History Facts: Trump, Churchill, and Future of America

History Facts:

Trump, Churchill, and Future of America

keySo….is DT good for America?  I honestly believe that he has been  already.Do I agree with all he says?  Not at all.  Is he a “Cyrus” that is being raised up by God to preserve  America ?  Time will tell. This I know.  I will vote for the best chance for America .  I  will pray for our leaders as I have already.  In the end….God will continue to be my source  and my hope.   I do believe that God has had a hand in  America ‘s history.  I hope He also will have a hand in its  future. 

From a Pastor

Is Trump good for America ?  I mentioned Sunday that I would speak on this next week.  Unfortunately, I felt I was shoehorning this topic  into my planned message.  To properly present what I want to speak on Sunday, I may have to leave the Donald out of it!  Let me take a  minute for those that wonder and give some thoughts.
When I first heard that DT was entering the race last year, I told my wife that I felt that it was a good thing for the party and America .  I knew that he was not a “saint,” but I knew that he would be like a bull in a china shop.  He is a disrupter and I believe America could use a fresh thinker especially in the political arena.  I didn’t think he  would get the nomination, but felt it would shake up politics as  usual.  I was correct  on the shaking up part.
Lance Wallnau likens him to a biblical Cyrus.  Someone who is dynamically used of God even though not perceived by many as a God  follower.  God has used many people in history that I would probably not like or agree with.  I’m not sure I would have liked the disciples, or David, or Moses.  Somehow, God did not seem compelled to consult with me!
churchillI have always liked Winston Churchill.  He is seen as one of the  greatest national leaders in the 20th century.  Last year, I had the privilege of going through the War Museum in London. Winston is  a key feature.  His life is controversial.  He was not always celebrated as a great leader.  He was a bombastic, cigar smoking, at times crude, even misogynistic leader.  It is alleged   that he told off color stories to his children before bedtime!
A woman once told him he was disgustingly drunk.  His response was, “My dear, you are disgustingly ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you  will still be ugly!”
There are many websites that discuss the outlandish comments and activities of this great world leader.  He had exactly what was  needed to stop Hitler at the Channel, to rouse a nation to never give up and to partner with America to find final victory in Europe .
You  wouldn’t want him as your pastor, maybe not even your father, but he was the right leader for that moment in England ‘s history.  Such a brazen man that would go up to the roof of his quarters in central London and smoke cigars as Hitler’s air force bombed all around him.  I’m  not sure I would have voted for him….but he was the right man
I think it would be awesome to have a righteous leader, that understood  the intricacies of the economy, health care, defense, immigration, with  great sensitivity to religious institutions, a heart for the poor, a  vision for the future.  If that leader was a praying person,  formidable in the word of God and loved the local church, I would  rejoice! 

I do not think that is the choice we will have in November.           
Instead….we will look for someone who is imperfect, yet will fit the times we are living in. Particularly, that ‘whoever’ we vote for will be someone who might possibly have the opportunity to appoint up to  three supreme court justices.  That could shape our culture in America for the next 30 years…radically. 

Trump-Make-America-Great-MAPThe America of our  grandchildren could be very different….and that may not be good.

We cannot stay still.  A non-vote is a passive vote for a direction  we may regret.   

So….is DT good for America?  I honestly believe that he has been  already.  He has shaken the political system.  Do his comments  offend me?  At times.  Do I agree with all he says?  Not at all.  Is he a “Cyrus” that is being raised up by God to preserve  America ?  Time will tell.
        

This I know.  I will vote for the best chance for America .  I  will pray for our leaders as I have already.  In the end….God will continue to be my source  and my hope.   I do believe that God has had a hand in  America ‘s history.  I hope He also will have a hand in its  future. 

 

Presidential? Man for our Times?

Trump Heads to Flood-Wrecked Louisiana… Obama Golfs, Hillary Rests


Shocks with ‘Regret’ Speech… I May Say the Wrong Things, but ‘I Will Always Tell You the Truth’ 

 

 

 

 

History Facts: Fall of Berlin Wall was a Victory for Liberty

30th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall a victory for Liberty

 

November 9,  1989

It would not have happened but for a miracle . . .

berlinwallreagan“Shortly after Reagan was first elected, someone tried to kill him. The killer shot the president under his left arm; the bullet drove through his body and stopped within an inch of the president’s heart. If that bullet had penetrated his heart, Reagan would have died instantly.

            Miraculously, at the hospital where Reagan was treated, every doctor needed to save his life was present. Reagan’s life was saved; he served his country for eight years, during which he led the free world to defeat the Soviet Empire.”[1]

[1] Chris and Ted Stewart, Seven Miracles that Saved America

More about Ronald Reagan

Communists not held accountable for millions killed

Rush Limbaugh

berlinwallhammerThey’re afraid to appear partisan.  They are afraid to gloat.  They are afraid to behave in triumph.  And a great example is Bush 41 when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union fell.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  Not to humiliate communism.

The point is that there was never an accounting of the Soviet atrocities their system made inevitable.  There was never an education for the American people of the rotgut that is communism.  There was never a detailed explanation complete with body counts, deaths numbering in the millions, the imprisonment of free people for doing nothing more than thinking their own thoughts. 

He did not call for an accounting of the millions of lives ruined, the millions killed.  He did not define why the Soviet Union imploded.  He just called it the evolution of democracy.  The good vibes of freedom finally overcame.  Reagan said that the Soviet Union would eventually implode because of the weight of its own immorality.  We won the House, 1992, the midterm elections there.  Didn’t gloat.

RUSH: I got a note from a friend of mine last night.  I’m going to spend time on this, not right now, but I don’t want you to miss this.  I got a note from a friend last night who was really happy, really ecstatic, because he believes, or he did until he talked to me, he believes that we are on the threshold here of a major American reawakening.  He thinks that we’re on the cusp.  He can’t put his finger on it.  He’s a well-known writer and he thinks that all of these things happening here are going to open the American people’s eyes to just how devastatingly damaging, destructive and corrupt liberalism is.

Today: Indifference to Liberty is the Default

I keep asking myself, “Why, after years and years of demonstrable conservative triumph and success…?” Such as the eight years of Reagan, when we reduced deficits, we reduced unemployment, we grew this economy like it hasn’t grown since. We were producing jobs.  We were producing careers.

We took down the Soviet Union.  We were advancing technologically.  We were just rolling.  Reagan won in two landslides, and I’ve asked myself: How does it happen that after eight years — and Reagan was demonstrably conservative, and Reagan made no bones about being conservative. And Reagan, better than anybody else, articulated conservatism as he was executing it. 

This is what I wrote my friend back.  I said, “Here’s the problem:  Liberalism has been rejected many, many times.  The Democrat Party has been rejected many, many times.  But the mistake that we all make is thinking that conservatism is being affirmed at the same time.  Conservatism or the Republican Party is being accepted at the same time.”

Here’s my theory, folks.  And you may have stumbled across this yourself years ago.  If so, I apologize.  It just hit me.  This election that we’ve got coming up is a great illustration.  Conservatism is a protest vote, not an affirmative vote.  If the Republicans win big in this election, it’s for one reason.  People are fed up with the Democrats.  They’re fed up with Obamacare and foreign policy. They’re fed up with everything. They’re going to vote for the other guys.  They’re not voting for conservatives.  By necessity they’re voting Republican, but they’re not voting ideologically.

berlinwall2I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this.  Eight years of Reagan and yet the voters are easily fooled to returning to liberalism.  There was no protest when the liberals came along and started raising taxes, making everything worse, destroying jobs, what they always do, wrecking the culture.  No protests.  People voted for it.  And my conclusion is that voters never, other than Reagan, the lone example, never affirmatively vote for conservatism because it’s never really presented to them.  It’s presented to them by me and Fox News on some occasions and other so-called new media, but it’s not presented to voters by the Republican Party.

So why, after eight years, are people able to so easily forget it and return to voting for liberal Democrats? It’s something that’s amazed me and made me curious for years, many years.  It happened again.  It’s happened a lot of times.  It happened again in 1994. The Republicans win the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.  They did it with a substantive agenda, the Contract with America.

It was made up of ten agenda points that they intended to do, and they were substantive – balance the budget, reduce the deficit, reduce spending, all those things — and they set out to do them.  But it wasn’t many years later that voters went right back to voting Democrat. They embraced Bill Clinton all over again and I was left scratching my head.  I was asking how is it that these voters forget?

Now, don’t think I’m ignoring something here.  I know what the media’s role in this is. I’m not downplaying that. The media, even during those eight years, was telling people it wasn’t real.  And during the first term of George W. Bush they were telling people it wasn’t real.  The media is out there trying to create as much negativism as they can and they’re beating up these conservative Republicans.  I know all that.

But nevertheless, people lived it, and yet it didn’t seem to have much impact, not lasting.  The words of the media — the smears, the lies, the distortions — carried more weight than actual real life. At least when it came to voting, results at the ballot box.  Here’s some headlines today.  Politico.com: “Poll: Obama Hits Lowest Approval Ever.”  ABC News/Washington Post poll: “Obama Hits Lowest Approval.”

He’s down around 40 in this poll and that’s lower than he has ever been. From TheHill.com, as well: “Where Did It Go Wrong for Obama?”  They just can’t figure out where Obama went wrong. He’s such a great guy; he’s so smart; he’s so articulate.  He’s the first black president! How did it go so wrong?  What happened?  Of course, it can’t be the state of the country.

It can’t be the economy.  It can’t be Obama.  It can’t be anything substantive. What is it?  “Where Did Obama Go Wrong?”  They can’t figure it out! Next, we have this from the Washington Post: “The Democrat Party Hits a 30-Year Low.”  Now, the Republicans are even lower in this poll but that doesn’t obviate my point.  Democrat Party, 30-year low.  Obama, lowest approval ever.  “Where Did Obama Go Wrong?”

Then we’ve got a sound bite from John Harwood on CNBC in which he claims that Obamacare — despite how bad it is, despite the absolute mess, despite premiums rising, despite coverage being cancelled, despite policies being cancelled, despite co-pays going up, despite the mess that’s HealthCare.gov — has fizzled as a campaign issue for the Republicans.

Now, when Snerdley heard that today, he said, “No it hasn’t! No it hasn’t!”  Yes, it has.  It may end up being something people vote against Democrats for but they’re not voting for Republicans on it.  Now, in the midst of all this I got a note last night from a famous, nationally known and acclaimed writer.  It says, “Rush, just positing here. I’m at least a column or more away from verbalizing it.

I’m wondering if we’re at some 21st Century version of Lexington/Concord, or Fort Sumter, or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or Hitler’s invasion of Poland, or Reagan defeating Carter. In other words, Rush, are we on the cusp of an event or events that abruptly tips the balance of something that’s, in fact, been long in the works?”

He was just thinking out loud, sending me his thoughts.  What he was saying was: Are we on the verge of a tipping point where finally the American people wake up, once and for all, and understand what a demonstrable failure liberalism is and how bad it is for the country? That’s what he sees.  That’s what he thinks is going on.  He thinks that we’re on the verge of that tipping point.

This note from him kind of crystallized this for me because, like I just mentioned, I have been asking myself left and right: “How in the world can people live eight years and arguably 12 because the Bush…?” Well, I was going to say Bush 41.  He campaigned as the third term of Ronald Reagan, and he got elected on that basis.  He got elected on the basis that he was going to be the third term of Ronald Reagan.  It didn’t last but two years.

So let’s say 10 years.  And the Reagan revolution, the Reagan economy continued and boomed all the way through the Clinton administration.  Clinton’s out there taking credit for it, but he didn’t do anything but slow down what was already roaring, slowing it down with his tax increases and everything.  So again, how does this happen where people live through the horrors of liberalism like now, live through the demonstrable prosperity and successes of conservatism, and yet predictably return to voting liberal Democrat, how does it happen?

Now, I know why this happens, by the way.  I know what you’re thinking.  “Okay, Rush, that makes sense, but so what?”  Well, I think what I said is exactly right and I think I know the reason for it.  Even conservatives who are good at making our case are afraid to declare victory when we show the monumental failings of liberalism.  And this election is going to present us another opportunity.  This campaign presents us an opportunity.  And we’re not doing it.  We are not utilizing the opportunity that’s been handed to us on a silver platter.

People are fed up.  They are mad.  They are angry, and it’s time we told them why.  It’s time we told them why the country’s in the dumps.  Why they can’t get a job.  Why their healthcare is being screwed up royally.  It’s time that we told them it’s because of liberalism, and we name names.  And then when we win, we declare victory and we explain why the American people voted the way they did.  We demonstrate and point out the monumental failings of liberalism. 

appeasementThis is what we do not do.  Look at Bush 41.  Look at how Bush 41 treated the fall of the Soviet Union.  I know he was not very conservative, but he was still with a lot of Reaganites around him at the time.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  He went out of his way to say this was an evolution of democracy, not a final defeat of an evil totalitarian system.  We had to be nice.  We had to accommodate.  We had to be polite.  We had to show that we weren’t mean.  And we never hammer home the final nail.  

 

Maybe Obamacare wasn’t enough to do it.  Maybe the job situation, the economy, all that, but this, this rampant incompetence on how to deal with a killer disease, it’s just patently obvious that we don’t have competent people in charge here.  ISIS, add that on top of it.  We’ve got this big plan here to wipe out all the terrorists and all they’re doing is getting stronger, supposedly on the verge of taking Baghdad, for crying out loud.  There probably is a lot of awakening going on, and the awakening is because people are breaking through the illusion of government competence.

Now back to my point here.  Nothing wrong with a protest vote.  But the protest vote is not like the protest vote that founded America.  The protest vote this time around is people just fed up with the Democrats.  They tried them for six years.  They were fed up with Bush and tried the other guys.  Fed up with Democrats and it’s not working.  But they don’t know what they’re voting for.  They’re just voting for the other guys here.  They don’t know what they’re voting for because the Republican Party strategy is not to define themselves. They’re afraid of defining themselves for fear people won’t like them, and so don’t upset the apple cart, just take advantage of people voting against Democrats. 

But I mean it.  I know why this is happening.  It’s happening for a reason.  And I can name names.  I’m not going to here, but even conservatives, as I said, who are good at making our case are afraid to declare victory.  They’re afraid to hurt feelings.  They’re afraid to appear partisan.  They are afraid to gloat.  They are afraid to behave in triumph.  And a great example is Bush 41 when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union fell.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  Not to humiliate communism.  He said instead that it was an evolution of democracy. 

He didn’t portray it as a resounding final defeat of an evil totalitarian dictatorship system.

Meanwhile, similar treatment does not come our way.

The point is that there was never an accounting of the Soviet atrocities their system made inevitable.  There was never an education for the American people of the rotgut that is communism.  There was never a detailed explanation complete with body counts, deaths numbering in the millions, the imprisonment of free people for doing nothing more than thinking their own thoughts. 

 

None of that was explained.  To this day communism is not considered to be that big of a deal.  It’s just another way of organizing government. Not one Republican stands up and says, “Why are you doing this?  Do you not see what’s happening in Cuba?  Why are you doing this?  Why do you want to try what failed in the Soviet Union?”  They’re not made to explain it.  They just go on their merry way implementing this stuff, while we worry about demographics and diversity.  We let them define what we ought to care about.  It’s the same, my friends, with failing social welfare programs.  Republicans, even lots of conservatives, are the same way. As these programs implode, one after another, after they fail one on top of another, what did we do?  We seem more interested in conceding the good intentions of the people who tried than in demonstrating that these programs will inevitably fail.

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/15/on_the_cusp_of_a_great_american_awakening

History Facts: Climate Change Theory History Timeline

History Facts:

Climate Change Theory History Timeline

Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science. Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame.

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warming

By R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

Global Cooling: 1895-1932

Fear spread through the print media over the next three decades. A few months after the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

Scientists knew of four ice ages in the past, leading Professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University to conclude that one day we will need scientific knowledge “to combat the perils” of the next one.

The same day the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Schmidt as well, entitled “Fifth ice age is on the way.” It was subtitled “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”

That end-of-the-world tone wasn’t unusual. “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” declared a front-page Chicago Tribune headline on Aug. 9, 1923. “Professor Gregory” of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.”

Then on Sept. 18, 1924, The New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”

Global Warming: 1929-1969

Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original. Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II.

The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Shifting climate gears from ice to heat, the Associated Press article began “That next ice age, if one is coming … is still a long way off.”

One year earlier, the paper reported that “the earth is steadily growing warmer” in its May 15 edition. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930.

That article, reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, told readers that the heat was so bad, people were going to be saying, “Ah, do you remember that torrid summer of 1930. It was so hot that * * *.”

The Los Angeles Times beat both papers to the heat with the headline: “Is another ice age coming?” on March 11, 1929. Its answer to that question: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”

Global Cooling: 1954-1976

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

— The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.

The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.

Was the ice melting at record levels, as the headline stated, or at a level seen decades ago, as the first line mentioned?

On Sept. 14, 2005, the Times reported the recession of glaciers “seen from Peru to Tibet to Greenland” could accelerate and become abrupt.

This, in turn, could increase the rise of the sea level and block the Gulf Stream. Hence “a modern counterpart of the 18,000-year-old global-warming event could trigger a new ice age.”

Government Comes to the Rescue

Mankind managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality.

The Kyoto treaty, new emissions standards and foreign regulations are but a few examples.

Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond

The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.

Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.

2005— New Term: “Climate Change”

“We spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don’t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,” he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.

Kristof’s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term “climate change.” While his column was filled with references to “global warming,” it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.

The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.

The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with … everything.

The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.

Conclusion

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

Recommendations

It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”

“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

Some other important points include:

Don’t Stifle Debate:

Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don’t Ignore the Cost:

Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

Report Accurately on Statistics:

Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

Bibliography

For sources click here

To read the rest of this excellent article, please visit:

Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice

Remember the fable of “Chicken Little?” See this related post for an amusing view of today’s hysterical journalists.

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral

Learn more about the forgotten Scientific Method Here

 

YouTube Video: Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

YouTube Video: Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

From Rush Limbaugh Radio

miltonfriedman2One sound bite is two minutes of Milton Friedman schooling Phil Donahue and his audience in greed and capitalism and virtue.

RUSH:  [Obama] was quoting Reverend Wright, and he said that’s for me, man, I love that.  White folks’ greed runs a world in need.  So let’s go to 1979, ancient times for many of you.  We may as well be going back to the Roman Coliseum for this.  Nineteen seventy nine, I was 28.  Ancient times for many of you.  Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman, and they had this exchange.  And Donahue starts off wanting to know about greed and capitalism.  Here it is.  And listen to this.

DONAHUE:  When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?

Greed Definition

FRIEDMAN:  Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?  You think Russia doesn’t run on greed?  You think China doesn’t run on greed?  What is greed?  Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.  The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus.  Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.  Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.  In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.  If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.

So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE:  But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Virtue Definition

FRIEDMAN:  And what does reward virtue?  Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue?  Do you think Hitler rewards virtue?  Do you think American presidents reward virtue?  Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?  Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?  You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted.  Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE:  Well —

FRIEDMAN:  I don’t even trust you to do that.

RUSH:  Milton Friedman back in 1979 schooling Phil Donahue, and everybody else who heard that on the notions of virtue and greed and just basically upsetting Phil’s applecart.  Phil wasn’t smart enough to know it was happening. He’s still running around lamenting the accident of birth. If he’d been 30 miles south he would have grown up in poverty.  Anyway, we wanted to play that for you and recognize Milton Friedman.

miltonfriedmanMilton Friedman:  “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand.” 

 Milton Friedman:  “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” 

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.”  

Boy, isn’t that true? Pass another law.  Government comes along and creates a program.  The program is an absolute disaster.  Government says, “That’s gotta get fixed.”  Government says, “Okay, we’ll fix it.”  And it compounds itself, one error atop another. (Rush)

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  

I’ll tell you, the guy was great.  He was a genius.  He lived into his late eighties.  He would have been a hundred years old this week. (Rush)

Dinner Talk

1. Who does Mr. Friedman say is greedy?

2. Do you think political self-interest is better than economic self-interest? Why or why not?

3. According to Mr. Friedman, which system fosters a stronger economy— management by government bureaucracies (socialism), or free enterprise? Why?

Leadership Styles: Procrustes Definition, Liberal Egalitarianism, and Inequality for All

 

Procrustes Definition, Liberal Egalitarianism, and Inequality for All

Leadership Styles

Month-Defining Moment

Definition of Procrustean Leadership Styles

Procrustes—a legendary robber of ancient Greece noted for stretching or cutting off the legs of his victims to adapt them to the length of his bed.

Procrustean—marked by arbitrary often ruthless disregard of individual differences or special circumstances

Liberals do not lift others to a better life; They pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator. ~Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Liberal Egalitarianism=Inequality for All

procrustesbedSome kids get more goods than other kids, and that makes it unfair.  Of course as liberals, the answer is not to help the kids who are not in good familiesThey become the lowest common denominator.  They become the baseline.  Everybody must be made to be like them in order for everything to be fair and equal.  The natural tendency of the left is to punish success, to punish achievement, to punish anything that they believe gives an unfair advantage.

It is who they are, and you’re seeing evidence of it all over the country, if you have the courage to stop and recognize it.  Here’s a pull quote from the story: “In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.  ‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

“This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion — that perhaps in the interests of leveling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.”  There really are expert academicians and philosophers who are pushing the idea that being a good parent and reading to your kids and being loving gives your kids an unfair advantage in life.  You know, in the old days — and it wasn’t that long ago — families like that were what you emulated! Families like that were what you wanted to be.

Liberals: Reading to Your Kids Gives Them an Unfair Advantage

fatherreadingfireplaceThere’s a theme for today’s program, and that is: Everything I’ve told you about liberalism is being demonstrated. It’s on parade in the Drive-By Media today.  All you have to do is notice it and take note…  Never make people better, but always take the people at the top and bring them down so that everybody is equally disadvantaged, equally miserable.

Having a loving family is an unfair advantage, is a social justice problem, and there are people in this article who literally make the claim that abolishing the family and letting the state and government raise kids may be the only answer.  This is in the UK.  I erred when I said Australia first.  In the UK.  Makes it even closer to home.  But liberals here and liberals in the UK, liberals are liberals in Australia. They’re liberals everywhere and the same, no matter where you go.  And they’re dead serious about this.

Admittedly, there are some of them who think it’s a bad idea to ban or abolish the family as an educational institution.  There are some people here who will say it’s a bad idea to abolish the family and let the state or the government raise kids for the purposes of education, but even those people still think that good families give kids an unfair advantage, and they measure that by “familial relationship goods.”

Only 18% of 8th-graders are ‘proficient’ or above in US history, and only 23% are proficient in civics.”

Anti-American Book

Anti-American Book

RUSH: From Breitbart: “Results of the ‘Nation’s Report Card’ released this week by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that only 18% of 8th-graders are ‘proficient’ or above in US history, and only 23% are proficient in civics.”

Now, it should be noted that you have to be able to read in order to learn history.  Just listening won’t get it done because you never know if who’s telling you about it is being truthful.  But the saddest thing is that many of those who are rated “proficient” in history have probably been taught a bunch of psychobabble, probably a brand of Howard Zinn’s hate-America-first history.

 

slavery-democrat-thing“Despite hundreds of billions of dollars poured into education programs in the United States via the US Department of Education, the ‘Nation’s Report Card’ states that 8th-graders’ average NAEP scores in US History, Geography, and Civics demonstrated no significant change since 2010 when students were last assessed.” Just think of all the money that Obama and the Democrat Party have poured into the teachers… (Ahem!) I was gonna say teachers union; I mean education.

corruption2The stimulus bill alone sent the teachers unions untold billions of dollars.  It was disguised money.  They were telling us it was going to education, to rebuild schools and roads and bridges.  But we now know, looking back, that the vast majority of the money went to teachers unions, part of the Democrat Party’s very well-constructed money-laundering scheme using the unions to do so. 

History Facts: Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

History Facts:

Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

Calvin Coolidge represents the exact opposite of Left-wing politics.. Coolidge had integrity. He deserves a lot more respect than he ever got. ~C.A. Davidson

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

key“We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.” ~Calvin Coolidge

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. ~Calvin Coolidge

Amity Shlaes
Author, Coolidge

calvincoolidgeCalvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy

AMITY SHLAES is a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg, a director of the Four Percent Growth Project at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and a member of the board of the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation. She has served as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and as a columnist for the Financial Times, and is a recipient of the Hayek Prize and the Frederic Bastiat Prize for free-market journalism. She is the author of four books, Germany: The Empire Within, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It, and Coolidge.

The following is adapted from a talk given at Hillsdale College on January 27, 2013, during a conference on “The Federal Income Tax: A Centenary Consideration,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.


WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.

Enter Coolidge
Following World War I, the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the war, and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The Woodrow Wilson administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the war, and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the 1920 election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, Warren Harding, dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. Calvin Coolidge, a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be Harding’s running mate. And following their victory, Harding’s inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing Wilson administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” Harding said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of Harding’s first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which Harding named a flamboyant Brigadier General, Charles Dawes, as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where Dawes cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, Harding pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Unfortunately, some of the men Harding appointed to key jobs proved susceptible to favoritism or bribery, and his administration soon became embroiled in scandal. In one instance, the cause of privatization sustained damage when it became clear that secret deals had taken place in the leasing of oil reserves at Teapot Dome. Then in the summer of 1923, during a trip out West to get away from the scandals and prepare for a new presidential campaign, Harding died suddenly.

Enter Coolidge, whose personality was at first deemed a negative—his face, Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, “looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle.” But canny political leaders, including Supreme Court Justice and former President William Howard Taft, quickly came to respect the new president. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, after visiting the White House a few times that August, noted that whereas Harding had never been alone, Coolidge often was; that whereas Harding was partial to group decisions, Coolidge made decisions himself; and most important, that whereas Harding’s customary answer was “yes,” Coolidge’s was “no.”

The former governor of Massachusetts was in his element when it came to budgeting. Within 24 hours of arriving back in Washington after Harding’s death, he met with his own budget director, Herbert Lord, and together they went on offense, announcing deepened cuts in two politically sensitive areas: spending on veterans and District of Columbia public works. In his public statements, Coolidge made clear he would have scant patience with anyone who didn’t go along: “We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.”

If Harding’s budget meetings had been rough, Coolidge’s were rougher. Lord first advertised a “Two Percent Club,” for executive branch staffers who managed to save two percent in their budgets. Then a “One Percent Club,” for those who had achieved two or more already. And finally a “Woodpecker Club,” for department heads who kept chipping away. Coolidge did not even find it beneath his pay grade to look at the use of pencils in the government: “I don’t know if I ever indicated to the conference that the cost of lead pencils to the government per year is about $125,000,” he instructed the press in 1926. “I am for economy, and after that I am for more economy,” he told voters.

Coolidge in Command
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had once advised his father. And indeed, while Harding had vetoed only six bills, Coolidge vetoed 50—including farming subsidies, even though he came from farming country. (“Farmers never had made much money,” he told a guest, and he didn’t see there was much the government could rightly do about it.) He also vetoed veterans’ pensions and government entry into the utilities sector.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

The Purpose of Tax Cuts

In short, Coolidge didn’t favor tax cuts as a means to increase revenue or to buy off Democrats. He favored them because they took government, the people’s servant, out of the way of the people. And this sense of government as servant extended to his own office.

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

But as unpopular as he was in Washington, Coolidge proved enormously popular with voters. In 1924, the Progressive Party ran on a platform of government ownership of public power and a return to government ownership of railroads. Many thought the Progressive Party might split the Republican vote as it had in 1912, handing the presidency to the Democrats. As it happened, Progressive candidate Robert LaFollette indeed claimed more than 16 percent of the vote.

Yet Coolidge won with an absolute majority, gaining more votes than the Progressive and the Democrat combined. And in 1928, when Coolidge decided not to run for reelection despite the urging of party leaders who looked on his reelection as a sure bet, Herbert Hoover successfully ran on a pledge to continue Coolidge’s policies.

Unfortunately, Hoover didn’t live up to his pledge. Critics often confuse Hoover’s policies with Coolidge’s and complain that the latter did not prevent the Great Depression. That is an argument I take up at length in my previous book, The Forgotten Man, and is a topic for another day. Here let me just say that the Great Depression was as great and as long in duration as it was because, as economist Benjamin Anderson put it, the government under both Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, unlike under Coolidge, chose to “play God.”

Lessons from Coolidge

Beyond the inspiration of Coolidge’s example of principle and consistency, what are the lessons of his story that are relevant to our current situation? One certainly has to do with the mechanism of budgeting: The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 provided a means for Harding and Coolidge to control the budget and the nation’s debt, and at the same time gave the people the ability to hold someone responsible. That law was gutted in the 1970s, when it became collateral damage in the anti-executive fervor following Watergate. The law that replaced it tilted budget authority back to Congress and has led to over-spending and lack of responsibility.

A second lesson concerns how we look at tax rates. When tax rates are set and judged according to how much revenue they bring in due to the Laffer Curve—which is how most of today’s tax cutters present them, thereby agreeing with tax hikers that the goal of tax policy is to increase revenue—tax policy can become a mechanism to expand government. The goals of legitimate government—American freedom and prosperity—are left by the wayside.

Thus the best case for lower taxes is the moral case—and as Coolidge well understood, a moral tax policy demands tough budgeting.

Finally, a lesson about politics. The popularity of Harding and Coolidge, and the success of their policies—especially Coolidge’s—following a long period of Progressive ascendancy, should give today’s conservatives hope. Coolidge in the 1920s, like Grover Cleveland in the previous century, distinguished government austerity from private-sector austerity, combined a policy of deficit cuts with one of tax cuts, and made a moral case for saying “no.” A political leader who does the same today is likely to find an electorate more inclined to respond “yes” than he or she expects.

Coolidge and Moral Economy, complete article

Political Cartoon: After Mueller Investigation Cost of 30 Million Dollars, Mueller Probe Fails

Political Cartoon:

After Mueller Investigation Cost of 30 Million Dollars, Mueller Probe Fails

After 2 years and approximately 30 million dollars later Adam Schiff, the Democrats, and the entire mainstream media has been proven wrong. There was no Russian Collusion or obstruction. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

 

Critical Thinking

church-state2-reaganChurch and State: Where do we draw the Line?

C .A. Davidson

The overall responsibility of our nation is to protect her citizens from foreign invasion and crimes against other citizens, and to uphold Constitutional law. We already have laws governing immigration and citizenship.

No matter what your religion, you are still subject to the laws of the land which are in place to protect civilized society. Most religions are generally peace-loving, abiding by moral laws based on the Ten Commandments. Other than Islam (and in some countries, atheism, which is also a religion), I don’t know of other religions which condone rape, murder, deceit, and the suppression of free speech.      American citizens have freedom of religion, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Churches can excommunicate a member for church-state1-madison-quoteimmoral conduct, but cannot put a person in prison. If someone commits a crime that endangers society, such as stealing or murder, it is no longer a Church issue—it becomes the jurisdiction of the State. That person is subject to the laws of the land, no matter what his religion. We have seen Christians put in prison for committing crimes. That is as it should be for Muslims as well, or for any other religion. The minute your religion violates another person’s life or property, it becomes political.

Furthermore, whereas citizens are required to abide by the law, illegal immigrants are already outside the law. The policy of Open Borders should not even be debatable, as it is inherently illegal.

In the following article, Ed Vitagliano does much to clarify the line between church and state, religion and politics.

Immigration: thinking biblically

Ed Vitagliano

bible-word-of-godAs we wrestle with such weighty matters, it is critical that Christians turn to Scripture for guidance as much as possible.

Some Christians believe the Bible is clear on these matters, citing Old Testament passages such as Leviticus 19:34: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God” (NIV).

From the New Testament, some Christians argue that the command to love your neighbor requires America – a so-called Christian nation – to help those in need.

However, if we are concerned with “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15*), here are some things to remember:

  1. Biblical passages that address individual Christians – or the church – don’t necessarily apply to governments.
    There is no doubt that Christ commanded Christians to be generous, to care for those in need, and to love our neighbor.

However, does this apply to government programs? May Christians who have the power to vote – as do those in the West – use that power to bring the government into the equation? Absolutely.

welfare-government-charity-madisonHowever, must Christians vote to do so? And if Christians do vote to do so, how much government activity should we demand? How much tax money should be allocated? What sort of programs must we call for? Food stamps only? Job training programs? Is there ever a time when someone should cease getting aid?

These questions are vexing, but here’s the problem: At this point the Bible ceases to be a guide.

Instead, at this point it becomes a matter of sound judgment, not biblical injunction. Christians, like everyone else, make their case in the public square and attempt to persuade others to join them.

Here is the principle: Biblically speaking, the government is not the same as the individual Christian, and it is not the same as the church. Therefore, believers must be careful not to apply to government Scriptures intended for the church.

For example, Jesus said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14).

ImmigrationCriminalsSo, we must conclude that individual Christians are to forgive their enemies. But must we also conclude that governments should forgive their enemies? Must we demand that criminals convicted of crimes be released and not sent to prison?

The application of this principle is that individual Christians should help refugees who are in our nation. But the issue of who we allow in – and how many – is not a biblical matter. It is a political matter.

  1. Understanding the proper biblical function of government is critical to this debate.
    Many Christians fail to understand the purpose of government in a fallen world, and they act as if the matter is irrelevant to Christians focused on the eternal kingdom. But God has ordained government to serve His purposes on the earth as surely as He has ordained the church to carry out its assigned role.

Romans 13 makes plain the fact that governments derive their authority from God and are considered ministers or servants of Yahweh (vv. 1, 4). They help order human existence, represent the authority of God Himself, restrain evil, and reward good.

Therefore one must assume that a government has both the right and the responsibility before God to maintain order. Surely that would include providing for national borders – which might require restricting immigration and the flow of refugees across them.

More than Platitudes

trojan-horse-isisU.S. ever seem to wrestle with this matter. Invariably their responses are: “Yes, of course, the government should establish secure borders and enforce laws, but ….”

Such a proclamation is not helpful. In fact, it does not wrestle with the subtleties of the issue at all. A viable resolution requires more than platitudes.

We need these questions answered: Should a government allow every refugee who wants to enter the country to do so? No? Then exactly how should a government decide who and how many?

If a Christian insists that “love your neighbor” requires us (as a country) to accept, say, more Syrian refugees, then that Christian cannot restrict the refugee process at all. The moment a Christian says a government can be loving and restrict the refugee process, the Christian has then admitted that the political process must take place. In other words, the government must be allowed to do its job.

But if it does its job and restricts the refugee process, that Christian cannot argue that the country is no longer being loving. Why? Because the Bible does not quantify how many refugees a country must allow. Once again, that is a matter of sound judgment, rather than a biblical command.

  1. Old Testament passages dealing with immigration, refugees, or foreigners in Israel do not apply to our current political debates.
    It is clear that Old Testament passages (e.g., Leviticus 19:34) required God’s people to love and treat respectfully non-Jews who were living among them or passing through.

However, such verses merely assume that certain people would fall into those categories because transient peoples were common in the ancient world. Virtually all societies, and especially those in that part of the world – in the middle of major trade routes – were quite used to seeing trade caravans passing through and foreigners who stayed for a few months conducting business.

These biblical references instruct God’s people to treat lovingly those who were already passing through. The more likely parallel would be: How should Christians today treat legal immigrants who are in our midst?

  1. Passages that apply to Israel do not always apply to other nations like the U.S.
    It is probably safe to assume that Leviticus 19:34 requires Christians not only to help the foreigners already in their midst, but also to press their government to do likewise.

israel_flagSometimes the moral force behind a commandment given to Israel is universal in its application. But this is not always the case. Great care should be exercised when attempting to stretch a passage that might apply only to Israel and make it universally binding.

2 Chronicles 7:14 is a classic example of a promise made to Israel that evangelicals often stretch to apply to America – or some other nation.

There are certainly principles in 2 Chronicles 7:14 that should encourage American Christians to repent and pray and seek revival for their land. But it is not a covenant promise from God. He has not obligated Himself to save America as He obligated Himself to respond to the prayers of His people in the Old Testament.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Vitagliano on this particular point. America is a choice land, with a Constitution created by men raised up by God for that purpose. References to Zion may even include America. Isaiah prophesied for all time, especially for our time. He said, “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:3) God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He keeps His promises; He favors the righteous, but not any particular race. He has already blessed America greatly because of our Judeo-Christian culture. Why wouldn’t He honor, even empower, our efforts for a revival? ~C.D.

As the immigration debate demonstrates, there is nothing simple about trying to interpret the Bible in the often overheated atmosphere of the culture wars of 2015. If we are to sort out the implications of such issues, it will require that all of us in the body of Christ jump into the debate.

The worst thing we can do is to accuse our brothers and sisters of disobeying Christ or not loving their neighbors when we disagree. Unity in the body of Christ is imperative if we are to be the light He commands us to be.

*Unless otherwise noted, the New American Standard Version is used throughout this article.

Abuse of Power Update: FBI Agents beg to Expose Corruption in Government

Abuse of Power Update:

FBI Agents beg to Expose Corruption in Government

“Sickened” FBI Agents Ready To “Come Forward And Testify” Against Comey & McCabe

FBI Agents Beg To Expose FBI Corruption?

  • · Source: TTN
  • by: TTN Staff

It is being reported that a group of FBI agents want to be subpoenaed by Congress in order to expose the problems with the once revered agency.

According to The Daily Caller:

Many agents in the FBI want Congress to subpoena them so they can reveal problems caused by former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, three people in direct contact with active field agents tell TheDC.

“There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey’s behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs,” former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday. “They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify.”

Ahead of the release of the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general report on how the FBI handled the Clinton email investigation, TheDC spoke with DiGenova, a former Trump official who maintained contact with rank and file FBI agents and a counter-intelligence consultant who conducted an interview with an active special agent of the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO).

TheDC independently confirmed the veracity of the consultant’s position and access, and reviewed detailed transcripts of his Q&A with the special agent, who requested the arrangement due to internal dragnets and fear of vicious retribution.

This is just another black eye for the FBI. But it looks like there are agents that care about the integrity of the agency and want to fix it.
Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/report-fbi-agents-want-to-expose-the-fbi#44gG1E2H37iZSocv.99