Nearly 1 in 5 troops has mental problems after war service

Here is another pointless bumper sticker. Liberals who believe in the traditional concept of God are increasingly marginalized by their secular counterparts and they’re frustrated that the majority of religious people, especially Christians, in America are conservative. So the Sojourners came up with an advertisement in 2004 with this lovely heading. Fortunately, illogic doesn’t matter to conservatives and the Sojourner’s ad collects dust in the dust bin of election history. George Bush isn’t your president? Well, John Kerry isn’t anyone’s president.

The principle their trying to convey is something that John Kerry said at the DNC in 2004, “It is not about who’s side God is on, it is about whether or not we are on God’s side.” Of course, the liberals clapped hysterically when he said this. Many of them don’t believe in God but they believe that God is on their side none the less. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe that God is on my side, as a conservative. And now that I think of it, I would agree. God is not a Republican. He is a conservative.

Back to the principle, it could be stated, “God doesn’t take sides.” First off, we would agree that God would take the side of the truth. For example, God takes sides on the issue of murder. Some people apparently think it is okay to murder, because they do it. God takes the side that murder is wrong, immoral, evil, unethical, whatever right? Good, we agree. So, there you go it is done. God does take sides. Now, I gave you a counter example. However, there is a better argument that shows the fatal flaw in this liberal logic, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has already debunked this principle. All I can do is to reiterate his argument. Consider this:

Person A says: God doesn’t take sides.

Person B says: God does take sides.

Who’s side is God on? You can’t say God isn’t on either side. God is on the side of the truth. Whichever one is true, God is on that side. So, it is a self-defeating statement.

You know, rationality is a God-given faculty. I wish liberals would exercise it once in a while. It really is a gift to be sane.

As an afterthought, liberals often complain about the separation of church and state. That is really a red herring. Liberals want to remove religious people from the public arena because we have competing agendas. Liberals know they can’t win, so they try to silence those with whom they disagree. Maybe that’s why they look up to the communist Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez so much. But really folks, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against racism because he was a Christian. He invoked God and religion constantly. Liberals did not cry out for separation of church and state then. “Separation of church and state” is just a disguise for the liberal attack on the freedom of speech in this great nation.

“The actor spoke with Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing at PPI, and said he wanted his donation to be used for "underprivileged minority groups." The caller went on to say, "I really face trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids being disadvantaged, you know, against black kids" (Call transcript, 3/20). Kersey said it was the "first time" a donor had made "this kind of request" but added that she was "excited" to receive the donation.”(Planned Parenthood Of Idaho Apologizes After Employee Agrees To Accept Racially Motivated Donation © 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.)”http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/101262.php

Now I don’t really believe that Planned Parenthood is racist. Although…black abortions do make up a disproportionate amount of the total abortions in the US and clinics are more common in poorer neighborhoods. And it is totally in line with the beliefs of Planned Parenthood's founders. Margaret Sanger was one of Planned Parenthood’s founders. It was part of Margaret Sanger’s vision to use abortions and birth control to practice eugenics through which the “unfit,” especially blacks, would fail to reproduce and their genes would die out. Read some of Margaret’s own words:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind." ⁽Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza: "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.)

Who were the feeble minded? Sanger has an answer.

“It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” (Sanger, "What Every Girl Should Know", 1920, p. 47)

Granted this was nearly ninety years ago, some of these faulty beliefs were more common than they are today. But the important thing is that Sanger expressed ideas that are still present on the political left.

1. We know better than others what is good for them.
2. It is often better to die, than to be born in a poor neighborhood.
3. The lives and posterity of educated individuals are more valuable than those of poor, uneducated people.
4. It is better to promote abortion, than to allow the births of babies with statistically high chances of becoming criminals.
5. The decrease in crime justifies the increase in abortions.
6. A human’s life value varies depending on how much a mother wants that human life to continue.
7. A woman can get pregnant and abort the pregnancy on demand.
8. A woman should not have to feel guilty about killing her unborn child. She should even feel good.

Some people reading this may have no problem with the things on this list. I just wanted to point out that this line of thinking, even if not racist, is shared by leftists today as it was by racist eugenics proponents of the last century.

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - "U.S. lawmakers called for a federal review of Florida tomato picker wages and greater oversight of worker conditions during a Senate committee hearing Tuesday, questioning claims by an industry group that the workers earn an average of $12.50 an hour.

Not only is the expression on this bumper sticker terribly irresponsible, and anti-intellectual, but the sentiment is devoid of moral courage.

First off, any honest person who cares about the truth would be careful not to misrepresent the reality of the situation. Apparently, the person displaying such a sticker finds a public that favors execution as morally equivalent to the guilty murderer in the chair.

A responsible person might ask, “Why do we execute brutal murderers who victimize innocent people in order to teach that brutally murdering is wrong?” At least this way, we can talk sensibly about the reality of the issue.

Secondly, the reasoning is faulty in both the responsible and irresponsible statements of the question. The question implies that it is wrong to punish a criminal in the same way that the crime was committed. The principle could be stated: if a criminal commits x, then x cannot be punishment.

There is a clear counter-example for which the principle is false. We arrest and imprison people who are guilty of snatching and locking up victims. The bumper sticker could read: “Why do we kidnap people who kidnap people to show that kidnapping is wrong?”

No one to my knowledge is opposed to imprisoning kidnappers. So now that it is clear the whole premise for the bumper sticker is false, I’ll explain why it is devoid of moral courage. The left is so weak when it comes to standing up to evil. The reason why it is important to not only keep the death penalty on the books but to exercise the use of the death penalty for the worst criminals is because it saves innocent lives by deterrence. The typical potential murderer will be careful not commit murder, if they are afraid that they will be put to death. We in turn must be careful to make sure that the death penalty is applied justly and in humane ways. In so doing, innocent lives will be saved.

Afterthought: It occurred to me that the left will not spank their children for fear that their children will learn that hitting is okay. Where does this thinking come from? I know a whole generation of adults raised with spankings as punishment. They were even spanked as punishment for hitting. And they know that it is not okay to use your fist instead of your words. And they will even turn the other cheek (pun intended) in Christ like manner. Spanked children, in my experience, are less likely to hit or have inappropriate physical boundaries, than their non-spanked peers. Just goes to show, you can punish in the same way the offense was committed. It works.

I finally understand what this whole “hope” thing is about with Obama. He has locked into the defective thinking of the left. He thinks that unless the government solves our problems, the problems will forever remain. His whole message is that your hope can be found only in the government.

If you don’t agree with Obama, then he says you participate in a politics of cynicism. I find great dissonance between this view and the view that our hope comes from God. The psalmist writes:

 16 No king is saved by the size of his army;
       no warrior escapes by his great strength.

 17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;
       despite all its great strength it cannot save.

 18 But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him,
       on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,

 19 to deliver them from death
       and keep them alive in famine.

 20 We wait in hope for the LORD;
       he is our help and our shield.

 21 In him our hearts rejoice,
       for we trust in his holy name.

 22 May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD,
       even as we put our hope in you. (Psalm 33)

Does the psalmist participate in the politics of cynicism? Our Lord Jesus Christ provides hope for Christians. I think it a virtue to find our hope in God and not government. Why? God has proved that He is faithful and just.

Our government:

 - just shipped missile components to Taiwan by accident (25 March 2008).

- can’t balance a budget and is as efficient at spending money as a sift is at carrying water.

- can’t match the outcomes of students attending private schools.

- didn’t do such a great job with the Katrina disaster.

- Look! The list goes on and on.

What is the big problem with big government? Big government control has been tried in the former Soviet Union and it resulted in 100,000s murdered. It is the same with Cuba under Guevara and China under Mao. North Korea under Jong Il is a tale of starvation, poverty, and zero human rights.

Granted, Western Europe has not been involved in any genocide over the last 50 years. The problem is that if we go the route of Western Europe, we will have the same opportunities as Western Europeans. Western Europeans do not have the opportunities Americans have. America as it stands is still the land of opportunity. It is a land full of tales of rags to riches, social mobility, and great progress. That is the story of hope. You live in a land where you can worship as you please in America. It is a land where you can become anything you want to become through decency, hard work, and a little ambition.

That is why I have since the publication of his book, The Audacity of Hope (2006), found his words to be incredibly pretentious. Americans are hopeful. Americans are good people. It does not take audacity to have hope. What does take audacity is calling a nation of hopeful people, “cynics.”

Everyone knows that before she was elected to her position as New York Senator, Hillary promised 200,000 jobs to New Yorkers. And she came up 450,000 short as New York lost 250,000 jobs while she was serving in the Senate.

Based on this quote, I find two things. One, Obama wants you to envy the wealthy. He thinks that if you envy the wealthy, that you will vote for him because he is Robin Hood. He will steal from the rich and give to the poor. Go Obama Hood! So much for acting like a Christian. Envy is a sin Obama. And this isn’t a one time slip-up. Promoting envy is a way of life for Obama.

The second is that he believes that American’s should live in a world with no risks. He thinks we can just spread out the wealth by taking away the rights of successful, honest Americans. Sorry Obama. Your utopia has been tried. It was called the Soviet Union and it collapsed. Others have tried it too. They were called cults. I’m not drinking the kool-aid Obama. Just say “no” to Obama.