FORGED IN FAITH: A blog about Faith, Social Issues, Politics, Life and Family from a Christian perspective.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Rapture: Fact or Fiction?
Many pastors and modern prophecy writers teach that the Church will be raptured off the earth prior to a seven year tribulation. Where in the Bible is this found? Nowhere. Confused? Watch this edition of Vantage Point for an honest look at the “rapture”.
Rapture: Fact or Fiction?
Rapture: Fact or Fiction?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Articles: Obama: America's Greatest Asset
The future of America depends on electing a new president in 2012, and the best asset for any potential challenger is Barack Obama. His obtuse sense of self-worth will be a shrewd candidate's greatest advantage. Obama believes that he is a spectacular success, almost godlike in his judgment. All his policies are not only correct, but manifestations of the transcendent, prescient leader he knows himself to be. He will run, fast and furious, from his record -- but not because it shows him to be less than the greatest leader ever, except for possibly Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln...and even then, only "possibly." As a people, we simply do not have the intelligence to understand the brilliance of his ways and the nuance of his success or how lucky we are to have him. Perhaps we are too soft and lazy; perhaps we've reached the point where we've made enough money or are clinging too bitterly to our guns and religion, fearful of a man who looks different from us. He is compelled to campaign decisively and divisively, with decided derision against anyone who dares to oppose. He does not want to play the race card, early and often, against all who disagree -- but he will. He does not want to unfairly smear his opponent, his opponent's family, and everyone his opponent ever cared about, or who has ever cared about his opponent -- but he will. He does not want to lie, falsify facts, or make wonders up wholesale, in support of whatever he says -- but he will. He does not want to cheat, using community organizations to manufacture votes, or campaign illegally on the public dime, or turn a blind eye toward outright electoral fraud -- but he will. If only we had loved him enough and passed that bill "now," as he asked. Alas, it's too late. He can't wait. If only we were worthy of his leadership, worthy of him, he wouldn't have to do these things. We had our chance. He graciously gave everyone who disagreed with him the opportunity to do as they were told. It's our fault. He never wanted this, but now he has no choice. It is beyond his control. We made our bed; now we have to lie in it. How else can he triumph, win the future, and transform the nation, in unselfish service, to an ungrateful, ignorant populace? With apologies to Don Mclean and Vincent van Gogh, "I could have told you, Barack, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obama_americas_greatest_asset.html#ixzz1if09bCmn
Articles: Obama: America's Greatest Asset
Articles: Obama: America's Greatest Asset
Obama: The Mask is Off
The mask is fully off. Barack Obama is the most corrupt, power-mad president in this nation's illustrious history. By his actions in bypassing Congress and making appointments that should be subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session and innumerable extra-constitutional actions since he became president, he is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century.In late September of 2008, it became clear to me that Barack Obama would be elected president. Based on his background, education, motivation, and indoctrination, I saw a man who could single-handedly destroy the country and someone with no respect for the history, the Constitution, or the people of the United States. The specter of a megalomaniac who was a stranger to the truth and would or say or do anything to achieve or retain power overcame me. In Barack Obama and his fellow travelers, I saw what I feared the most since I came to this country: a person and a political mindset that would, if allowed, spell the end of the noblest experiment in the history of mankind.It was at that point that I wrote my first article for American Thinker in an attempt to warn the people of America that the result of the 2008 election would be critical to the nation's survival. This was the first column I had written since my college days over 40+ years before, and I am eternally grateful to AT for publishing it and giving me a forum to speak to the American people.I had to survive a war that was precipitated by those who were initially elected by the people in a democratic fashion. Yet once in power, they began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law. Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. In due course, they and their cronies became the government, as the people were powerless to stop them.The people of Germany, the most advanced society in continental Europe, or Italy in the first four years of the 1930s, would have found it incredible to imagine what became of those countries by 1945. They would not think it even remotely possible. The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of people like Obama and his cronies. Yet why are the media, or the opposition party, or the members of Congress or the judiciary not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop these power-grabs? Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with him- or herself, or in a self-induced stupor either ignoring what's happening or saying that these unconstitutional steps are minor? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak? Or is it as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many -- a belief that the worst could never happen here?I have seen and experienced the worst that man can offer, I am not intimidated, and I will say without reservation that Barack Obama and his cronies have the same mindset in their tactical approach, philosophy, and lust for power that was extant in Benito Mussolini and the Fascists in the early days of their regime. If the apologists for those in power in Washington want to vilify me for that comparison, so be it.To the American people, it is far beyond time to wake up to who this man in the White House is and what his ambitions are. As for the Republicans in the Congress or running for office, the task is upon your shoulders to stop Barack Obama in his tracks before he goes any farther. It is time to do your sworn duty to preserve and protect the country. And for the Democrats who are so blinded by party loyalty that they would sell their country for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver, the long-term difficulties and potential downfall of the greatest nation on earth will be your legacy.Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obama_the_mask_is_off.html#ixzz1iex0ttLU
Obama: The Mask is Off
Obama: The Mask is Off
The Genocide Doctrine
Whether or not Ron Paul actually said that he would not intervene to stop the Holocaust, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about this position. The United States has never intervened to stop a genocide. Not in WW2 and not since when several genocides have taken place, most notably in Africa, without any military intervention.The United States did participate in two NATO wars justified with phony claims of genocide, but the only ethnic cleansings that have taken place have been of Serbs from Kosovo and of Africans from Libya. Which is to say the closest thing to a genocide in either case was perpetrated by our allies against the people we were bombing on their behalf in two civil wars. And neither of those rise anywhere near the level of genocide. We have maintained close ties with two genocidal Muslim states, Turkey and Indonesia. The latter conducted genocide against Christians in East Timor on our watch and with our weapons. Obama’s Indonesian stepfather was a likely participant in that genocide; his former Director of National Intelligence helped keep it going. And Obama has been on record opposing any intervention in Sudan.It is doubtful that any American president would have intervened militarily to stop the Holocaust, with the possible exception of George W. Bush, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Ron Paul can’t be given credit for much, but his response is honest if nothing else. Or at least partly honest. It’s more likely that he is actually sympathetic to another party in the conflict. His newsletter where he blames Churchill for prolonging WW2 by not letting the USSR and Nazi Germany “fight it out” suggests as much. It’s an echo of similar themes put out by Pat Buchanan and other fellow travelers. But this really isn’t about him. The question of whether we should be intervening to stop genocide is virtually irrelevant because it’s not something we do. Holocaust education has very little to do with the mass murder of the Jews of Europe and a great deal to do with teaching tolerance. The genocide doctrine employed by modern administrations has nothing to do with the Holocaust either. It has a great deal to do with dressing up the wars that our leaders decided they wanted to fight anyway.WWI had enough grandiose claims made about it to make you think that it was the ultimate war against evil. WWII where there actually were monsters on the side, not just Prussian stuffed shirts with curled mustaches, must have caught the propagandists by surprise. But had Hitler’s minions practiced eugenics and killed ethnic minorities, there would have been no war. The initial response to Hitler was that he was stabilizing an unstable country. It was only when Hitler insisted on destabilizing the region with grandiose ambitions that war became inevitable.Stability is the reason why we began bombing Libya. Not because Gaddafi was guilty of genocide, but because Western diplomats and the assorted grab bag of elites had decided that democracy was the way forward in the Middle East. And the dictators who were blocking the way forward had to go. Gaddafi’s crime wasn’t that his troops were raping and murdering their way through the opposition. Raping and murdering your way through the opposition is a time honored-practice of Muslim rulers.
The Genocide Doctrine
The Genocide Doctrine
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2733/muslim-persecution-of-christians-december-2011
The Nigerian church bombings, wherein the Islamic group Boko Haram killed over 40 people celebrating Christmas mass, is just the most obvious example of anti-Christian sentiment in December. Elsewhere around the Muslim world, Christmas time for Christians is a time of increased threats, harassment, and fear, which is not surprising, considering Muslim clerics maintain that “saying Merry Christmas is worse than fornication or killing someone.” A few examples:• Egypt: The Coptic Church is being threatened with a repeat of “Nag Hammadi,” the area where drive-by Muslims shot to death six Christians as they exited church after celebrating Christmas mass in 2010. Due to fears of a repeat, the diocese has “cancel[ed] all festivities for New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve.”• Indonesia: In a “brutal act” that has “strongly affected the Catholic community,” days before Christmas, “vandals decapitated the statue of the Virgin Mary in a small grotto … a cross was stolen and the aspersorium was badly damaged.”• Iran: There were reports of a sharp increase of activities against Christians prior to Christmas by the State Security centers of the Islamic Republic. Local churches were “ordered to cancel Christmas and New Year’s celebrations as a show of their compliance and support” for “the two month-long mourning activities of the Shia’ Moslems.”• Malaysia: Parish priests and church youth leaders had to get “caroling” permits—requiring them to submit their full names and identity card numbers at police stations—simply to “visit their fellow church members and belt out ‘Joy to the World,’ [or] ‘Silent Night, Holy Night.’”• Pakistan: “Intelligence reports warned of threats of terrorist attacks on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day,” adding that most church security is “inadequate.” Christians also lamented that “extreme power outages have become routine during Christmas and Easter seasons.”Meanwhile, if Christians under Islam are forced to live like dhimmis—non-Muslims under Muslim authority, treated as second-class citizens—in the West, voluntarily playing the dhimmi to appease Muslims during Christmas time is commonplace: the University of London held Christmas service featuring readings from the Quran (which condemns the incarnation, that is, Christmas); and “a posh Montreal suburb has decided to remove a nativity scene and menorah from town hall rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols.”
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2733/muslim-persecution-of-christians-december-2011
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2733/muslim-persecution-of-christians-december-2011
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLIC
This is a reasoned but passionate look at how Reaganism -- the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan -- has severely damaged representative democracy as created by the nation's founders. According to Williams, Reagan and his foremost disciple George W. Bush have created a plutocracy where the United States is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people but is ruled by the wealthiest individuals and corporate America. Refreshingly unafraid to point out that Reaganism's anti-government fundamentalism stands on feet of clay, Walter Williams asks that Americans move from their political apathy to pay attention to the politicians and the corporations lurking behind the power curtain to see the dangers they represent to the true essential of the American way of life.
Williams' most important contribution is his extended analysis of the central role the key institutions -- the presidency, Congress, the federal agencies -- must play for the U.S. government to be capable in both sustaining representative democracy and protecting the safety and economic security of the American people. A clear result of the weakened institutions has been the grossly inadequate homeland security effort following September 11, and the massive corporate fraud revealed by Enron and other large firms that robbed the nation of hundreds of billions of dollars in stock values and depleted the pension savings of millions of people. The initial destructive blow that damaged the institutions of governance can be traced to Ronald Reagan and his simplistic antigovernment philosophy that fostered rapacious business practices and personal greed. The book also takes the media to task, criticizing the dismal record of failing to investigate the political and corporate chicanery that has brought us to this pass.
Keenly argued and scrupulously documented, Walter Williams has written a stinging wake-up call to the dangers of the demise of representative democracy and the rise of plutocracy that American citizens can ignore only at their peril.
Williams' most important contribution is his extended analysis of the central role the key institutions -- the presidency, Congress, the federal agencies -- must play for the U.S. government to be capable in both sustaining representative democracy and protecting the safety and economic security of the American people. A clear result of the weakened institutions has been the grossly inadequate homeland security effort following September 11, and the massive corporate fraud revealed by Enron and other large firms that robbed the nation of hundreds of billions of dollars in stock values and depleted the pension savings of millions of people. The initial destructive blow that damaged the institutions of governance can be traced to Ronald Reagan and his simplistic antigovernment philosophy that fostered rapacious business practices and personal greed. The book also takes the media to task, criticizing the dismal record of failing to investigate the political and corporate chicanery that has brought us to this pass.
Keenly argued and scrupulously documented, Walter Williams has written a stinging wake-up call to the dangers of the demise of representative democracy and the rise of plutocracy that American citizens can ignore only at their peril.
http://www.amazon.com/Reaganism-Representative-Democracy-Walter-Williams/dp/0878401474
Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA
Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA
Today, the Census Bureau released its annual poverty report, which declared that a record 46.2 million persons, or roughly one in seven Americans, were poor in 2010. The numbers were up sharply from the previous year’s total of 43.6 million. Although the current recession has increased the numbers of the poor, high levels of poverty predate the recession. In most years for the past two decades, the Census Bureau has declared that at least 35 million Americans lived in poverty.
However, understanding poverty in America requires looking behind these numbers at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:
- 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- 92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
- Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
- Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
- Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
- Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
- More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
- 43 percent have Internet access.
- One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
- One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households, partially because of the normal downward price trend that follows introduction of a new product.
Liberals use the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that it is no big deal that poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV, and wide-screen TV. They contend, polemically, that even though most poor families may have a house full of modern conveniences, the average poor family still suffers from substantial deprivation in basic needs, such as food and housing. In reality, this is just not true.
( read more)
Report on Biased Textbooks Goes to 500 Superintendents
Report on Biased Textbooks Goes to 500 Superintendents
The Christian Action Network has sent 500 school superintendents a report showing that many textbooks are biased against Israel and the West while whitewashing radical Islam. The report, authored by Citizens for National Security, examines 200 quotes from 30 textbooks used in Florida.
“[Students] aren’t being taught about the theological motivations behind radical Islam,” said Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network.
“The impression students are given is that terrorists are misguided fighters against Western imperialism and aggression, who are only wrong in their approach. It was amazing how many times the word ‘Palestine’ was used, making it sound like Israel was built on top of a conquered country,” he said.
The report lists several quotes from textbooks teaching students that the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. foreign policy. For example, one book says, “What were the sources of Muslim anger?…bin Laden declared that the attacks were a response to the ‘humiliation and disgrace’ that have afflicted the Islamic world for over eighty years.”
Another teaches that Bin Laden was motivated by the “military presence of the sacred soil of the Arabian peninsula and its support for Israel’s hostility to Palestinian nationalism.” The ideology of radical Islam is not discussed. While Bin Laden’s statements about the West’s foreign policies are mentioned, quotes about his ideology are not. For example, Raymond Ibrahim in “The Al-Qaeda Reader” brings to light this quote from Osama Bin Laden:
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Arab Scholar Ibn Warraq Tells "Why the West is Best" - Op-Eds - Israel National News
Arab Scholar Ibn Warraq Tells "Why the West is Best" - Op-Eds - Israel National News
A scathing critique of Islam from within. Interview with Ibn Warraq, the man the NY Sun called "the Bertrand Russel of Islam: "The Ayatollah Khomeini once said that there are no jokes in Islam". You'd better believe it.
Giulio Meotti
The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.Prior to 2007, Ibn Warraq refused to show his face in public due to fears for his personal safety.
With “Why I Am Not A Muslim”, his 1995 most famous book, he became Islam’s most outspoken critic and the mentor of personalities such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens.
The New York Sun called him “the Bertrand Russell of Islam”, while others compared him to Voltaire and Spinoza. His new book, “Why the West is Best”, which has just been published by Encounter, is the most generous homage to the Western values ever written by a Muslim-born intellectual.
“Millions of people risk their lives trying to get to the West—not to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan, they flee from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes to find tolerance and freedom in the West, where life is an open book”, explains to us the English-educated Ibn Warraq. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: this triptych succinctly defines the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization”.
Under Islam, life is a closed book. “Everything has been decided for you: the dictates of sharia and the whims of Allah set strict limits on the possible agenda of your life. A culture that engendered the spiritual creations of Mozart and Beethoven, of Raphael and Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt does not need lessons in spirituality from societies whose vision of heaven resembles a cosmic brothel stocked with virgins for men’s pleasure.
"The West does not need lectures on the superior virtue of societies where women are kept in subjection, endure genital mutilation, are married off against their will at the age of nine, have acid thrown in their faces or are stoned to death for alleged adultery, or where human rights are denied to those regarded as belonging to lower castes”.
According to Ibn Warraq, an important difference between the West and Islam lies in the use of irony. “Satire has a central place in the Western tradition of cultural self-criticism that goes back to classical antiquity. The Islamic fundamentalist with his murderous certainties cannot bear the ironic outlook. He hates to be criticized and laughed at; he will kill if he thinks you have insulted his religion, or his prophet or holy book. The Ayatollah Khomeini once famously said there are no jokes in Islam. Any civilization that cannot laugh at itself is in a state of decline, and it is dangerous”.
The same for alcohol. “The civilized pleasure of alcohol is connected with the social customs and rituals that define our society. Every liberal knows you can be lashed for drinking in Pakistan”.
Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency
Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency
“Imagine for a moment,” a man’s voice intones in an urgent whisper, “that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base – say, Chinese or Russian.” So begins a video produced by Revolution PAC, comprised of supporters and some former campaign staff of Ron Paul. The text of the video derives entirely from a Paul speech given in early October, in which the presidential candidate condemns what he deems to be our jackbooted foreign policy and likens our military abroad to an oppressive occupation force, while whitewashing murderous insurgents as freedom fighters.
“Imagine,” the voice continues as the text zooms and veers about on the screen,
that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil. And the video’s suggestion is that the justifications noted above for our presence there are mere pretexts.
The video graphics come fast and furious now, and the music and narration escalate in intensity and menace. It’s moving at a pace and volume that steamroll right over any reasoned objections:
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.
Of course, our troops are doing anything but running around ransacking entire neighborhoods; it is the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are terrorizing innocents. We have gone to such ludicrous extremes to win hearts and minds that we’re more comfortable putting our own troops’ lives at risk than offending the locals. But the video’s denigration of our military and whitewashing of the enemy get worse as the analogy goes completely off the rails:
All-American Muslim’s Very Special Tribute to 9/11
All-American Muslim’s Very Special Tribute to 9/11
Empathy is the essence of tragedy. To be able to mourn for others we have to feel their loss and make it our own. Most Americans never lost anyone on September 11. Most never knew anyone who died that day in the planes above or the buildings below. And yet we as a nation felt that blow. Their pain was our pain. And that response was not limited to the United States as millions of people beyond these shores reached out and took in the full weight of that tragedy and grief.
All-American Muslim: The Day the World Changed, an episode of the reality series that has the cast interacting emotionally with the attacks of September 11, is less about those who were murdered on that day than about the cast’s feelings and exploitation of that day. It may be unfair to criticize the cast of a reality television show for being self-centered. An obsessive focus on one’s own feelings and needs to the exclusion of all else seems to be a standard prerequisite for appearing on one of these shows. The perfect reality show performer must be a sociopath or capable of playing one on television. And yet this self-centered reaction to the attacks of September 11 is disturbingly common among Muslim leaders and activists in the United States.
Perhaps the most odious aspect of this is the incorporation of the Islamophobia theme into a day of remembrance for the dead, until the very act of remembrance becomes tarred with accusations of bigotry. Every commemoration of the day by Muslim leaders seems determined to not only foist the Islamophobia myth on us, but to also associate it with some national overreaction to that day. Like the family of a cop killer arriving at a memorial determined to make their own sense of victimization the center of attention, the need by some Muslims to turn their own sense of victimization into the focus of September 11 is inappropriate and flies on the face of what should be basic decency.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Discover the Networks
Discover the Networks
Simply click on the items that interest you, and your tour through the Left will
be underway. Navigating the site is simple, and the category headings are
self-explanatory. However, if you would like a somewhat more detailed overview
of the website and its contents, please see our GUIDE.
Simply click on the items that interest you, and your tour through the Left will
be underway. Navigating the site is simple, and the category headings are
self-explanatory. However, if you would like a somewhat more detailed overview
of the website and its contents, please see our GUIDE.
Articles: America's Greatness Will Defeat Obama
Articles: America's Greatness Will Defeat Obama
This century will be an American century, much like the last one. Despite what President Obama believes, we are not one nation among many, we are the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth, and the last best hope for humanity. The only thing standing between the United States and continued exceptionalism is the dreary delirium of Barack Obama, whose dismal socialist policies have been a spectacular disaster for the nation.First, we were told that the Russians were going to bury us. By Krushchev initially, banging his shoe on the table, and later, by the press and many of our political leaders. Remember Jimmy Carter said we had to get over "our inordinate fear of communism." The communism of the USSR was the rising ideology. Despite killing 100 million people in the 20th century, they were the good guys. Resistance was futile; it was just a matter of time.Then, it was the Japanese who were going to bury us. State direction of capitalism was the wave of the future. We were living in the past, bitterly clinging to our freedom. We had to act quickly by giving the government the control it needed to guide our economy. The Japanese were buying up America and soon would own everything. Our trade deficit with them was staggering. They were our largest creditor. We bought their products and they bought our paper. There was no way out, resistance was futile.Don't forget the European Union, whose formation was going to Greece the skids of our decline into unbearable Spain. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/americas_greatness_will_defeat_obama.html#ixzz1iKxKQxOE
This century will be an American century, much like the last one. Despite what President Obama believes, we are not one nation among many, we are the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth, and the last best hope for humanity. The only thing standing between the United States and continued exceptionalism is the dreary delirium of Barack Obama, whose dismal socialist policies have been a spectacular disaster for the nation.First, we were told that the Russians were going to bury us. By Krushchev initially, banging his shoe on the table, and later, by the press and many of our political leaders. Remember Jimmy Carter said we had to get over "our inordinate fear of communism." The communism of the USSR was the rising ideology. Despite killing 100 million people in the 20th century, they were the good guys. Resistance was futile; it was just a matter of time.Then, it was the Japanese who were going to bury us. State direction of capitalism was the wave of the future. We were living in the past, bitterly clinging to our freedom. We had to act quickly by giving the government the control it needed to guide our economy. The Japanese were buying up America and soon would own everything. Our trade deficit with them was staggering. They were our largest creditor. We bought their products and they bought our paper. There was no way out, resistance was futile.Don't forget the European Union, whose formation was going to Greece the skids of our decline into unbearable Spain. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/americas_greatness_will_defeat_obama.html#ixzz1iKxKQxOE
Invented People or Invented History?
Invented People or Invented History?
American pundits have spilled a veritable ocean of ink since Newt Gingrich's comment on the bogus nature of Palestinian nationalism -- Gingrich called the Palestinians an "invented people." But interestingly, Gingrich's American critics, on both the left and the right, are largely in agreement that Gingrich's error was not in denying Palestine's historic national existence, but instead his use of the term "invented people." All nationalisms are invented to some extent, they claim, and the Palestinians have simply invented theirs like everybody else. Perhaps they even borrowed from Zionism, like the Americans from the English, or the French from the Americans. That, goes the argument, does not make their claim inauthentic. And Palestinian nationalism may be a net good, a useful fiction, by tamping down pan-Arabism. It is true that nationalism is a human invention, and a rather late one at that -- a Western idea that slowly developed through the Middle Ages and took its modern form during the Enlightenment. By this standard, the Palestinians could not have been a nation in antiquity, but then neither could the Jews. But that doesn't mean that nation-states ought not to have some reasonable historical legitimacy, lest any group of people demand nationhood for any reason. And while the number of nations accepted by the United Nations continues to creep upward (193 at last count), that is still a tiny fraction of the tribes, clans, principalities, kingdoms, and empires that were the governing norm before the idea of dividing the world into nation-states took hold. Claiming a legitimate national identity is serious business, and it requires a legitimate historical basis. This was the heart of Gingrich's complaint, and it is the point his critics either avoid or brush over. And the Palestinians do not have legitimate historical claims to nationhood, as historians more qualified than I have demonstrated time and again. Or do they? What say the Palestinians? The Palestinians have never accepted the arguments of their better apologists in the West. They do not consider themselves an invented people like everybody else and so nonetheless legitimate and deserving of statehood. Accepting that line of thinking would also legitimize other "invented nations" like Israel, and the one thing that the Palestinians don't accept is the idea of legitimate Jewish nationalism. So the Palestinians are really in agreement with Newt Gingrich in this sense -- the essence of their rightful claim to the land must be historical or not be at all. So what is their claim? Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/invented_people_or_invented_history_1.html#ixzz1iKYhotfq
American pundits have spilled a veritable ocean of ink since Newt Gingrich's comment on the bogus nature of Palestinian nationalism -- Gingrich called the Palestinians an "invented people." But interestingly, Gingrich's American critics, on both the left and the right, are largely in agreement that Gingrich's error was not in denying Palestine's historic national existence, but instead his use of the term "invented people." All nationalisms are invented to some extent, they claim, and the Palestinians have simply invented theirs like everybody else. Perhaps they even borrowed from Zionism, like the Americans from the English, or the French from the Americans. That, goes the argument, does not make their claim inauthentic. And Palestinian nationalism may be a net good, a useful fiction, by tamping down pan-Arabism. It is true that nationalism is a human invention, and a rather late one at that -- a Western idea that slowly developed through the Middle Ages and took its modern form during the Enlightenment. By this standard, the Palestinians could not have been a nation in antiquity, but then neither could the Jews. But that doesn't mean that nation-states ought not to have some reasonable historical legitimacy, lest any group of people demand nationhood for any reason. And while the number of nations accepted by the United Nations continues to creep upward (193 at last count), that is still a tiny fraction of the tribes, clans, principalities, kingdoms, and empires that were the governing norm before the idea of dividing the world into nation-states took hold. Claiming a legitimate national identity is serious business, and it requires a legitimate historical basis. This was the heart of Gingrich's complaint, and it is the point his critics either avoid or brush over. And the Palestinians do not have legitimate historical claims to nationhood, as historians more qualified than I have demonstrated time and again. Or do they? What say the Palestinians? The Palestinians have never accepted the arguments of their better apologists in the West. They do not consider themselves an invented people like everybody else and so nonetheless legitimate and deserving of statehood. Accepting that line of thinking would also legitimize other "invented nations" like Israel, and the one thing that the Palestinians don't accept is the idea of legitimate Jewish nationalism. So the Palestinians are really in agreement with Newt Gingrich in this sense -- the essence of their rightful claim to the land must be historical or not be at all. So what is their claim? Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/invented_people_or_invented_history_1.html#ixzz1iKYhotfq
Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline "They are real -- and they're spectacular." He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline "Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!" -- also taken from a Seinfeld episode -- in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy.Here I am using the word "fake" as an adjective, and not as a verb. I mean to say that the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don't imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don't have any information to support such an accusation. But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth's surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)Now, I am well aware of the fact that the recent release of the temperature data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project does show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000. Many would jump to the conclusion that this represents confirmation of the existence of global warming -- or even of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, that would be an error in logic.What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.While we can applaud the fact that the BEST results agree with other analyses of weather station data, we still need to explain why they don't agree with atmospheric trends that are close to zero, or with ocean data that show no appreciable warming. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iKWyAVMS
In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline "They are real -- and they're spectacular." He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline "Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!" -- also taken from a Seinfeld episode -- in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy.Here I am using the word "fake" as an adjective, and not as a verb. I mean to say that the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don't imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don't have any information to support such an accusation. But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth's surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)Now, I am well aware of the fact that the recent release of the temperature data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project does show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000. Many would jump to the conclusion that this represents confirmation of the existence of global warming -- or even of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, that would be an error in logic.What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.While we can applaud the fact that the BEST results agree with other analyses of weather station data, we still need to explain why they don't agree with atmospheric trends that are close to zero, or with ocean data that show no appreciable warming. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iKWyAVMS
THE INTELLECTUAL DEATH OF THE WEST
At the beginning of a new year, it’s hard to avoid the question: where are we going? What will our future be like? Does America, does freedom, does Western civilization even have a future?
I date my career as a professional writer to an op-ed I published in the Los Angeles Times in the early 1980s. I was a graduate student in English and was also teaching undergraduate composition courses. One of the challenges I faced in the classroom was this: when, in a search for possible topics for my students to write about, I brought up things that I thought of as falling under the category of general knowledge, I found over and over again that most of my students didn’t know what I was talking about. They didn’t know history. Their knowledge of politics, geography, art, and literature was, at best, extremely spotty.
Yes, a few of them were very well informed about some sport or other, or about this or that singer or rock group or actor or TV show, but there was not much overlap between one kid’s knowledge and another’s. There was, in fact, hardly any knowledge that they all shared – and these were students at what was considered a pretty decent college. So I wrote a piece about it.
Thirty years later, the situation is, by all accounts, even worse than it was then – not just in America, but across the Western world. And the problem isn’t just that they don’t know who wrote War and Peace. It’s that they don’t know basic things that could mean the difference in the future between war and peace, poverty and wealth, slavery and freedom.
THE INTELLECTUAL DEATH OF THE WEST.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)