The Rush Limbaugh imprint on the future

God Bless the soul of Ronald Reagan. It is without question where he stands in history. His tax cuts spawned 20 years of economic growth, thus bringing in a standard of living never seen before in the history of human civilization. His defeat of the Soviets led to a world where the benevolent U.S. is more powerful than everyone else combined, thus bringing unprecedented world peace. However it was another change that Ronald Reagan made that could have much longer lasting effects for many generations. Through his leadership, in August 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. On August 1, 1988 Rush Limbaugh went national.

I am 40 years old and came of age in the late 80's. The fact is I have listened to Rush my entire adult life. His affect on my ability to think critically cannot be overstated. He solidified my love for the founding principles of this nation. He solidified and reinforced my conservative values like no one before and no one since.

In 2008 we were introduced to Sarah Palin, 44. When she was first interviewed by Rush on his show, I wasn't sure who was more giddy to talk to the other. Sarah started the conversation with "dittos" and ended it by saying "we'll keep listening". I can only assume she has listened to Rush throughout her adult life as well. As a matter of fact all of those considered rising stars in the party - Gov. Bobby Jindal, La., 37, Rep. Adam Putnam, Fla., 29, Rep. Mike Pence, Ind, 49, Rep. Eric Cantor, Va., 45 - have had access to Rush for a majority of their adult lives and I can assume are probably dittoheads at some level as well.

So for those conservatives under 50 who are sick of the get-along, placating "Republicans" that the party puts up like Ford, Dole and McCain and those who believe fighting for conservative principles is more important than making the press and the Dems like us, then rest-assured in that future of the party has been properly influenced.

Riots predicted if Messiah doesn't win

Sound familiar, Kenyans?

It has just been eluded to that if Obama doesn't win then there may be race riots here in a America. It makes a sane person who expects the peaceful transfer of power wonder if we are talking about some banana republic.

I mention Kenya because late last year there was close election, in which the incumbent president Mwai Kibaki narrowly defeated Raila Odinga. Odinga, it was reported, is a distant cousin of Barrack Obama. Obama went to Kenya to help campaign for him.

Odinga is described as "a flamboyant politician who hails from the minority Luo tribe and has won support from rural and urban voters after promising to share the wealth among all the people". Sound familiar?

When Odinga lost by 230,000 votes out of 8.9 million counted his party accused the government of "doctoring" the results. Odinga fanned the flames of anger stating that if the president was announced winner "it will do the biggest injustice to the people of this country." This was enough of a green light for the rioters to vent their rage.

Yes we see this as typical of elections in Africa but not in America. Recently we saw video on YouTube that showed young black men in military garb essentially paying allegiance to Obama.

What will the 2008 elections bring us? Seems like the choice is going to be Socialism or civil upheaval. I want neither.

Those willing to talk "Jesus" and those not

What would you think if a travelling salesman came to your door to talk about a *name brand* product? However, you know that his version of the name brand product really diminishes its value. You would wonder why those who actually believed in said *name brand* product would have the audacity to be here selling it, right?

The other night my doorbell rang. I answered and there were two well dressed young men. The first comment from them was "we would like to talk to you about Jesus". Sadly the first thought in my mind was "this can't be evangelical or catholic types. It must a Jehovah's Witness". However when I asked what religion they represented he was reluctant but said sheepishly "Latter Day Saints..."

Aah the Mormons.

I quickly told him that we were practicing Christians and deeply rooted in our faith and would not be interested in talking. I could tell they wanted to still talk but I really had to go, so the conversation quickly ended.

Afterward I got thinking about these nice gentlemen. They are Mormons. The first thing they told me was they wanted to talk about Jesus. I knew they didn't believe in the Deity of Jesus but I wanted to know more so I then did some research on what do Mormons think about Jesus. In World Religions Made Easy I read "Mormons teach that Jesus Christ is our elder brother and that he, himself, progressed to godhood. Mormons teach that Jesus Christ was born as a result of God the Father having sexual intercourse with Mary." "The Book of Mormon teaches that the Holy Spirit is a spirit in the form of a man."

That to me sounds like a sad marginalization of Jesus. On the contrary, we, as evangelical Christians, believe that Christ was the son of God, Himself. He is part of the trinity, which makes him God. Most importantly Jesus died as a loving act of God so that the penalty for our sins would be paid for. That is amazing! That is truly good news!!

So why aren't Christians, with eternally life saving news, going door to door asking people if they'd like to talk about who Jesus really is? The truth is so much better than the co-opted, humanized version that the Latter Day Saints are selling, but apparently there are other reasons for the lack of boldness of those who should be gleefully proclaiming the truth about Jesus.

Philosophical difference as to who controls the money

We know power all comes down to money and who controls it. In a free market society businesses and their leaders will get wealthy. They risk their capital, put in hard work, provide a good or service to their fellow man and justly profit. Yes some unscrupulous business leaders, in an attempt to out-do their peers, over pay themselves. I am not suggesting that anyone should dictate what a private company pays its leaders; I am saying that there is a point where it is less about paying for performance and more about accumulating more than that pompous guy at the country club. Morally speaking, in a perfect world, these leaders would get their share but they would also share the excesses with their employees, in the form of bonuses, etc (can you say supply side).

However there are those who find it unacceptable that this kind of trust (to share with their employees) is entrusted to private citizens. These people usually end up in a governmental position of power. To get that position they preach to the employees that the boss can't be trusted to share the wealth with them. Only if the politician is elected will they be guaranteed to get their share. Since the employees outnumber the bosses, the politician gets elected. Once in power the politician pushes to raise taxes on the business leaders so the politician can be the one to give money to the employees. So now you have an individual in government that did not risk capital, work hard nor provide a good or service to his fellow man, being given credit for sticking up for the little guy by making the boss pay. Doesn't seem right, huh?

Well it gets worse. The same politician realizes that not all of the employees are voting for him even though he is sticking it to their boss. They realize that the bonus from the boss exceeded any schadenfreude they get from watching the politician take from the boss. So the politician begins to use the money he takes from the rich bosses and gives it to people in the district that don't work or don't want to work. These people get just enough from the government to maintain their sustenance, but the key is they remain loyal to the politician as he continues to demagogue about sticking it to those rich people.

At the same time the politician becomes rich from being in office, names buildings after himself and attempts to entrench himself in his government position for a lifetime. A lifetime of passing laws to take money from those who earn it and take credit from those he gives it to for making their lives better, when ironically their lives don't ever get better.

Liberal socialist types, in their heart of hearts, believe that there should be equal outcomes when it comes to living standards. They believe because some are rich and some are poor then there is an injustice that only they can fix. Their fix is the wealth should be shared by those at the top with those at the bottom. They pine about this all the time.

In the capitalist system, not everyone is the equal! In any system not everyone is equal. It is impossible to equalize outcomes because people are different. There are different personalities. Everyone has a different drive to succeed. Some people are under achievers. There are people who work 60 hours a week to get by and there are people who won't work at all. Both get what their labors bring them.

Liberal socialist types see only one solution. The governing authority takes money from the achievers and transfer it to the underachievers. This philosophy makes four dangerous assumptions:

1. The people in government are benevolent. They are human. They have absolute governing power and that corrupts absolutely. I don't see benevolence but only the potential for corruption.
   
2. The people in government will treat money they have not earned with the same respect as a business owner. Not possible. Remember when that bully took your bike? Did he treat it the same way you did after you spent your hard earned money to buy it?
3. The poor that get the handouts will benefit. Ya they'll have a bare minimum but what incentive do they really have to make their lives better?
4. The rich will continue to work just as hard whilst more of their money is taken in higher taxes. Not forever. Every individual has a breaking point where they stop working because most of what they are earning is going to that government guy to give to the non-achiever in the name of compassion.
   

SUMMARY: Conservative politicians say cut taxes on EVERYONE, including the rich. Then the risk takes will invest their money in private sector ventures (new businesses and subsequently new jobs). If the business succeeds. Liberal politicians seek control by means of the tax system to limit the power of the rich (making themselves rich) and dole out pittances to everyone else.

Pelosi planning the future giveaways

I read that the Dems believe they have this wrapped up and they will own House, Senate and Prez come January. They have even come public with what they plan to spend (our) money on. One social program and giveaway after another - as if the Government doesn't spend enough on that.

I then took a step back and thought about what these people are doing and why. They were elected to a position to take our tax dollars and give them to the less advantaged. Sounds noble? Well, we didn't voluntarily give them our money and are the recipients really benefiting from the gift. If the recipients are continually given gifts that keep them perpetually just above poverty then what incentive will they ever have pull themselves up and making something of themselves on their own? In most cases none. So while the permanent underclass is kept down, the political class continues to keep their power, take from the achievers and give to the underclass.

Can you imagine if a politician said that there would be no more handouts because in the long term they don't benefit the recipients? Not in this lifetime. As long as there is largess coming into the treasury there will be politicians using it to expand their power. Life 101.

Conservative equals dumb, I guess

I was listening to talk radio recently and the local host's producer is a super lib. He distrusts all things Republican. He has continually referred to George W. Bush as dumb. I viewed that as par for the course for libs. But just the other day he called Sarah Palin a "dumb hockey mom". What? I got to thinking about what in the world would make him think she is dumb. I attributed it to an elitist attitude that many rank and file lefties from New England have. They inherently think lower intelligence when they hear accents unlike their own speaking of freedom, country, free-markets, pro-life positions, gun rights. It is completely knee-jerk and very much the same biases that they accuse conservatives of having.

It seems like those whom they tell us are the most brilliant have the tendency to micromanage that which they are in charge of, rather than letting those who actually do the work be in control. On the other hand, those who apply a more "free market" approach to managing are considered dumb, not because of their free market approach but because they don't adhere to ideas that ... control.

There is no more perfect example of this than Obama in 2008. He is an incompetant, control freak who knows little about economics, small business, tax consequences, foreign policy, etc but he is considered brilliant and messianic. But folks like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin who are actually very pragmatic, humble, wise and very smart are thought of as dumb by those same elites.

I finally watched the mini-series "Roots"

I was a month short of 9 years of age when Roots was first broadcast on TV. Til only recently I had never ever seen it. I heard a lot about it but never actually sat down to watch it. I was recently at our town library and decided to take volume 1 home. I was somewhat excited about it as I sat down to watch.

In the first volume I found the idealization of Kunta Kinte's tribe and, except for the Ed Asner character, most white characters were 1 dimensional, to be a little too difficult to swallow.
However I continue to watch.

In the subsequent volumes as Kunta grew up, married and raised Kizzy, the writing of the characters began to show some depth. Frankly in those episodes I was pleased that not all white people were evil masochists. I liked Robert Reed's character. He was fair, deep and introspective. Even when he sold Kizzy away it was not done for no reason.

The final volume was where I started to feel like I was watching a cartoon again. I thought the Lloyd Bridges character had little depth and was completely one dimensional. His character's relationship with Tom was the most one dimensional relationship in the whole series in my opinion. I found other slave owners and white characters like Mr. Ames, Tom Moore and even John and William Reynolds having multi-dimensional, more realistic relationships with their slaves. This helped draw me in to the miniseries - of course until the end when all the white people were either wimps (George Johnson), overt racists (Evan Brent(Bridges)) or corrupt Senators (Burl Ives' character).

I was deeply moved by the plight of the slaves, especially Kizzy. When she visited her father's grave and all that was written on it was "TOBY", I was profoundly affected. I was affected primarily because I felt like I knew Kunta from his youth and how he was a valued human being as a young person only to end up in a grave with a cheap stone scrawled with "TOBY". It was a very powerful moment when Kizzy wrote "Kunta Kinte" on the stone.

There are two things apart from the specifics with certain characters that I would have done differently in making this mini-series. First I would have had the people in Africa speak a native African tongue with subtitles (a la The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto). This would have made it more believable especially when Kunta comes to the US and suddenly can't speak or understand English. Yes as I watched it I could get beyond that and make pretend he wasn't speaking English when he was in Africa, but it would have been better if they spoke their native language in Africa.

The second thing is as a Christian, I would like to have seen someone introduce Christianity to Kunta and at some point give his life to Christ or at least see one of his progeny do it.

I highly recommend this mini-series to anyone. I am not a black person but I can empathize with people who sincerely want to know the truth about their lineage.