Sad To Have To Say This Just After The D-Day Anniversary

There is a difference between the desirable and the feasible. If America had the strength, as in _overwhelming_ superiority that _nobody_ could even begin to challenge.... and if we retained the moral integrity to assure that such strength would NOT be used to enslave others for our own gain.... then it would be a _great_ idea for us to overthrow a series of dictatorships all over the world, bringing freedom to billions of people. No, this _wouldn't_ inevitably have to mean we were being a greedy imperial power. America-bashers don't like to admit it, but Japan was quite literally made _more_ free by being _occupied_ for a time by us; it was _America_ which gave Japanese women the ability to vote.                  


Unfortunately, we have been weakened to an extent which probably is uncurable. Communist infiltration -- and I remind skeptics that _Russia_ has confessed that the Soviet-era infiltration _was_ real -- has eroded our will to resist global dictatorship. Various U.S. administrations have wasted our strength on counter-productive interventions; I leave it open to discussion _which_ interventions were the most ill-advised. Our nation and its citizens have done monumental deeds of charity and compassion for needy people worldwide; but those who selfishly envy our success have labored to ensure that we _don't_ get any credit for this. Our economy is being drained by parasites, domestic and imported. And our technology, which was our greatest material advantage for war, has been stolen from us, chiefly by China.                            


Our gun is about out of bullets, and the rowboat has a dozen holes in its bottom. It was never _inherently_ wrong for the United States to be the strongest nation on Earth, but between one thing and another, we've dropped the ball -- both losing our strength, AND losing our moral worthiness to lead. We've missed out on many of the fine things we could have done and been. And as a sad irony, we _still_ have Americans who think that the "cure" for our ills is to INCREASE THE DISEASE: more welfare entitlements, more appeasement of evildoers, etc.                            


If God does not see fit to intervene for us, the whole North American continent will almost certainly be in bondage under some form of absolute dictatorship within the next five years OR LESS. Then all the delusional Democrats who thought we would be better off without that icky Bible and that icky free enterprise, will _experience_ exactly what life is like without the Bible and without free enterprise. Then they'll wish they _hadn't_ been so eager to saw off the branch they were sitting on.

After A British Soldier Was Murdered

 Discussing Islamic fascism in light of the recent murder in Britain, one friend of a friend said, "When you are right, every one else is wrong...and an infidel." But there's a problem with this. My friend's friend, albeit with good intentions, was making the mistake of emphasizing the feeling of rightness as innately being the problem. This is the very emphasis which is exploited by hardcore leftists who HAVE NO PRINCIPLES themselves, in order to LIE that anyone who even HAS firm principles is a fascist.



A feeling of rightness is no worse and no better THAN THE THING THAT YOU ARE FEELING RIGHT ABOUT. Bible-believing Christians like myself are confident that we are right about our Savior, Who heals broken hearts, gives wisdom to the ignorant, reconciles the estranged, and calls on His followers to win new followers BY NON-VIOLENT FREE-WILL PERSUASION. And we refuse to be told that this makes us "exactly the same" as that Muslim thug boasting to the camera in Britain.

Speaking from an Outpost of True Love

It was only yesterday that Carol and I celebrated the first anniversary of our late-in-life wedding. Just yesterday. Well, Carol and I are still fine, but is anyone else? I go to a pizza shop and hear talk about divorce; I turn on the radio and hear talk about divorce. I remember being in the Navy and having shipmates be _startled_ to learn that my parents, unlike theirs, had _stayed_ married. How blessed and fortunate I am, that I never _was_ divorced, nor caused anyone _else's_ divorce, nor saw my _parents_ getting divorced.
                                                                                                               

If any divorced person is reading this, _don't_ get judgmental at me for supposedly being judgmental at you. Nothing I'm saying here is meant as criticism of any _particular_ person; so for purposes of this little essay, you have permission to come away as convinced of your own innocence and rightness as ever. For there _are_ such things as innocent, injured parties in divorces; the criminally stupid nonsense about "both sides always being equally guilty" rubs sand into the wounds of persons who _really_ tried their best in a marriage but were backstabbed by the _other_ spouse. Least of all am I trying to tell battered wives (and the occasional battered husband) that they have a "duty" to remain at the mercy of an abuser. But my heart aches for the _most_ innocent and _most_ injured parties in divorce cases: children, and sometimes other family members affected by a split.
                                                                                                           

In its eagerness _not_ to seem "judgmental" toward persons  who get divorced for causes _less_ extreme than physical abuse or blatant adultery, society has become guilty of minimizing the harm divorce can do to children. Before anyone starts harrumphing at me, "So, you want children to be trapped in a hostile, violent atmosphere," look again at what I already said about abuse. There are plenty of households where, if only the trouble between the parents could be healed, there _wouldn't_ be anything hurtful to the children. But look at how the children's problem is minimized by society.
                                                                                                               

The minimizing takes the form of only acknowledging _part_ of what is affecting children of a broken home. The one part of the children's plight which _does_ get widely acknowledged is the likelihood of a child thinking, "The divorce is my fault, so Mommy and Daddy won't love me anymore." Like setting _one_ broken bone for a crash victim who has _multiple_ fractures, the popular wisdom addresses _this_ worry of the children, saying, "Everything's okay, because the divorce _isn't_ your fault and Mommy and Daddy _won't_ stop loving you." But there is _more_ disruption involved than the _single_ area of disruption which pop culture consents to recognize.
                                                                                                                     

Where, if not in the family, will children learn the qualities, like forgiveness and loyalty, which make it possible for _them_ to have successful marriages -- even friendships, for that matter -- in the future? Pop culture is willing enough to say that physical violence learned at home will be carried elsewhere; so why is it not possible for pettiness,  treachery and selfishness _also_ to be carried beyond the household where they were acquired? If children witness the demigods of their childhood, Mommy and Daddy, becoming estranged (whether by equal fault, which of course is _sometimes_ the case, or by the fault of only one spouse), then what _positive_ example will ever outweigh this negative one? These children have been taught in concrete experience that relationships _don't_ last, that love _isn't_ permanent, that promises _won't_ be kept. So how are the children being helped to do better in their turn, just because the people breaking the promises offer the superficial assurance "I _stopped_ loving your mother/father, but I still love you, really, honest, why are you looking so skeptical?"
                                                                                                                       

I offer no magic wands here; do you think I don't know life is complicated? But if we never face the truth about _what_ the problems of society are, we'll never even _begin_ to undo the damage.

A Hybrid of Half-Truth

The Monsanto Corporation, as I understand it, sells genetically modified seed corn which can survive exposure to pesticides and herbicides far better than any ordinary vegetation can. Thus, with a crop of the G.M.O. corn, you can saturate a field with poison, and the corn will survive. So you don't have bugs eating the corn, or weeds choking it. But you also _don't_ have clean _soil_ that would be healthy for non-modified plant life again anytime soon; and the leftover poison enters the water table.

Today on Denver television.....

A pro-homosexual spokesman said of the gay takeover of the Boy Scouts: "This is about building character, not about sexual orientation." His empty line only proves that the hard left understands about winning a debate by defining the terms. He is asserting that sexual preference ISN'T character, because it's hard-wired by heredity.



All right, let's ACCEPT his terms, and see what follows. Character does at least involve caring about the well-being of others, doesn't it? So if it's built-in that gays HAVE TO BE attracted to their own sex and not to the opposite sex, can they not be asked to practice the same precaution as every heterosexual person is expected to practice as a matter of course?


If heterosexual adults demanded to be allowed to camp overnight with other people's children of the OPPOSITE sex, parents would object vigorously; and the potential heterosexual pedophiles would NEVER FOR ONE INSTANT be allowed to get away with whining, "Poor me, I'm being discriminated against!" No doubt some of the adults wanting this camping arrangement would in fact NOT be desiring to molest the children; but parents would STILL be within their rights to want to prevent ANY risk of molestation. So tell me why gays should be permitted intimate access to the same-sex children THEY could potentially lust after, when straights ARE NOT given a corresponding access to opposite-sex children?


If gay men really DON'T have the slightest interest in using boys sexually, there is a VERY EASY way they could show good faith. Let them offer to camp out WITH GIRLS -- who, on the gay mens' own declared terms, would be completely safe from sexual molestation by the gay men. Why do you suppose I'm not hearing them offering this?

Master of Brown-Nose Kung-Fu

Jackie Chan, like Errol Flynn, has played the roles of many valiant heroes. But alas, like Errol Flynn, Jackie Chan is a fake. He has just proven that he only cares about betting on the winning horse. Chan was friendly enough to America as long as (1) he was making lots of money from American moviegoers, and (2) America seemed healthy enough to remain important in the world. Now that America is rapidly becoming weak and ineffectual, Chan has turned around and announced that America is MORALLY INFERIOR TO CHINA. That is, inferior to the dictatorship which has MURDERED TENS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CHINESE CITIZENS. Great technique there, fawning on slavemasters. Well, Jackie is all jacked up, and he can go yin-yang himself.

Romney's Debate Win Didn't Cure Idiots

On Facebook, a leftwing fanatic expected to be taken seriously with an argument that, because Jesus did not receive money for raising Lazarus from the dead, this was proof that Christians were selfish and evil if they didn't want government-controlled health care. He asked how we could go to church in good conscience when we were so "heartless" as not to accept the entire socialist program without question. I naturally wrote a rebuttal, which included pointing out that Jesus didn't steal money from Lazarus' neighbors to give to Lazarus either. Today, then, I saw that another leftist, completely ignoring my rebuttal, offered support to the original big-government advocate, as follows: " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Like I tell my overseas friends, we have a stupid attitude of looking out for number one here (mostly on the right) and they feel good about that by hiding behind the Bible and the flag! Good question he asked! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ So I came back at him thus: And a good answer I already gave. You cannot possibly have spent much time around the right-wing Christians I routinely associate with, or you would have seen us regularly donating to food banks, tutoring and mentoring schoolkids, volunteering as hospice workers to comfort the sick, and outright giving away money out of our own pockets to people who need it (and NOT just fellow believers either). I'll take that any day over the phony "compassion" of relying on big government to solve everything by confiscatory redistribution.