strategic subsidies given to ensure a person’s financial status never changes in order to guarantee they vote for a Democrat

Spin – the truthful logic that characterizes the typical Conservative the the Left can neither silence or refute

For more on the way “hate” and “fear” is used by the media, head out to Fear and Hate – Start Listening for Those Words.

Reparations and Being Sorry for Being White

slavesIn addition to the quality content represented by the Prager U video that you can access by clicking on the image to the right, I wanted to add yet another point to the conversation pertaining to reparations and apologizing for being white.

Here it is: The Civil War was fought over how we as a nation were resolved to define a human being. Granted, Lincoln’s initial concern was the preservation of the Union. But the Emancipation Proclamation was the legislative manifestation of Lincoln’s belief that the only Union worth preserving was a Union that was devoid of slavery. And if you consider the debates he had with Stephen Douglas leading up to his nomination, he references race specifically. It wasn’t just the Slave Trade, according to Lincoln, it was the enslavement of a specifc race justified by the nonsensical belief that ethnicity defined one’s humanity.

That’s what the Civil War was about.

To be ashamed of being caucasian is to ignore the fact that Lincoln was white as were the over 300,000 white soldiers who died to make his point.

I am not ashamed of being white because I do not evaluate my ethnicity by the mindset of the Antebellum South any more than I would expect a black man to guage his worth according to the atrocities committed by Idi Amin.

Race is not what defines you, it is your individual character that matters. The ranks of caucasians include several sinister characters, but they also include Abraham Lincoln and Billy Graham. The African American demographic includes a number of flawed individuals but it also includes Fredrick Douglas and George Washington Carver.

To be ashamed of your race is to adopt a cowardly perspective on yourself and the world around you because it means that you’re dismissing an individual’s responsibility to be moral and instead blaming it on the pigmentation of one’s skin.

And what’s ironic is that these people who are apologizing for being white are being just as racist as their Jim Crow counterparts in that they’re focusing on race rather than responsibility.

And it needs to stop…

Fear and Hate – Start Listening for Those Words…

omarIt’s healthy, I think, to start listening for the words, “fear” and “hate.”

It is possible to win an argument without saying a word simply by positioning yourself as a victim. If you can successfully portray yourself as somebody who’s being unfairly treated as a result of “fear” and “hatred,” then anyone who would question you, let alone criticize you, is automatically categorized as a villain.

Fear and Hate

Those sentiments are real and the damage that has been done throughout the centuries as a result of unreasonable fear and nonsensical hatred ranges from the Holocaust to the KKK. That’s one of the reasons both those words are so effective in shutting down any real dialogue. You invoke those words and all of the horrific images associated with those words overwhelm whatever conversation would otherwise occur and the person who asserted those terms is acknowledged as the noble victor and their opponent is dismissed as a fool if not worse.

And that’s appropriate. Provided, of course, that the situation being addressed is truly characterized by fear and hate.

These days, however, those words are usually nothing more than strategic tools to veil the lack of substance that characterizes the argument that would otherwise be revealed for the hollow philosophical paradigm that it is. Listen for how often those words are used by the Left and watch how any kind of rebuttal to their argument is silenced simply by accusing the other side of being motivated by “fear” and “hate.”

Take for example Ilhan Abdullahi Omar. She is a Muslim from Somalia whose family sought asylum back in 1995 at which point they moved to Minneapolis. In 2016 she ran on the Democrat-Farmer-Labor ticket and won the opportunity to champion the state of Minnesota in the House of Representatives.

On the surface, it looks like the American Dream come to life. But Omar has been caught saying some things that make it apparent her convictions are both anti Semitic and perhaps even treacherous.

Description of 9/11 attacks: “…some people did something.”

To describe the attack on America at the hands of militant Muslims as “some people did something” begs the question whether or not Omar is capable of condemning a terrorist act done by militant Muslims. It’s not an uncommon dilemma. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims acting out those portions of the Koran that encourage the slaughter of “infidels.” As a quick sidebar, our country has been contending with Islamic terrorists through much of its 200 year history. The Marine Corps Hymn features the line, “…to the shores of Tripoli” which references a battle that was fought against militant Muslims.

The backlash to Omar’s comment was significant, even to the point of receiving death threats. While that is not an appropriate, let alone a moral response, rather than apologizing for what she said, Omar blames President Trump’s response to her reckless comments as being the problem and not her statement.

In other words, she’s a victim.

Response to the way in which America supports Israel: “…it’s all about the Benjamins”

The AIPAC (American – Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an organization that champions Israel’s interests to the legislative and Executive branches of the United States government based on its shared values. It is a welcome perspective in the minds of those who value Israel, it is a toxic distraction in the minds of those who don’t.

In 2012, Omar tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized the world,” referring to the way in which many nations supported Israel’s attack on Hamas in an Israeli military operation called, “Operation Pillar of Defense.” It was Israel’s response to Gaza militants having launched over 100 rockets against civilian targets on the Gaza Strip. Kevin McCarthy, a Republican Representative from California, rightfully criticized both Omar and Rashida Tlaib, another Muslim who has made her pro-BDS (Boycott, Divestment Sanctions) sentiments known, for their anti-Semitic statements.

McCarthy’s tweet was criticized by Glenn Greenwald when he claimed McCarthy was more interested in attacking the free speech rights of Omar and Tlaib then he was in addressing the supposed fallacy of supporting Israel. Mind you, Greenwald is no fan of Israel.   When Omar saw his tweet, she endorsed his sentiments by saying,” It’s all about the Benjamins,” meaning that it all comes down to corruption and payoffs etc. As one might expect, her obvious disdain for Israel having been revealed yet again was criticized by a number of people including Nancy Pelosi.

Omar didn’t push back on Nancy Pelosi’s comments, but when challenged by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, she responded by citing the recent attacks in Pittsburgh  and the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand rather than answering for what she said.

In other words, rather than taking responsibility for her comments, she deflects any of the scrutiny that would otherwise be directed towards her by suggesting that Netanyahu is singling her out for criticism when there are more dramatic scenarios around the world.

Again, she’s a victim.

Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) – “…thousands of Somali citizens killed by American forces that day”

Somalia in the nineties was a scene best described as violently chaotic. The preexisting regime had been overthrown and four Islamic factions were now fighting over who should be in charge. The fighting was such that Somalia’s agriculture was destroyed which lead to a national crisis that had thousands of people starving to death.

The U.N. stepped in and delivered food and other resources in an attempt to relieve the suffering only for those supplies to be intercepted and sold for weapons. On March 15, 1993, the Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia was held which sought to bring together the various clans represented by 15 representatives and agree to a ceasefire. Initially, the results seemed positive but one particular individual refused to cooperate. His name was Mohammed Farrah Aidid.  He would escalate tensions by ordering his forces to attack UN troops who were inspecting a radio station that was not only broadcasting anti-UN propaganda, but was also suspected of being used as an armory to store weapons. At that point, Adid was rightfully declared an international criminal and military strategies were initiated to apprehend him.

“Bloody Monday” was the name given to the operation that was intended to arrest Adid on July 12, 1993. An informant had passed on intelligence that Adid was located in a structure that was subsequently bombed. However, a journalist by the name of Scott Peterson insisted, along with various Somali newspapers, that the building was not the location of Adid. Rather, it was a place where several Somali elders had gathered to discuss peace. What was either a massively successful lie or a tragic truth did a great deal of damage to the way in which the US was perceived by those loyal to Adid and to those who were prone to view any international assistance as being unwelcome, especially given the fact that there were 200 civilian casualties.

In the weeks that followed, various Somalian attacks lead to the death of several US serviceman. In October of 1993, the US responded with an operation designed to apprehend Adid’s foreign minister, Omar Salad Elmi and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale. Due to several logistical errors, however, the operation, which was supposed to last no more than an hour, became a debacle that left 19 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded. Somali combatants, on the other hand, sustained far worse casualties ranging from 315 to over 2,000 depending on what resource you refer to.

Omar’s perspective on America’s military presence in Somalia intentionally overlooks the fact that we were there to protect the UN’s desire to provide humanitarian aid. It was the way in which those resources were being hijacked and the fact that Mohammed Farrah Aidid had murdered several UN and American military personnel that had lead to Bloody Monday and the Battle of Mogadishu. We were there to assist Somalia and the Somalians that would later drag our dead through the streets of Somalia were enemies not only of the UN, the US and the rest of the world, they were also enemies of Somalia itself.

But…

Omar doesn’t see it that way. Rather, she sees America as the problem.

According to her recent comments on the Stephen Colbert show, she, and the “truths” that she espouses are subjects of unjust criticism coming from people who are predisposed against her because of her ethnicity and her gender.

She is a victim.

 

Ilhan Omar is being criticized for her words. Not her skin color or her ethnicity. She’s being called to give an account for her condemnation of Israel, the American military and her apparent inability to define the 9/11 attack as an act of terrorism carried out by militant Muslims.

But she’s a “victim.”

The Nation recently reported how on April 30, “…over 100 Black women activists gathered in Washington DC, to support Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar in the face of Islamophobic incitement from the Trump White House.” The article goes on to say…

The protest came as a moment of Black women’s unity in the face of Islamophobic misogynoir, with speakers such as Representative Ayanna Pressley contextualizing the attacks on Omar as part of a long-standing pattern of silencing of Black women’s voices. Speaking at the event, Omar described the attacks on her in the broader context of white supremacy, including anti-Jewish violence like the attack on a synagogue in Poway, California, saying, “We collectively must make sure that we are dismantling all systems of oppression.

Hate.

By the way, notice how any criticism of Omar is categorized as “white supremacy.” In other words, to be critical of her comments is to identify yourself as being anti-Semitic and a racist. There’s no real mention of what she’s saying, only the fact that if you disagree, you must be either afraid or enraged by her ethnicity.

You see how this works?

Later in the article, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors is asked, “Why do you think Omar is such a target not only for the far right but also some Democrats?” Patrisse answered,

It’s simple. She’s Black, she’s Muslim, she’s hijab-wearing. That is literally the image of fear that Trump has invoked in order to win over his base. She is a scapegoat for him and the right wing. I also think the Democratic Party doesn’t know what to do with her. They don’t know how to protect her, and they aren’t being the fierce advocates that we need them to be.

Fear.

No one is examining the substance of  Omar’s comments. They simply defend her and their platform as being the appropriate response to those who are fearful and hateful.

Bottom line:  No one can be critical of a victim without appearing either cruel or irrational. This is the modus operandi of the Democrat party. Champion every bogus talking point as a “cry for justice” and defend every violent outburst as an understandable reaction to an irrational fear or an immoral brand of disgust and you have a strategy that can work very well…

…right up to the point where people start basing their convictions on research rather than soundbytes.

And as part of that research, start listening for the words, “Fear” and “Hate.” More often than not, that will be your cue to dig deeper and discover there’s so much more to the issue you’re looking at than just the knee jerk reaction some are hoping you’ll default to.

 

Chick Fil A and the Great State of Texas

1webTexas Governor Greg Abbot recently signed into law a provision that would prevent the government from taking unfavorable action against a business or person for contributing to religious organizations. This action coming after the city of San Antonio airport recently blocked a Chick Fil A restaurant from opening a location at the city’s airport, citing the company’s support of traditional marriage as discriminatory and therefore unwelcome.

Here’s the thing…

If tolerance and equality was truly the impetus for San Antonio’s actions, then Chick Fil A would be allowed to open a location at the airport right alongside a restaurant that was flying a Gay Pride flag. But “equality” is not the basis for their complaint as much as it’s a scheme to silence any convictions save their own.

I’m not going to play drums in a band for a homosexual wedding. Then again, I wouldn’t expect a lesbian to buy candy being sold by a student who’s trying to generate money for a mission trip. I’m not going to compel you to participate in a Christian fund raiser any more than you should feel justified in forcing me to support something I don’t believe in.

That is freedom of religion manifested in the context of commerce. It’s not whether there’s a copy of the Ten Commandments posted in a school hallway or whether there’s a Gay Pride flag flying from the window of a local business. That is your right and that’s part of what makes our country both unique and noble.

But that’s not the perspective of the LGBT community.

They want to eliminate any reference to something that makes them feel uncomfortable, and they will propose any kind legislation to get it done and they will veil their true motives behind words such as “tolerance, “fear” and “hate.”

Fox News reported that State Rep. Jessica Gonzalez, a Democrat, said the bill was a personal insult given she is openly gay, DallasNews.com reported.

“Of course this bill is aimed at me,” she said. “It’s about reminding those of us who have never belonged not to get too comfortable.”

Hey, Jessica. How do you suppose everyone else “feels” when they’re being told they have to bow down to your immoral idol simply because “you’re uncomfortable?”

You don’t like Chick Fil A?

Then don’t go.

Stop insisting that the world must be devoid of anything that “reminds you” you’re that you’re different. You are different and that’s your choice. I’m not going to strip you of your right to be “different,” but I expect the same Constitutional courtesy in return. Otherwise, you have a situation that’s not Constitutional, it’s not tolerant, it’s not just and I’m emailing the governor’s office this morning and offer him a free #1 combo for his willingness to stand up to something that is as bogus as it is toxic.

And as an aside, feel free to compare the way Fox News reported this and the way CNN reported it. It’s not blatant, necessarily, but the CNN piece definitely defends the LGBT platform by ending with a comment from Ron Nirenburg, the mayor of San Antonio.

“There are many people in the community that are uncomfortable with Chick-fil-A,” Nirenberg said. “And I would ask you, have you ever tried to buy waffle fries on a Sunday? They’re closed. Fifteen percent of sales generated in the airport come on a Sunday.”

It’s yet another subtle slam against Chick Fil A, as far as the fact that they’re closed on Sunday. At first glance, it would appear that Chick Fil A is not only prejudiced against homosexuals, but it’s also a drain on the airport’s economy. But it doesn’t mention how Chick Fil A makes more than Subway, McDonald’s and Starbucks combined despite the fact that they’re able to do that in six days a week whereas every other one of the aforementioned franchises are open seven days a week. Nor does the article mention that the LGBT community makes up only 3.6% of the state’s population.  One more example of how you’re doing well to look beyond the headlines in order to ensure your convictions are genuinely informed and truly accurate.

Religion is Bad…

Screen Shot 2019-06-01 at 9.52.10 AMThere’s an article that was recently brought to my attention via Facebook entitled, “Study Discovers Children Raised Without Religion Are Kinder And More Empathetic.” It’s coming from a site called, “Awareness Act,” and while its credibility is questionable, the article does its job as far as asserting a subtle yet compelling reason for removing Christ from the marketplace.

Right?

I mean why would you support or even subscribe to something that seemingly contributes to a self-absorbed condition among children?

The article is reinforced and summarized by another site and it condenses the overall findings this way:

Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

Here’s the thing: Christ’s sacrifice on the cross represents one of the most selfless acts of unconditional love ever recorded in the history of mankind. Combine His Identity with the suffering that He endured for the sake of the very ones that were driving the spikes through His hands and you have the Ultimate example of altruism.

For those who don’t typically use the word, “altruism” in casual conversation, “altruism” (ALL-true-izem) means, “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.”

That’s Jesus to a “T.”

There’s three things that I would submit in response to this article that makes it profoundly bogus.

#1…

Friedrich Nietzsche  said that when people find out that God is dead in the nineteenth century, two things are going to happen in the twentieth century: First of all, the twentieth century will be the bloodiest century in the history of mankind and a universal madness will break out.

He was right.

We killed more people in the twentieth century than the previous nineteen put together and the “madness” that he predicted he experienced himself in that he spent the last 13 years of his life insane.

Why is this significant?

Because part of the way the above study evaluated altruism was though a game where kids where shown a collection of thirty stickers. They were told they could select 10 of their favorite to keep, but not everyone would be able to play the game. It was called the “Dictator Game” and this is the way in which the child’s “selfless” tendencies were being evaluated.

I’m not sure how that resonates with you, but I’m more inclined to look at the way in which the absence of a moral Absolute affects the lives of individuals and nations in the context of warfare and socio-economic anomalies and let that be the gauge I use to evaluate the Christian faith rather than how a child responds to a game.

#2…

Just because you say you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you subscribe to God as He’s revealed in Scripture. In other words, saying you’re “religious” could mean just about anything. Does Christ command us to be selfless? Absolutely (Phil 2:3-4)! Do self proclaimed “Christians” take that seriously? Given the fact that 25% of Christians don’t subscribe to a “biblical” God, it’s hard to tell.

#3…

Finally, the fact that you’re a child coming from a “Christian” household doesn’t mean that you’re being taught to revere Scripture let alone what it is that constitutes its content. This goes back to what was mentioned under #2. If you don’t know what you believe and why, or if you base your creed on a collection of experiential preferences rather than the Word of God, what can you realistically expect as far as child’s conduct when this is the “classroom” they’re being taught in?

In conclusion…

The Progressive mindset is founded on a godless paradigm. Everything from Socialism where government is god to the doctrine of entitlement where the individual is god. Either way, it’s a situation where moral absolutes don’t exist, one’s origin and destiny is purely happenstance and an individual’s sense of purpose is entirely subjective. Some see that as liberating because there’s no accountability and any kind of adversity or criticism can be categorized as fundamentally “wrong.”

But in the absence of a Standard, you have chaos, hopelessness and death. That’s not being overly philosophical, that’s just looking at the utility of Scripture, the testimony of history and the common sense evaluation of any situation that exists in the absence of a transcendent reason to “be.”

What ails society is not problematic because of Christ…

…what ails society is present because of a refusal to honor Him.

Dear Jim…

ten-commandments-list-where-in-the-bible-does-it-talk-about-the-ten-commandmentsHere’s the thing:

I can’t prove that Jesus died and came back to life.

I can point to all of the evidence that exists in terms of archaeology, architecture, music, literature, art and 2,000 years worth of dramatically changed lives, but I don’t have a selfie featuring the Son of God and me mugging for the camera as He’s existing the empty tomb.

That’s the thing about Scripture that makes it difficult to “prove.” We can’t go back in time and validate things as an eyewitness. We’re limited to what’s been written and then go from there.

Thing is, atheists are in a similar predicament in that they can’t prove that Jesus never existed. Again, going back to the aforementioned evidence, while I can process it as credible, someone else can come along and logically question just how “credible” it is in light of possible corruption or anything else that could possibly have been done in centuries past that makes the whole thing imaginary and thus irrelevant. But, again, you can’t “prove” that by providing raw footage of said corruption. We both have to contend with the same limitations and thus the same lack of absolute certainty.

There’s no need to go back 2,000 years to evaluate whether or not the way the Bible instructs a person to live and think is authentic. Morality, emotional health, professional ambition, ethics, politics, physical fitness, mortality – all of these things are covered in the Bible and I would submit to you while there may always be some question marks about the authenticity of the Christian faith (as far as being able to observe things like the Resurrection first hand), the practical substance of the Christian doctrine is more than enough to justify faith in Christ.

There is, however, something else to consider and that’s the “utility” of the Bible.

However subjective the historical reality of Christ may be, the philosophical paradigm that’s advocated in Scripture is a purely objective entity which can be read and applied in real time. In this context, we’re not looking at whether or not what we’re evaluating was crafted 2,000 years ago. You’re simply looking at the way in which Scripture instructs people to live and think and then observing what results from applying those Truths. And it’s in the context of applying those Truths – using the methodology that’s also taught in Scripture – that you discover perhaps the most compelling evidence for the Christian doctrine.

Let me show you…

Let’s go with the Ten Commandments for starters. Remember, we’re not trying to authenticate the identity of Moses or whether or not the Red Sea was parted, thus allowing the Israelites to pass through on dry land. We’re looking at the practical application of Exodus 20 and considering how it impacts the life and perspective of someone who’s applying it in the way the approach themselves and the world around them.

You shall have no other gods before me. (Ex 20:3)

You can’t be greedy, prideful or depressed unless you’re thinking of yourself first and foremost. I’m not saying you have to be “selfish” to be sad. What I’m saying is that in order to be perpetually cynical or to exist in a state of chronic despair, you have to be focused on:

  • what’s happened to you
  • why it happened to you
  • how it makes you feel
  • how you can’t think of anything else
  • how you will never be the same
  • and how everyone should make an exception for you because of the situation you are in

In a similar way, a consistently prideful disposition is possible only if you’re focused on…

  • what you can do
  • what you have accomplished
  • why you are so special
  • what you are planning
  • and why you need to be the center of attention regardless of whatever else may be going on

When you make a point of subordinating what would otherwise be a situation where everything is processed through the filter of your ability and your preferences, you open yourself up to a perspective that is founded on Perfect Strength, Knowledge and Love. Consequently, you are a pleasure to work with, you have an optimistic disposition, your priorities are in order and should someone ask what it is that makes you tick, you are quick to point to the True Source of both your mindset and your ability.

4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:4-6)

I can put premium fuel into my gas tank or I can fill it up with water. The gauge may say my tank is full, but the moment I go to start my car, the true composition of my fuel is going to be revealed as either real or fake.

If I’m going to benefit from all that Christ brings to the table, I’ve got to be focused on the Person of Jesus Christ as He’s defined in Scripture and not an image of Christ as he’s represented by a collection of cultural opinions. And not only for my own sake, but also for those who are within the sphere of my influence. Otherwise, not only am I going to be sitting on the side of the road, so will everyone else who’s followed my example.

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Ex 20:7)

Even if I do have premium fuel in my gas tank, I’m still behind the wheel. I can choose where to go, regardless of the map that God’s given me that leads to a destination I can be certain is well worth my time and energy.

It’s one thing when I make it clear that I’m headed off in a different direction simply because I think I know better. It’s quite another when I profess to be following the Instructions on the box when in fact I’m not. At that point, I’m forging His Signature and giving the world the impression that I’m obeying my Heavenly Father when, the truth of the matter is, my Heavenly Father may have told me to do the exact opposite.

In that moment, not only am I squandering all the potential represented by Jeremiah 29:11, I’m also a potentially toxic distraction to those on the outside looking in who believe, based on my phraseology, that I’m a good example of what God can do in and through a person who’s serving Someone and Something greater than themselves.

8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Going to church on Sunday and being engaged rather than simply being present is much like going outside and looking at the stars on a clear night. You’re not just observing the constellations, you’re holding yourself and your circumstances up the Light of God’s Reality and Ability (Psalm 8). In that moment, you’re reminded of how it’s not what’s “happening” in your life as much as it’s what God is “doing” in your life. And with that reminder comes the philosophical foundation that needs to be dusted off from time to time and that’s the fact that He is God and He is aware and that He is able.

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. (Ex 20:12)

One of the primary jobs that your parents have is to teach you all about God, His Word, and why it’s as advantageous as it is to seek His Counsel in everything you say, think and do. If you’re honoring them, you’re opening yourself up to what they have to say and all the benefits that go along with it.

Now, while that command is for children, parents have got a line to toe as well (Prov 22:6; Eph 6:4). There’s more to “training” your child than just insisting that they go to church every Sunday and refrain from immoral behavior simply because “they should.” When you pop the hood on Proverbs 22:6, the verbiage is telling the parent to know their child well enough to understand how they are wired so that the advantages of obeying Scripture are understood as legitimate benefits and not intrusive limitations.  To teach someone means to cause them to learn. If they’re learning nothing more than just a code of ethics that they’re adhering to simply to avoid disciplinary action from the Mom and Dad, they’re not learning anything other than just how to avoid being grounded.

On the other hand, if Mom and Dad are diligent students of Scripture and can not only explain what they believe and why, but also back their creed up with their character, then they’re in a good position to truly teach their kids Who God is and what He’s bringing to the table. It’s at that point that Exodus 20:12 is especially practical because you now have the Authority of God Himself behind a parent’s efforts to teach and train their child.

If every parent was resolved to lead by example and teach their kids everything that goes along with 1 Corinthians 12:31, then the world would be a better place. But not every parent thinks like that and some end up abusing their kids rather than raising them. Still, this command is helpful because you want to honor the office even if you don’t honor the man or the woman. Reason being is that an abusive parent leaves emotional and psychological wounds that are deep and dark. If you don’t forgive them, you wind up fastening a ball and chain to your psyche that makes it difficult to function. By obeying this command, you release the poison in your system that, while it may be there through no fault of your own, it is still something you want to rid yourself of if for no other reason than to ensure the apple falls as far away from the tree as possible when the time comes to raise your own children.

You shall not murder. (Ex 20:13)

“Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not do any thing hurtful or injurious to the health, ease, and life, of thy own body, or any other person’s unjustly.’’
This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, Gen. 9:6 . It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22 . And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth.

This isn’t just a command to not kill someone. When you consider the fact that man is made in the image of God, you’re not just taking a life, you’re assaulting that which is precious and valuable to your King.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias sums it up this way…

At its core life is sacred and of inestimable value, whether it is the life of a darling child in the fresh blossom of childhood, or the life of an elderly, weak, and frail recluse. We are each made in God’s sacred image. Think of this truth! That is why murder is described in Scripture for what it is: an attack upon God’s image. That is also why we are told, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15). Murder and even hateful words are attempts to destroy God’s image in another and to deny one’s value and spiritual essence. It is that essence which gives us our dignity and our worth. It is that essence which is our glory and true home.

When you make a point of seeing others as those who bear the image of God, it changes the way you look at people in general. Regardless of their race, color, creed or whether or not they just cut you off in traffic, theirs is an identity founded on something Divine and thus rates a consideration that goes beyond what might otherwise be the case if your perspective was founded solely on your personal passions and preferences.

It’s the fact that your neighbor (see Lk 10:25-37) bears the image of their King and therefore is more than a random face in the crowd that serves as the philosophical foundation for the remaining commandments.

You shall not commit adultery. (Ex 20:14)

It’s not just a violation of one’s chastity, it’s a violation of the marriage covenant which, by definition, is a contract made with God.

You shall not steal. (Ex 20:15)

You’re not just taking something that doesn’t belong to you, you’re taking something that was given to someone else by God.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (Ex 20:16)

You’re not just attacking the integrity of your neighbor, you’re attacking the integrity of God. That’s not to suggest that your neighbor is the embodiment of truth, but, again, because he’s made in the image of God, there’s a bigger picture to consider than just the individual you’re maligning.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Ex 20:17)

Some of you have probably heard me mention the simple conversation between Jesus and the one who was questioning him, trying to pit him against Caesar. And he looked at Jesus and he said, “Is it alright to pay taxes to Caesar?” (Mark 12:14-17) That is one question I wish so desperately Jesus had answered differently—then on April 15 you could be godly and rebellious at the same time!

Jesus, so brilliant in his response, he says, “Give me a coin.” And he took the coin and he says, “Whose image do you see on this?” The man says, “Caesar.” Jesus says, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give to God that which is God’s.”

The disingenuousness of the questioner is noticed in the fact that he did not come back with a second question. He should have said, “What belongs to God?” And Jesus would have said, “Whose image is on you?”

Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar; give to God that which belongs to God. God’s image is on you. (Ravi Zacharias)

To covet something goes beyond simply admiring it. It means that you’re intent upon seizing it illegitimately. Whereas stealing is the external act of thievery, coveting is the internal machinations that lead to stealing.

Again, because your neighbor is made in the image of God, any sort of malice or wrongdoing directed towards your neighbor is ultimately an assault on God Himself.

So, to summarize what we’re looking at here:

This is more than just a code of ethics to be adhered to for the sake of being courteous and moral. It’s a perspective that’s founded on the vertical relationship that exists between all of humanity and God. And what makes all this incredibly amazing and distinctive when compared to all other religions is that God doesn’t simply say, “Get it done or else!” He provides both the strength (Is 41:10; 1 Cor 10:13) and the will (Ps 119:32; Jer 31:33; Rom 6:18; Phil 2:13) to make it happen.

And there’s so much more…

But the bottom line is: It works.

In 1976, a gentleman by the name of Francis Schaeffer published a book entitled, “How Then Shall We Live.” It’s a phenomenal book that traces the way in which society thinks based on its collective worldview and how this collective mindset can be seen in its art and architecture as well as in its religious orthodoxy. His point is that when you build your society / individual life on Divine Absolutes, the result is something substantial and liberating.

It works…

On the other hand, when you build your society / individual life on a humanistic paradigm, the result is a chaotic and fragmented existence.

It’s an overview of that book that I would submit as my conclusion.

According to Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live traces Western history from Ancient Rome until the time of writing (1976) along three lines: the philosophic, scientific, and religious. He also makes extensive references to art and architecture as a means of showing how these movements reflected changing patterns of thought through time. Schaeffer’s central premise is: when we base society on the Bible, on the infinite-personal God who is there and has spoken, this provides an absolute by which we can conduct our lives and by which we can judge society. This leads to what Schaeffer calls “Freedom without chaos.” When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”, all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for “synthesis, pragmatism, and utilitarianism.” Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought, which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today. This fragmentation is expressed in the visual arts in works such as Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Pablo Picasso. This work is considered to mark the beginning of Modern Art. Another premise is that modern relative values are based on Personal Peace (the desire to be personally unaffected by the world’s problems) and Affluence (an increasing personal income.) He warns that when we live by these values we will be tempted to sacrifice our freedoms in exchange for an authoritarian government who will provide the relative values. He further warns that this government will not be obvious like the fascist regimes of the 20th century but will be based on manipulation and subtle forms of information control, psychology, and genetics. (“How Then Shall We Live“)

 

When someone asks me, “What do you believe and why do you believe it?” I respond by saying that, “I believe that Jesus died and came back to life.” And when they ask, “Why do you believe that?” I answer, “…because of the credibility and the utility of Scripture.” And while I can’t provide raw footage of any of the apostles or the prophets writing said text, I can look at the content and see a way of life that justifies my confidence in my creed.

There you have it!

Chapters and Verses – the Poison of Progressive Christianity

bibleProgressive Christianity is characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to “love one another” (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ.[2] This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism. Though prominent, the movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians. (wikipedia)

Here’s what I think:

Any of the above mentioned virtues in the absence of wisdom represent a perversion of their intended purpose. Compassion becomes a subsidy, justice becomes favoritism, mercy becomes an endorsement and tolerance becomes indifference. And when I say, “wisdom,” I mean Proverbs 9:10: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”

Recently I was listening to a speaker on youtube elaborating on why the evangelical community is flawed in the way the condemn homosexuality. His entire platform was based on Jesus’ unconditional love and how we are commanded to love one another. Therefore any kind of criticism, let alone condemnation, is immediately processed as judgmental if not worse.

Our model is Christ, not only in the way He loved in terms of encouragement (Jn 16:33), sacrifice (Mk 10:45; l Jn 10:11) and forgiveness (Matt 18:21-22; Jn 8:11 ), but also in the way He loved by judging (Jn 7:24 [Eph 5:11]), condemning (Matt 12:34; Lk 11:29 [Rev 20:12]) and criticizing (Lk 13:14-15, 32). And I want to emphasize the “way” He loved. You don’t love someone by humiliating them, but you’re not loving them by being silent either. The Pharisees would’ve had a very difficult time making the case that Jesus was being “oppressive” by telling them the Truth.

At the heart of the Progressive mindset is the notion that there is no such thing as sin, and they hide their agenda behind words that are designed to position the sinner as a victim. Once established as a casualty, anyone who would criticize them is automatically processed as a villain – and that includes God Himself.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship“)

Dilute the reality of sin and a redeemer is no longer necessary. Once redemption is irrelevant, Jesus Himself becomes a noble martyr rather than a Divine sacrifice.

And if you pull the curtain back on that strategy, you see satan himself pulling the strings (1 Jn 1-3).

Granted, you want to maintain your witness when it comes to dealing with “progressives” who ultimately champion a distortion of Scripture and not an application of it. But it is a toxic distraction that ultimately leads to death and for that reason, you want to roll up your sleeves and challenge those individuals by asking them to quote chapters and verses and not just a chapter and a verse that is taken out of context (Matt 7:15-23; 1 Tim 3:16-17).

The China Study | Part IV – Heart Disease

chinaSo, what is heart disease and how can diet and nutrition not only prevent it, but reverse it as well?

Whether your family has a history of heart attacks or not, buckle up! What we’re getting ready to discuss, while it’s focused on heart disease, inevitably applies to a myriad of conditions and diseases that can be treated by simply changing your diet. While that might sound a little over the top, the data says otherwise.

You ready?

Fat

While the word, “fat” tends to resonate as a negative, it’s absolutely necessary for good health. But when a specific type of fat starts to accumulate in your arteries – oftentimes because of a bad diet –  that’s when things start to go south.

Before we get into that, let’s go over a couple of terms:

Epidemiology (eh-pih-DEEM-ee-ah-low-gee) – the study of diseases as far as the way they surface and are treated in specific people groups

Cholesterol – a white, waxy substance that is not found in plants – only animals. It is an essential component of the membrane that coats all our cells, and it is the basic ingredient of sex hormones. Our body need cholesterol, and it manufactures it on its own. We do not need to eat it. But we do, when we consume meat, poultry, fish and other animal-based foods, such as diary products and eggs. In doing so, we take on excess amounts of the substance. What’s more, eating fat causes the body itself to manufacture excessive amounts of cholesterol which explains why vegetarians who eat oil, butter, cheese, milk, ice cream, glazed doughnuts, and French pastry develop coronary disease despite their avoidance of meat.

Lipids represent a category of substances that have one thing in common in that they don’t mix with water. Cholesterol is one type of lipid. Another kind of lipid is Triglycerides. Triglycerides are a type of fat that is found in your blood. It’s the combination of Triglycerides and Cholesterol that forms what is referred to as “plaque” in your arteries and can lead to
Atherosclerosis (eh-thir-ah-skler-OH-siss), or, the hardening of the arteries.

Medicine subdivides cholesterol into two types. High-density Lipoprotein (LIP-oh-pro-teen), or HDL, is sometimes known as “good” cholesterol. Medical experts do not know precisely how, but it seems to offer some protection against heart attacks – by collecting excess cholesterol and carrying it away from the arteries to the liver, which can break it down and dispose of it. As total blood cholesterol rises, you need more and more of the HDL cholesterol to protect you against heart disease.1

Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, is “bad” cholesterol. When too much of it is present in the  bloodstream, it tends to build up along artery walls and helps to form the “plaque” that narrow blood vessels and can ultimately may clog them all together.

The thing is, it’s not just LDL that’s present in an artery that is forcing it to narrow. It’s a combination of LDL, Triglycerides (see box to the right) and other “sticky” substances combined with white blood cells.

Here’s Where it Gets a Little Gross…

As the plaque is formed, a fibrous cap begins to develop at the very top. That cap begins to erode because of the initial white blood cells (macrophages referenced in the diagram to the right) that are now spewing chemical substances that erode the surface of the cap. As blood continues to flow through the artery and race past the eroded plaque, it can rupture which initiates a catastrophic sequence of events.

Screen Shot 2019-04-10 at 1.23.00 PMThe ruptured plaque registers as an emergency and platelets are activated in order to form a clot around the damaged area. The healing process the body is attempting to apply, however, often proves to be lethal in and of itself in the way the clotting forms a blockage in the artery itself…

…and this is what’s known as a heart attack.

Pause for a moment and ponder the essential ingredients that constitute the recipe the for disaster described above. You’ve got fat and…

Cholesterol

Fat is a good thing, like we talked about before. Cholesterol is a good thing. Our bodies need it, but we get all that we need from our liver. The problem starts when we eat animal products that not only contain high amounts of cholesterol themselves, but are also high in fat. The fat triggers the liver to make more cholesterol than it would normally and that’s where you start having problems. It’s not the cholesterol that’s coming from plants, it’s what we ingest from animal based foods.

Doesn’t that sound like something that points to a pretty obvious solution?

But rather than adjust our diets, most will default to surgery and pharmaceuticals. There’s a problem with that approach, however, and the following comes from Dr. Campbell, author the book, “The China Study.”

The mechanical interventions that we use in this country are much less effective than most people realize. Bypass surgery has become particularly popular. As many as 380,000 bypass operations were performed in 1990, meaning that about 1 out of 750 Americans underwent this extreme surgery. During the operation, the patient’s chest is split open, blood flow is rerouted by a series of clamps, pumps and machines, and a leg vein or chest artery is cut out and sewn over a diseased part of the heart, thereby allowing blood to bypass the most clogged arteries.

The costs are enormous. More than one of every fifty elective patients will die because of complications during the $46,000 procedure. Other side effects include heart attack, respiratory complications, bleeding complications, infection, high blood pressure and stroke. When the vessels around the heart are clamped shut during the operation, plaque breaks off the inner walls. Blood then carries this debris to the brain, where it causes numerous “mini” strokes. Researches have compared the intellectual capabilities of patients before and after the operation, and found that at stunning 79% of patients “showed impairment in some aspect of cognitive function” seven days after the operation.

Why do we put ourselves through this? The most pronounced benefit of this procedure is relief on angina or chest pain. About 70-80% of patients who undergo bypass surgery remain free of this crippling chest pain for one year. But this benefit doesn’t last. Within three years o the operation, up to one-third of patients will suffer from chest pain again. Within ten years half of the bypass patients will have died, had a heart attack or had their chest pain return. Long-term studies indicate that only certain subset of heart disease patients live longer because of their bypass operation. Furthermore, theses studies demonstrate that those patients who undergo bypass operation do not have fewer heart attacks that those who do not have surgery.2

Here’s the thing, though. Consuming additional fat and cholesterol is an obvious problem, specifically in the context of eating animal based products.

But it’s not just the fat and cholesterol.

Fact is, animal based protein is even more of a problem:

Although dietary fat was found to induce formation of early atherosclerosis in experimental rabbits, animal-based protein (such as casein) proved even more effective. As early as 1909, Dr. Alexander Ingatowski attributed the formation of atherosclerosis to animal protein. Review of this early literature report that animal protein was substantially more effective than cholesterol in inducing the formation of early heart disease.

Yet somehow animal protein has remained in the shadows while saturated fat and cholesterol have taken the brunt of the criticism. /these three nutrients (fat, animal protein, and cholesterol) characterize animal-based food in general. So isn’t it perfectly reasonable to wonder whether animal-based food, and not just these isolated nutrients, causes heart disease? (If only this research on the importance of animal-based protein in heart disease been taken seriously over the past century, progress in understanding the dietary cause of heart disease would have been far greater, with much less confusion and dispute!)3

The solution is not represented by the scalpel or the pharmacist. Both of those have their place, but if heart disease is going to be effectively treated, you have to address the cause and not just relieve the symptoms. And oftentimes, merely relieving the symptoms does nothing to stop the damage that’s being done. And how is it going to be done?

Wait for it…

Heart disease is primarily caused by the fat, cholesterol and protein coming from the animal products that we eat.

There have been several studies that compared the rate of heart disease in the United States with other countries. The difference, in many cases, is significant. Why?

“Quite simply, it was a case of death by food. The cultures that have lower heart disease rates eat less saturated fat and animal protein and more whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. In other words, they subsist mostly on plant foods while we subsist mostly on animal foods.”4

That’s it! Eliminate the animal products in your diet and you’re now eating in a manner that’s consistent with those areas in the world where heart disease is virtually non-existent. And it’s not enough to just eat animal based products “in moderation.” Especially if you’re trying to keep your pipes clean.

In Moderation?

Your typical fast food meal contains an enormous amount of animal fat. While that sounds unhealthy, there’s more to it than just having to loosen your belt a few notches.

The Endothelium (end-oh_THEE-lee-um) is the lining of our blood vessels and our heart. Your typical American meal injures the Endothelium which is what produces the nitric oxide that keeps the inside of your blood vessels slippery. By keeping it smooth and slick, the chances of anything  getting stuck (i.e. cholesterol, fact, calcium, cellular debris [plaque]) becomes far less. But a meal that is high in fat compromises normal nitric acid production by the Endothelium cells for up to six hours.

That’s a problem and that’s one meal!

Imagine that affect spread out over multiple meals every day for 365 days a year for several years?

Every mouthful of oils and animal products, including dairy foods, initiates an assault on the Endothelium and the membranes that together work to promote healthy heart function.  Having an ice cream sundae as a treat isn’t a deal breaker. Nor is having a steak on a rare occasion going to send you into cardiac arrest. But making animal products a staple in your diet is not healthy.

It’s not healthy.

It’s. Not. Healthy.

Good News

Whether you’re just interested in being healthy or you’re in a spot where you’ve been identified as someone who is at risk of having a heart attack, this is all good news. And it’s not just about heart disease, although that is the number one cause of death in the United States. A whole foods plant based diet has been objectively linked to preventing and even, in some cases, reversing diabetes, cancer and even some neurological disorders.

But if you’re curious about the disease that tips the scales when it comes to causing the greatest amount of deaths in our country, including my Dad when he was only 60 (see sidebar), then this is really good news and I’ll let Dr T. Colin Campbell have the last word..

The future is filled with hope. We no know enough to nearly eliminate heart disease. We know not only how to prevent the disease, but how to successfully treat it. We do not need to crack open our breast plates to reroute our arteries, and we no not need a lifetime of powerful drugs in our blood. By eating the right food, we can keep our hearts healthy.5

 

China Study | Part III

 

1. “Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease”, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., Penguin Group, New York, NY, 2007, p30-31
2. “The China Study,” T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas M. Campbell II, BenBella Books, Dallas TX, 2004, p123
3. Ibid, p109
4. Ibid, p105-106
5. Ibid, p130

Do Intelligent People Tend to Not Believe in God?

32368A recent article in Christianity Today entitled “Why Intelligent People Are Less Likely to Be Religious” does a great job of quantifying that headline so the reader walks away with a perspective that accommodates the truth that it’s not just a matter of intelligence, there are other factor at play. Here’s some additional observations:

It’s not a matter of intelligence. Some of today’s most brilliant minds are people of faith. It’s not intelligence, it’s a toxic kind of pride that says the universe and the complexities of the human experience can be wholly explained according to the number of letters you have after your name.

The fact is, the term “atheist” is a bit of a misnomer. It’s not that an atheist doesn’t believe in God as much as they believe that they’re looking at him every time they see their reflection in a mirror. They define their morality as well as the common good. They regulate the origin of the cosmos to a theory, that while completely devoid of substance, is nevertheless defined as “science” and they justify their perspective by believing that one day “they’ll figure it out.” They take Romans 1:20 and substitute themselves and their idea that human knowledge is, in and of itself, divine.

A good example of this is Creation. Most evolutionary theories are predicated on the preexistence of natural laws. Gravity, biological reactions, chemical properties, mathematical equations and even the existence of time are all assumed. Yet, these are all orderly systems that didn’t spring up out of nowhere. And however ethereal it may sound, any kind of “law” has to proceed from a law giver. It’s not just the notion that two particles fortuitously collided and precipitated a chemical reaction that resulted in the beginning of a planet that would then have the capacity to “evolve” and produce a single cell amoeba which would, over the course of billions of years, become a fingernail. You first have to have gravity and you have to chemical and physical laws. If you start with the cosmological equivalent to the null set, you have a zero with a slash through it. You don’t just have an empty space, you don’t even have a space.

I heard a speaker once refer to Genesis 1:1 as a “trinity of trinities…”

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”

  • Beginning (time) -> past, present and future
  • Heavens (space) -> height, width and depth
  • Earth (matter) -> liquid, gas, solid

And all of this had to happen simultaneously. You can’t create something unless you’ve got a space to put it in and a moment for it to exist.

While it boggles the mind, it simultaneously reveals those who flash their intelligence and academic credentials as being outrageously arrogant. It’s not that you can’t learn and observe and become wise. But you have to begin with a philosophical paradigm that says there is a profound organization that characterizes the created order, and this ordered system had an Architect. Remove the Architect and you’ve got a senseless chaos that cannot be rationally observed because, by definition, it has no rational basis.

It’s not about intelligence, it’s about pride.

Why?

imagesHere’s a quote from Representative Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an event honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday.

Here’s my question…

Why?

Why are the people she’s referring to not employed? Why do they not have health care?

Why?

Of those who she’s addressing…

  • How many graduated High School?
  • How many when to college and secured a marketable degree?
  • How many handled their money well?
  • How many struggled with alcohol or drugs?

Some who are homeless served in the military. Of those who served…

  • How many were discharged honorably?
  • How many had a realistic plan for life after the military? Did they have a marketable skill when they got out? Did they have plans to attend college? How many just got out because they didn’t want to stay in?
  • How many took advantage of the college benefits that were available to them while they served?

There are people who are truly destitute and you don’t want to be indifferent to their situation. That’s charity.

But there are people who are homeless because of a host of truly bad decisions and they are now reaping what they have sown. And while they still may merit some assistance, to put them in the same category as those who are genuinely struggling because of some tragic circumstance, is neither wise nor practical. That’s a subsidy.

The mantra being proclaimed by Ortez is typical of the mindset that seeks to demonize anyone who’s even remotely successful as corrupt and apathetic to the needs of those who are poverty stricken. They are the Progressive Left and the Socialists who ignorantly insist that Capitalism is “immoral.”

Winston Churchill once said:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Socialism isn’t the redistribution of wealth. Rather, it’s the redistribution of authority.

Prager University has a great piece on this entitled “Capitalism vs Socialism.” While they approach it from a different angle, it’s the same message in that the individual no longer has the freedom to determine the degree of their own success. They now answer to a governmental throttle that dictates who does what and to what extent.

Gone are the days when you can dream and accomplish whatever you like. Now, you surrender all of those options and possibilities to a legislature that defines your needs and your wants. You no longer have the authority to choose, that choice is now being made for you all in the name of ensuring that no one gets ahead and thereby making someone else feel like they’re getting left behind.

For some, this is good news. They’ve squandered the opportunities they’ve been given and want to blame a “system” for the situation they’re in. What better way to advance themselves without having to take responsibility for their actions?

But it’s a toxic fume they’re inhaling because it’s capitalism that provides the best way to elevate one’s self beyond the restrictions of poverty and this is demonstrated, not only in our own society but throughout the world. And not only do you see this evidenced in India and China, but you also see it in the way mere financial aid has accomplished virtually nothing. Poverty is best eliminated in the context of sustained economic growth as opposed to perpetual contributions that rarely translate to anything beyond a temporary respite as opposed to a permanent fix.

Still, AOC, and those who think like her, continue to preach the doctrine of socialism. Even the idea of a Universal Basic Income is being entertained by some as way to “address” the problem of economic disparity and those who seem forever destined to remain in the grip of poverty and want.

Again…

“Why…?

Why are these people in the situation they’re in? Rather than limit one’s assessment of their situation to their bank account and the contents of their refrigerator, should a sensible analysis of their predicament not include the decisions they’ve made and let that determine the extent to which they’re assisted?

If capitalism has been the single most effective way to eliminate poverty in our country and throughout the world, then should it not be a philosophical starting point for the way we address the poor in this country.

I would say, “Yes.”

And I would say that you begin the whole process of determining a person’s need for assistance by asking them why they aren’t employed, why were they fired, why they didn’t take advantage of the programs they had access to?

Why?

Bruce Gust is nine year veteran of the USMC. Upon graduation from High School, his father was incarcerated for tax evasion. There was no money for college. However, he was able to earn a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration by attending night school, taking one or two courses at a time during his enlistment. After his discharge, he made his living as a professional musician with his career culminating in a record deal that gave him the opportunity to hear his efforts played on the radio across the country. After coming off the road, however, he was compelled to reinvent himself in a way that would allow him the means to support his new bride and growing family. He did so by teaching himself how to build web applications. 

His story is not especially glamorous, but it’s evidence that this country is not antagonistic to those who lack the means to afford a college education or to successfully evolve from a professional standpoint when circumstances make it necessary to do so. It’s because of his own experiences combined with his knowledge of American history that he’s determined to believe that you don’t evaluate a system according to the way it’s abused, anymore than you assume a person is a victim of circumstances without first considering the path that has forged by their own decisions.