Thursday, February 26, 2009

RESPONDING IN THE VISIBLE

It should be obvious that the world leaders do not have a clue on how to solve the worldwide financial crisis. Anyone that puts their faith in these leader’s decisions will BE sadly disappointed by the result. This is because government leaders do not have clue as to what the cause of the financial crisis is. What gets the blame is rogue financiers, when in reality the Central Banks and fractional reserve banking are to blame.

The government’s primary function is law enforcement and justice. This means that the government’s primary function is negative. Law enforcement takes place in the visible world of effects. Government can never stop the spiritual which precedes the visible world of effects. Government’s response to any and every situation will remain the same, increasing regulation of the financial industry as if they had not been regulating it to death to begin with.

The government responds negatively by trying to gain control of effects, ignoring the spiritual cause of the crisis. The government is thus by nature reactive and not proactive. The government can only act when something has been done. No one is to be arrested for murder until they actually commit the murder. Thoughts about murder are not able to be prosecuted without corresponding actions.

Not understanding government’s role as being negative in application leads to the false belief that government can solve problems and crisis. They are incapable by definition. It should be obvious that the government should not be involved in the market (which is spiritual i.e. subjective choices) unless to enforce contracts and prosecute fraud. Outside of this function, the result of government intervention in the market will be a negative effect upon an economy and will inhibit an economic recovery.

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to see "the establishment of a global governance structure." (AP News). This is an attempt by governments to gain control of something over which they have no control. In other words, her words shows how desperate governments are in this worldwide financial crisis. They are wanting to gain control over something that they will never be able to control no matter how many regulations they come up with.

The new structural system is one of decentralization. Centralization is passe. It belongs to a bygone era of museum pieces. The establishment is attempting the impossible of trying to keep control. Self government and personal responsibility are the wave of the future. Limited government is the new watchword. A return to absolutes is the future trend. Visible control is negative. We need something positive. This will be provided by a decentralized system of personal responsibility.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

NOTHING INTERESTING

I enjoy reading the newspaper. I am looking for specific things when reading it. I read the Letters to the Editor section religiously. I am interested in seeing what other people think who are not apart of the media. Even though these people have an agenda, they do not realize that they are echoing what the news media has programmed them to write. Some think independently, but they are a small minority. Occasionally, I will read an editorial only if I find the topic interesting. I avoid most editorials because all that they are for is more government control of our lives and I vehemently oppose more government control.

Since Obama has become President, the news has become so boring. The news media will never criticize this idiot. The media will spin it as though this dolt knows what he is doing, when he has no plan and is making up everything as he goes along. It is obvious that Obama and his advisors do not understand economics, if they did they would realize that increasing government spending is the last thing you should do in the midst of an economic crisis.

The stimulus plan of Obama is simply to increase government control over all facets of life. This means that any news story about Obama will always be the same, increasing government control. So what else is new? This makes the news wholly predictable. For the next four years, all that we will be hearing about is how the government must do everything. It is all a guise to eventually increase taxes. The people must be softened up and then they will be more willing to pay more taxes.

The deficits that Obama will run will assure that taxes will have to be increased. Isn’t that a shocker? Essentially, Obama has bankrupted the government. What Obama cannot prevent is the market doing what it is going to do. This is because the market is invisible and cannot be controlled. The market is the subjective values of a population. As time moves forward, a decentralization is taking place and the government has yet to get the memo. So has most of the electorate. The days of government control are beginning to end. This is the government’s last gasp at trying to gain total control. It will fail.

Does it make sense to read reports about failure? I believe in success. I love to read accounts of what brings about success. Why should I waste my valuable time reading about how to fail? Only a stupid person would do such. There are plenty of takers on that accord. This is because these inane people have no idea what true success is. Likes beget likes. Failure begets failure and success begets success. Obama is a failure and all of his policies bear the same imprint.

What would make for interesting reading is budget cuts. This is music to my ears. All that gets cut is marginal. If it can be cut, then it should not have been there in the first place. It is an extra layer of fat that has nothing to do with the essential operation of an entity. The government has so much fat that it is going to take draconian cuts just to get down to the lean meat. Let the cutting begin.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

NO SYMPATHY

Under normal circumstances, we have like feelings for people who have suffered from something that was beyond their control or from some accident. A recent example was a mechanic at an auto repair shop. A gas tank exploded when a drop light accidently hit the floor and ignited the gas, the mechanic suffered burns and had to be flown to a burn unit in Nashville, Tennessee.

This is an unfortunate situation, this mechanic and his family have our sympathy and prayers. We would want others’ sympathy if we found ourselves in a similar situation. We can place ourselves in this unfortunate man’s situation. We know that this man may or may not recover enough to go back to being a mechanic. His future hangs in the balance. It will take time for his situation to work out.

Sympathy is a relational emotion. We can relate to those who are in a given distressing situation. However, sympathy cannot be given out indiscriminately. Sympathy should only be given to those who deserve it. Not everyone deserves our sympathy. Sympathy is something that should be given based upon someone’s character. While I am not aware of the mechanic’s character, we know that he was gainfully employed as a mechanic when this accident occurred. He was not involved in any immoral trade. He was doing what he should be doing, if physically able, working for a living.

The same sympathy cannot be given to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who recently had pancreatic cancer surgery. Her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice have life and death consequences. Since she is a sinner, her decisions will be in favor of death. She is a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to abortion and she believes that abortion should be based not on privacy (Roe v. Wade), but rather on equality. Ginsburg has declared open season on the unborn. She puts the power of death in the hands of the abortion doctor when she has the power to strip these murderers of their ability to slaughter the defenseless.

She also voted with the majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which overturned state sodomy laws. This has enabled the reproductive dead to come out in clear daylight to ply their wickedness. Abortion and homosexuality both have this in common, death. Since the spiritual precedes the visible, it is obvious the spiritual condition of Ginsburg. She is in favor of death at every turn. This is because she is spiritually dead.

Should Ginsburg die from pancreatic cancer, I will shed no tears. I have no sympathy for this woman’s situation. She is a murderer and murderers do not deserve sympathy but disdain. She will pass from this world because death in inevitable and when she does, the world will be a better place because a murderer will have died. Ginsburg is not wise enough to know that pancreatic cancer is minor compared to the eternal punishment she will be suffering and deservingly so.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

SIGNS OF REGRESSION

We are living in a regressive age. It is pointed out continually that we are progressing by popular culture. The question becomes progressing to what? No answer. It is a deafening silence because the popular pundits have no idea. Progression for them is to allow all that was unallowable in the past. They call this advancement when in reality it is the opposite. They are not aware of how far they are drifting from the ethical shore.

This makes sense considering that the dominant ethics of our day is pragmatism. Pragmatism recognizes no absolute truth. Not recognizing any absolute truth means that the individual decides what is truth for him. Pragmatism operates in the immediate moment based upon the situation and can be classified as situation ethics. Pragmatism is the religion of flux. No absolutes leads philosophically in one direction, crisis. Pragmatism engenders instability. As the prophet Isaiah put it in Isaiah, "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."

With the passage of time, a culture should be progressing ethically. When this is not the case, it is obvious what the cause is. There has been a change in direction ethically speaking. There are only two belief systems in the world. One believes in absolutes that is in unchanging standards and the other believes in no absolutes or continuously changing standards. One is progressive and the other is regressive. One is life giving and the other is headed for death.

I watched a video about skin art (tattoos) in the Super Bowl. They were showing football players who had tattoos. Some of these players were covered with tattoos. One player had a tattoo on his neck. These players are proud of their tattoos and are not ashamed to show them off. Every player in the video showing their tattoos is black. This does not mean that white players do not have tattoos because some do, but this video used only black players.

Are tattoos art and do they have any ethical significance? Leviticus 19:28 reads, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Ethically, tattoos are outlawed by the law of God. This is an unchanging standard. Therefore to deviate from this standard is to regress ethically. The acceptance of tattoos in our culture is a sign that our culture has regressed in its ethics, not progressed.

Tattooing is symptomatic of an ethical decline in culture. Tattooing is an effect, not a cause. It is what we see. The cause is underlying, but is shows itself in the tattoo itself. It used to be only a few people had tattoos. Now, the number of people with tattoos has increased dramatically. It seems as if the majority of people now have them. Tattooing has become mainstream. When this occurred, it was obvious that an ethical regression had occurred.