Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’

The false dichotomy between faith and reason

All thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information for reasoning. Being that we are constantly forced into making decisions, other than being bipolar, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies upon which to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason(religion and science). Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist will show a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason or necessarily in denial of science, although a part of his reason is based upon a trust that there are things in existence which cannot be seen or proven by man, but nonetheless, are a reality. Therefore, there is a false dichotomy between faith and “reason”, because everyone who believes anything, or holds any ideology or belief system, embraces both. But even so, when faith is misplaced, reason becomes corrupted.

Because of conflicts between spiritual and material(worldly) foundations of thought, there becomes a necessity to choose one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices; for you cannot establish a direction in life based upon uncertainty. As it is written: “You cannot serve God and mammon”. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but in practice when making certain choices, some decisions must be made by faith; and the rejection of a faith often is in itself an opposing faith, or a faith against a faith. For if we are to believe anything, we must base trust in what knowledge is. And we cannot always do that solely on what is proven or accepted as fact because of the many unknowns. For even with all we know, there are gaps in our knowledge created by unknowns. It is often necessary to fill these gaps, which we attempt to do by reasoning. This means that along with provable certainties, we also all choose to believe some things which are only accepted by faith. This is true whether we believe in God or not. For while one can claim only to believe in science, it is almost impossible, because at this point scientific knowledge is too incomplete by itself to completely support an ideology. And because it is incomplete, one who believes only in science is often forced to interpret what the science means, which gives birth to theories. This too becomes faith wherein one puts trust in his own reasoning. For we cannot make any sense of anything without first laying a foundation of what we accept as knowledge. And without this foundation, we are tossed to and fro being unstable and confused. Herein lies the Great Division between the spiritual man and the carnal man sometimes referred to imprecisely as, science versus religion, or reason versus faith. In reality, those terms create a false dichotomy; for faith is hardly without reason, nor is secular reasoning completely devoid of faith.

A secular belief system based solely upon scientific reasoning places more limitations on knowledge than does a system based upon faith in God, in part because the secularist will reject knowledge received by revelation or through testimony of a personal experience. While often this can be the correct thing to do, there are cases where revelations, experiences, and testimonies are indeed true. Even an event that takes place with no witnesses still happens. So likewise, the rejection of all things that cannot be proven also will include some truths. Nonetheless, by doing so, secularists put academia in the position of being the exclusive arbitrators in determining what qualifies for knowledge and biases arise wherein there is often an exclusion of the beliefs and knowledge held by others if it dose not conform to their ideology.

Because of the gaps in knowledge, to connect the pieces together, secularists are themselves forced to resort to faith to manufacture links, often at best based upon circumstantial evidence. They rely upon theories to arrive at explanations and conclusions. In doing so, however, their explanations often tend to create even more questions, which in turn demands an even greater faith and an expansion of theories. Thus, in many cases, the materialist ends up being no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical, and far more wildly imaginative than his religious counterpart.

Nonetheless, when popular ideas and theories gain enough traction in intellectual circles, they often become accepted as a reality and are incorporated and “certified” as knowledge, even without sufficient supporting evidence. Thus, pure science is undermined and in many cases, the occupation embraces faith and becomes a profession with a ‘religious’ nature. Agenda driven ideologies become dogma and are embraced by the academics, creating numerous instances wherein things are treated as indisputable fact when at best they are unknown. But then too, many things which are indeed true are treated as falsehoods or dismissed. The end result is science ceases to be as scientific as it claims.

H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on science and reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,

“There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning….“ “……We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.”

This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially evolving to the status of being “God”. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,

“Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”

Thus accordingly, the secular mindset holds that creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose is not as an individual but in being a “part of a greater being”(the collective). It is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind (the being) to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little to no value, but as a apart of the collective, we are as single cells in the immortal body of humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but they are replaced by new and the body lives. Collectively, we are the supreme being. There is no God above us. It is this vein of thinking that puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the body of humanity. This rejection of faith in God creates a faith, albeit, an atheistic one with all the aspects of a religion.

Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.

It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.

By this time, the Soviet Union also had already promoting the unrealistic concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on the march toward social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism has not not attained to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies, Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.

The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.

Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.

Arbitrary Morality

According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.

From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.

In the elitists mind, if a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much future suffering will be avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational is the direct result of reason absent a faith in God. It is the place reason always ends when it travels alone.

Faith or Reason

Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and a faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge; for indeed, it is knowledge.

As many have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God”. What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical world, those religions responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice their deeds were physical, aimed at fulfilling worldly ambitions. This is as true of the Church of Rome it is of Islam today.

Although the evangelical Christian may preach about hell, the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the place of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. The pursuit of an earthy kingdom was the ambition also of Roman Catholicism, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is also the vision of “progressive” elitists today.

Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!

Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it has always done the opposite. For reason never travels alone; it is always accompanied by ideology. And reason is to be a servant of faith, a helper to bring invisible principles into the knowledge of a physical world as a constant foundation. For, if we are to avoid catastrophe, we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of reason comes from faith.

RAS – 2007


Read Full Post »

O’ God, save us from the ‘love” of our enemies and protect us from the “compassion” of evil doers. Deliver us also from those who would force their “wisdom” upon us. Let not those who seek to “save” us succeed O’ Lord. Neither let them “bless” us with their “wisdom” or prevail in making us all “equal” or in bringing “peace” and “prosperity”.

As an overflowing flood which drowns all before it, they have determined to quench our thirst. As a goldfish at a sorority party, they imagine to swallow us whole. For our own safety they bind us tightly in cords of “compassion”; for our own “protection” they wrap us securely in swaddling cloths of tyranny. They have also vowed to rob our posterity, and our posterity’s posterity for generations to come; to bring us prosperity.

O’ Lord, let those coming to ‘save” us be confounded and confused. Let terror seize upon them like that of a bleeding sailor fallen overboard into shark infested seas. Cause them to go round and round in circles as a dog snapping at ticks on his most hinder parts. Yea, let them melt away as a candle burning upside down. As maggots upon a rock in the noon day sun let their power dry up and be no more. As a snail lost in a salt mine, let them dissolve away into nothing and cease.

Read Full Post »

“The terrorists today have the will to destroy us, but they don’t have the power. We have the power to eradicate them, but we must now show that we have the will.” – Benjamin Netanyahu – Sept. 14th, 2001

The United States has often been referred to as the world’s only super-power, but what does that really mean? The potential of a nation is only that. More often than not, the destiny of a nation is determined by will power and unity rather than potential or physical power. Potential will be realized only to the extent of the will and unity that exists among the people to achieve the fullness of what is possible.

History shows that greatness often begins with a small group of determined people. Certainly in the case of America this is true. Many of the people who came to America’s shores were the poor persecuted and despised rejects of Europe. Still, what drove many of these these individuals was a God inspired self-determination which in the end proved to be the greatest resource they brought ashore with them.

When the War of Independence broke out, approximately one third of colonists supported the revolution while the remaining two thirds were divided between those who were indifferent and those whose loyalties remained with the British crown. In the end the resolved minority not only prevailed over the other two thirds of their fellow countrymen but also against the world’s super power of the time.

There is more than one important lesson in this: first, a determined minority, although small, like a rudder on a ship can decide the course; second, a great power can be defeated by an inferior power under certain circumstances if a minority is unified and has the greater strength of will. America presently faces the fate of one or the other. If America prevails it will again be by strength of a minority within.

Rarely has it been the majority of a nation that initiated the greatness of that nation, even if the majority later enjoyed the benefits of that greatness. The inspiration for movements leading to greatness has always been initiated by a minority who persevered while enduring the vehement opposition of their antagonists, while the remainder of society largely in self absorption existed in a stupor of apathy.

Presently not only are there international threats posed by terrorist and state sponsors of terrorism, but there is also a resurgence of communistic socialism world wide—fascism to be more precise. Authoritarian governments and quasi-democracies through international treaties and organizations are seeking to consolidate the power of many to compete against a few by creating a global monopoly of power. However, for the United States threats are not limited to external elements, for the greatest threats today come from within our own system.

We grew from being a poor nation to a wealthy one, but we are still reviled, despised, and rejected by many other nations of the world. Because of this, there are some among us who willingly accept collective guilt on our behalf for everything that is wrong with the world today. They do this believing that because America is a super-power, not only is she responsible for all problems and their respective solutions, but she also holds an unfair advantage in terms of wealth and power.

Proponents of these views work to weaken America in every aspect and bring her under submission to prevailing world views in an attempt to create equality among nations. They hold that the road to world peace is only possible through capitulation by effectively surrendering our status as a super-power among the nations.

At the same time, the moral minority who reject capitulation are categorized and labeled among other things as: bigots, warmongers, dividers, unilateralists, fanatics, extremists, and cowboys. Even so, if this group will not only endure but be proactive, they will join in the greatness of those who came before them.

Because more than half of the nation is uninvolved and would rather exist in a stupor, battles are decided by the minority groups who do engage. During the next decade not only will the course of America be decided; but the course of the world. If America were to fail, virtually all of humanity will also fail for America is the stability of the world. She is the shinning city on a hill, the last best hope for mankind. Over forty years have past since the following words were spoken, but never have they been any truer than they are today:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.“ – Ronald Reagan, 1964

Will a minority rise to the occasion as in the past? I believe a minority will, and at the very least, they will retain their honor.

RAS – 2009

Read Full Post »

What follows was first posted in 2006. It remains applicable to the current crises, if not more so now than then. There have been some grammatical corrections and editing for clarity, but the content is essentially consistent with the original.

I believe we are living in an age [2006] of transition when the world as we know it today will see a radical change. This global transition is brought on by modernization and globalization combined with the unification and consolidation of powers. Unfortunately, although knowledge has been built upon from generation to generation, giving mankind more power than in any time in history, at the same time, mankind is reverting back morally, and tribal impulses are becoming the guiding force. These primitive impulses, although cloaked in sophistication and newly acquired knowledge, inspire ideologies that are eroding the foundation of our rights and freedoms. They also devalue individual rights and promote forced collectivism (fascism, communism, socialism, and almost all other “-isms”).

Collectivism has long been the rule in many cultures. However, the natural impulse for such rule is not exclusive to tribal cultures, undeveloped societies, or civilizations of the past. Moreover, regardless of how seemingly civilized, there is a natural tendency in all collective communities, regardless of ideologies, to become totalitarian. In the modern collective society for example, independent character development of individuals is replaced by mass social programming. The individual conscience is replaced by a contrived group-conscience of politically correct social decrees of the state. I believe that in a final analysis, these societies are every bit as barbaric and cruel as any other primitive tribal culture—even if only through sophistry and a charade of fastidious “compassion” and “goodwill”.

Other than an appearance of sophistication, the main difference between the neo-tribal modern society with advanced sciences, vis-a-vis primitive tribal cultures, is the amount of power the former is able to amass through wealth, knowledge, and science. Nazi Germany stands as a prime example where intellect was worshiped, while the focus on moral character and the value of life were disregarded or sacrificed for efficiency—the goal: assimilating the citizenry into a “superior” collective being—a godstate. The end result was scientific and educational advancement devoid of morality, which, in that case as always, was a human catastrophe.

Intellect, being perceived as the greatest power is a concept which holds in contempt the principle that good is the greatest power. However, the greatest and freest societies ever known to mankind were those which were built upon a foundation of righteous principles, not mere intellectualism. The words, “when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” are not without merit.

While there are many dangers facing the world today, the greatest threat is not posed by religious fanatics or terrorists threatening mass destruction. This statement is not to diminish the terrorist threat which is very real indeed, but to indentify the true source of most global dangers and magnify a threat that is much greater within the global economical system and governmental workings of the world’s most powerful nations today.

Adherents to radical Islam would have little wherewithal whereby to achieve their ambitions without sponsoring nations. To whatever degree terrorists succeed in the future it will have only have been made possible by state governments which harbored and supplied provisions whereby terrorists could exist. Moreover, nations sponsoring terrorists are also given their power by the most powerful nations in the world. It is therefore that Islamic fanaticism could be defeated if the will of the nations were to do so.

Notwithstanding, the will of the nations to seriously confront the dangers posed by Islamic extremists does not exist for various reasons. In Western democracies, capitulation is founded upon the fear of global crises and economic disruption which would ensue at home and abroad in a full scale confrontation with extremists. In some other nations the reason for supporting hostile regimes is much more nefarious. Some governments with malevolent ambitions have found it to their advantage to use Islamic extremism to their advantage. By proxy they hope to displace American influence globally and assert themselves as global powers. This is true of Russia and China which both profit financially off rogue entities and are fighting an asymmetrical war against the West in general, but primarily against the United States. These ambitions, which are all but ignored by the West are harder to deny in the case of Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is much more blunt about his beliefs and goals.

Russian and Venezuelan economies are based primarily on energy resources; both reap greater profits form higher oil prices due to a Middle-Eastern crisis and global terrorism. Both work to corner the market on supplies. This alliance, however, between these nations and other hostile regimes goes beyond economics and establishing global control of energy supplies for financial gain. There is also the tactic of confronting the West through Islamic proxies. This not only drains the resources of the West, but also offers a means diverting attention away from the rising threats of their own nations which have totalitarian underpinnings and global ambitions.

American wealth through global enterprise has built and empowered much of the world. Nations such as Russia, China, and others who have been empowered by the West are now to the point they can together readily challenge the West. Although these nations are often alluded to as though they are aspiring democracies, the political and economic reality is that the structure and philosophies of these formally so called communist nations now resembles the fascist regimes of the 1930’s.

The West currently [2006] is faced with an intense asymmetrical war which involves economics, technology, politics, and confrontation by proxy. Nevertheless, Westerners in large choose to live in denial. There will come a point however, when these nations which oppose U.S. hegemony openly assert themselves in a challenge to U.S. power. What takes place between now and then on their part is merely positioning and maneuvering in order to gain an insurmountable advantage.

Possible scenarios

Russia and China are emerging global powers. They have no aversion to formation of a world order on their terms; the main obstacle in their view has been the United States and to a lesser degree Europe. On the other hand, there are also elitists in the West who have no aversion whatsoever to formation of a world order with these totalitarian countries, insomuch, that they have set about dismantling and condemning Western sovereignty and power from within at every opportunity. Many proponents of a global order believe so fool-heartedly in it, they disregard any risk involved and would be pleasured to see a world order regardless of the initial cost to humanity.

I have a premonition [2006] that the world is on the verge of a two part catastrophe. It arises out of the attempt to merge nations with incompatible ideologies into a global system and it is further compounded by the adopted solutions to rectify the discord. It is very possible that in the aftermath of an event or chain of events, such as global economic upheaval, international terrorism with WMD or a nuclear devise, or some other catastrophe, the catalyst may exist to form a multi-polar global society. In any case, the end result will be catastrophic.

The West has been the stabilizing force in the world for decades. Over time, however, western civilization has been sold out by its politicians, international elitists, and global corporations. Media-elitists have worked to condition the citizenry to accept this or to be ignorant of it. This shall manifest itself in no small way. The erosion of the power of free nations is evident; and, at this point irreversible. Once US hegemony ceases from being the stabilizing force, conflicts and global chaos will follow; world stability today as we know it will cease.

I have, however, another premonition also, for there has always been a people somewhere, some place, who arise to stand for Good. And the children of Light shall be drawn unto them; for Good will sustain them. In the end it always does. Keep an eye on Israel.

Read Full Post »

Will the US Cede Sovereignty?

The above link in the caption will take you to a youtube video of the presentation Lord Christopher Monckton gave in St. Paul, MN on October the 14th of this year. At the time of this blog post 12 days later, it had been viewed over 1,100,000 times. The subject of his speech was global warming and the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in early December of this year. The seriousness of the threat of this treaty cannot be understated. It effectively creates a global government, supposedly preempting the U.S. Constitution by making US sovereignty subject to international law.

As the news spreads of the December meeting in Copenhagen and the potential consequences of ratifying such a treaty, it is now being reported that Obama is unlikely to attended. From the UK Timesonline today we get this headline:

President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen
Quoting from the article:

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize. . .

Here is my concern: Are articles like these a ruse? Being that Obama will be in Europe when he goes to Oslo to receive his Nobel two days before the meeting, he could easily jaunt over to sign the treaty. Indeed, if there is a “last minute decision” to attend on his part, he avoids a fight until after the treaty is signed. The benefit of having stories put out like this one in the Timesonline, stating he “likely will not attend”, preempts debate and stymies scrutiny. But, the Obama administration wouldn’t feign he is not going, then at the last moment have him go stating that circumstances had changed. . . would they? They are not that cunning or low down. . . are they?

Still, any such treaty would require ratification by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Although, the United States House of Representatives would not have a vote on it at all. Even so, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to ratify international treaties. Nonetheless, considering the current crop of politicians currently in Washington, there is less comfort in that now than in times passed.

Still, this is not the first attempt at this type of maneuver. In 2000, another treaty relinquishing US sovereignty was signed, as time expired, by then US President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Signs Treaty Just Before Deadline
Tuesday, January 02, 2001

US President Bill Clinton on Sunday signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), just hours before the 31 December signature deadline. The action is seen as a tactical maneuver to keep the United States involved in negotiations over the court’s potential establishment, the Washington Post reports. Sunday was the last day nations could sign the treaty without first having ratified it.

“We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability,” Clinton said in a statement. “We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice.”

Clinton added, however, that his administration still has “concerns about significant flaws in the treaty,” in particular that the Hague-based court could claim jurisdiction over citizens from countries that do not ratify the treaty, which may include the United States. These were the same concerns that had been expressed by US conservatives and the Pentagon in their objections to the US signing the treaty. . .”


Fortunately, The Rome Statute never came before the US Senate for ratification and the incoming Bush administration opposed the treaty.

Be advised America, this is the means by which the US Constitution is being proposed to be overthrown.

Read Full Post »

Not all—in fact, most Democrats did not know what they were buying when they bought Barak Obama. Most did not expect a totalitarian; they were envisioning a moderate politician or imagining a Liberal Utopia. The kicker for those hoping for a Liberal Utopia is—Liberal Utopia only exists in the mind. Nowhere else has it, nor will it ever exist. It is not possible; it is a pipe dream.

To further compound the fact that Liberal Utopia is a fanciful delusion existing in the mind only as an unattainable dream—each one of its adherents, inside their little liberal heads has a different vision of what this Liberal Utopia looks like. But they don’t know that until they finally get together after they have power and try to make it work.

That is why when they finally obtain power they always begin falling apart. Many of them don’t really agree on details, even though they thought they would because they agreed on the surface of the issues. Many of them never really thought through the details. Why should they have? It all sounded good and those making it sound good also sounded like they had it all figured out. Still, when it comes time to bring everything into being, the visions they each have inside their heads collide, first with each other, and ultimately with reality.

From then on, all the components for chaos are present. You have the radical activists factions: gay rights, peacenicks, environmentalists, animal rights, socialists, ethnic activist groups (racists), etc., etc.—they all demand that their agendas be catered to first and foremost. However, their dilemma is that they had to unite with moderates, independents, etc., etc. to take power in the first place. Most of these people had no clue they were signing up for a fascist/communist revolution. They don’t want the totalitarian policies that it takes to try and make a radical socialist wet dream come true.

It seems apparent; the left can unite in hatred of the right to obtain power. But unity ends there. Every time they come to power they fragment right back into their separate special interests groups and attack each other. It always ends in chaos, and it will not be any different this time. They hold ideologies and employ means that doom themselves. Thus, the only way to prolong their days is by a radical takeover and tyranny.

A Liberal Utopia is a figment of the mind. Notwithstanding, when it becomes physical policy, it is an extremely destructive and futilely hopeless cause, wreaking widespread havoc upon all as it goes down in flames.

Read Full Post »

And the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize is . . . [drum roll] . . . Barak Hussein Obama! . . . Surprise!

It seems that a number of people are confounded by the choice of Obama as this year’s recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize. No one can clarify just exactly what he did to receive the prestigious award which is given to the individual who is considered to have contributed the most to world peace. For me the reason is clear.

Obama won the Nobel Prize because he is destroying America—plain and simple. Seriously, that is exactly what it is all about. Of course it won’t be stated in those words. But the bottom-line is that the people who make the decision despise the U.S. and for years have blamed all of the world’s woes on American greed and power. Obama shares their views, and he is in the position to do something about it. He is in a place where they believe he can bring the American people back down to earth. This of course will make all the people of the world more “equal.” He is also the first U.S. President to promise radical change in our Middle-East policy—a change that will not bode well for Israel and which will be a direct threat to the future and existence of the Jewish State.

So as you see, it should really come as no surprise that the same organization who awarded Jimmy Carter (an anti-Semite) and Yasser Arafat (the father of terrorism) the same award, would now give the award to Obama. Even though he has yet to do anything. It is a show of faith. No more Israeli oppressors! No more American hegemony. And presto-change-o, world peace! We’re all Marxists now.

Thus, the Nobel Peace Prize!

This award is a bad omen for America and the world. This is an omen that the whole earth will have Hell to pay.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »