Posted by: Lori Kalner on Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Hymn to Hitler
by
Lori Kalner
In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.
In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising 'Change.'
He blamed the 'Zionists' around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him.
Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.
The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school.
My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.
I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children.
That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5…
'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying,
'Before I formed you in the
womb I knew you,
and before you were born I
consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to
The nations.'
Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. 'With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!'
Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were 'no longer there.'
Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as 'mercy killing' became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.
People whispered, 'Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering…And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden.'
And so murder was called mercy.
The government took over private business. Industry and health care were 'nationalized.' (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)
The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change?
Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction.
What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it.
Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.
When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, 'who could bear to read our suffering?'
Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord,
Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.
I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah.
Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the 'mercy killing' of tiny babies who are not wanted.
There are so few of us left to warn you.
I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians.
Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote?
Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible?
Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb…
'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you…'
I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth.
I see them again now.
Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion.
In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their 'tax exempt' status.
And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you 'Cling to your religion…'
But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked and condemned by the Left in America.)
I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble.
I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)
Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barrack Obama is elected.
I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived.
The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!
'Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!'
I am in Prayer for you, and for the Church!
Spoken to you in the authority of Jesus the Christ,
the Name Above All Names!
---Socialist, baby killer, liar...he's only winning because of the propoganda he is spreading through the media. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
Helping homeschooling and stay-at-home moms make well-functioning homes of peace, joy, beauty, and contentment.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Hidden taxes
Have you heard about hidden taxes? Most of us have but don’t know what people mean by the phrase. Here is the basic premise:
Businesses don’t pay taxes. People pay taxes.
Let’s say for, for example, I want to buy a new washer. I go to Home Depot and pick one out (They have the best selection and deals in our area). Now, the parts, labor, gas to transport, utilities to run the store and factory, and mortgages for the same all make the washer cost about $300. But wait a minute; the store has to pay as much in employee taxes as they do in salaries, plus property tax, plus business fees, income taxes, etc. So the store tacks on an extra $50 to the price to cover these taxes. Where else are they going to get the money?
The trucking company that carried that washer from the factory to the store has the same expenses plus gas taxes to pay. Add another $50.
The factory has those expenses too. Add another $50.
How about the parts houses that made the parts, the steel mill that made the raw materials, and the paint company and electronics companies involved in the production of this washer?
There’s our hidden taxes.
By the time everyone tacks on what they MUST in order to pay their taxes, the price of the washer is $500-$600! Then add another 7% sales tax on the way out the door!
I could afford a $300 washer, but I can’t come up with $600+, so I don’t buy the washer. Now the store, trucking company, factory, mill, etc. don’t need as many employees. People are laid off. Now the government is not only not getting those worker’s income taxes, they aren’t buying washers, dryers, cars, or houses either. In fact, because government goody programs allow us to be stupid and not save for a rainy day, (in fact, saving and not using these programs wouldn’t be wise because we would be paying for that “rainy day” twice- once through taxes and once through savings) the government’s expenses go up.
But if the government cuts taxes, the businesses can cut prices, which they will do in order to try to get you to their store instead of their neighbor’s. As prices fall, more working-men can buy more goods, more employees are needed at all levels of business, more income and sales taxes are paid, and the government’s income goes up while their “goody” programs are less used. Plain and simple cause and effect.
Let’s say the business owners pocket their tax breaks instead of lowering prices or giving raises, or hiring more people. What will they do with that money? Put it in their mattresses? No. they will buy a yacht- made by working-men who now have more jobs and more money to spend on goods. Or they might buy a mansion (built by working-men), a limousine (built by working-men), maybe a fancy vacation (using transportation run by working-men and staying at resorts staffed by working-men). What if they just invest it in the stock market? This gives more money to other business to expand their business (hire more workers).
Any way about it, more money for business means more work and more money for the working man and higher living standards for everyone.
We need to CUT taxes, not raise them.
Businesses don’t pay taxes. People pay taxes.
Let’s say for, for example, I want to buy a new washer. I go to Home Depot and pick one out (They have the best selection and deals in our area). Now, the parts, labor, gas to transport, utilities to run the store and factory, and mortgages for the same all make the washer cost about $300. But wait a minute; the store has to pay as much in employee taxes as they do in salaries, plus property tax, plus business fees, income taxes, etc. So the store tacks on an extra $50 to the price to cover these taxes. Where else are they going to get the money?
The trucking company that carried that washer from the factory to the store has the same expenses plus gas taxes to pay. Add another $50.
The factory has those expenses too. Add another $50.
How about the parts houses that made the parts, the steel mill that made the raw materials, and the paint company and electronics companies involved in the production of this washer?
There’s our hidden taxes.
By the time everyone tacks on what they MUST in order to pay their taxes, the price of the washer is $500-$600! Then add another 7% sales tax on the way out the door!
I could afford a $300 washer, but I can’t come up with $600+, so I don’t buy the washer. Now the store, trucking company, factory, mill, etc. don’t need as many employees. People are laid off. Now the government is not only not getting those worker’s income taxes, they aren’t buying washers, dryers, cars, or houses either. In fact, because government goody programs allow us to be stupid and not save for a rainy day, (in fact, saving and not using these programs wouldn’t be wise because we would be paying for that “rainy day” twice- once through taxes and once through savings) the government’s expenses go up.
But if the government cuts taxes, the businesses can cut prices, which they will do in order to try to get you to their store instead of their neighbor’s. As prices fall, more working-men can buy more goods, more employees are needed at all levels of business, more income and sales taxes are paid, and the government’s income goes up while their “goody” programs are less used. Plain and simple cause and effect.
Let’s say the business owners pocket their tax breaks instead of lowering prices or giving raises, or hiring more people. What will they do with that money? Put it in their mattresses? No. they will buy a yacht- made by working-men who now have more jobs and more money to spend on goods. Or they might buy a mansion (built by working-men), a limousine (built by working-men), maybe a fancy vacation (using transportation run by working-men and staying at resorts staffed by working-men). What if they just invest it in the stock market? This gives more money to other business to expand their business (hire more workers).
Any way about it, more money for business means more work and more money for the working man and higher living standards for everyone.
We need to CUT taxes, not raise them.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
the budget, health care, and vouchers
I have done some research recently. (The internet is wonderful! It makes numbers like these available to a housewife sitting in her living room holding a sleeping baby!)
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are unconstitutional programs. They take up 50.4% of the federal budget.
Unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps, HUD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the recent Homeland Security bill, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, NASA, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Labor are all unconstitutional. They make up around 15% if the federal budget.
Department Of Defense, Department Of Justice, Department Of Treasury, Department Of The Interior are constitutional and need to be kept. They use around 18% of the federal budget.
“The war” is about 5%. I won’t argue either way on it as I see both sides.
So at least 65% of our budget is unconstitutional, possibly more.
9% of the budget is interest on the debt.
93% of the Fed’s income is income tax, FICA, or corporate income taxes.
If we eliminated all the unconstitutional areas, we could easily eliminate all income and FICA type taxes (69% of the Fed’s income). We could drastically reduce corporate taxes, too (14%).
Now, I have social security and Medicare separated for a reason. These are programs that people have paid into for their whole lives with the promise of a return in their senior years. We, as a country, owe this debt to them and MUST pay it. However, for those my age and younger, we should begin phasing them out.
(By the way, there never has been a “lock box” for Social Security. It has run on debt since the beginning. The first payment from employees went straight to the retirees of the day. It has NEVER had a “left over” amount to put aside for the future. The reason it is in trouble is because Baby Boomers are beginning to retire but they had an average of one child each (two per couple), meaning they only put one worker into the system for each worker they expect to receive Social Security. Simply put, we will soon have one worker for every retiree. That simply doesn’t produce enough money to make our promised payments. And our birth rate is falling (1.8 last I heard) so the problem is only going to get worse.)
The question is, “How do we get out of this mess?”
If we just suddenly go back to the constitution, eliminate all unconstitutional programs, too many people would go hungry. There would be riots, etc.
We need a gentler way to train us to take responsibility for ourselves again. I like the voucher idea. Here is how it goes for education.
Currently the feds give about $2000 to every school district for every child they have enrolled. (The average per child expense is $8000. The balance comes from the states, but that is a different subject only to be approached on a state by state basis as each state’s laws are different.) The Feds should send that $2000 to the parents instead of the schools. Public schools simply require the voucher in order to register the child in their school. The average private school is $3000 per year and even most poor families could swing the balance in monthly payments. Anyway, since some private schools cost $20,000 per year, we know a lot more cost $1000 per year to make the average around $3000. So, we give the parents $2000 to pick their child’s school and let them keep the change if the school costs less than that. This will keep prices down as schools compete for the children and their vouchers. Of course I would want provisions made for the homeschooler, too. That would have to come from each state, mandated by the Feds, as each state’s laws regarding homeschooling are different. Doing all this would 1) Get parents used to paying for their children’s education again. They would begin to weigh cost verses quality and learn to evaluate schools. And 2) would turn all schools into private schools, at least partially, making them pay attention to what parents want in an education in order to stay afloat. Studies have shown that the availability of vouchers drastically increases the quality of PUBLIC school’s education. Later the vouchers can be slowly reduced or just keep them the same and let inflation make them ever more irrelevant.
How about Healthcare? McCain has hopped on board the idea of giving every family a $5000 voucher to buy their own insurance (I have been hearing this idea for a good decade). First of all, our way of linking insurance to employment is, well, dumb. It began because the Feds froze wages years ago and businesses had no other way to compete for the best employees.
We need to remove the whole idea of the employer being responsible for insurance. Every family has unique needs. No employer could pick a plan that was right for everyone. We need to pick our own plans. My uncle with the severely ill wife has VERY different needs than my hubby and I do, and ours are different than my single cousin’s. Yet if they and my hubby worked for the same company, we would all have the same insurance. Vouchers give us the option of personalization (as well as giving those of us that haven’t had insurance in a while the chance at it). Just like with the school vouchers, the insurance companies would have to start paying attention to what the family needed instead of what the employer needed (did you know employers get kick backs for signing on to certain insurance plans?) We would require some sort of catastrophic/hospitalization insurance and then let every family pick how much coverage they want. By letting us keep the change, we have incentive to keep the costs down.
Now, there are those who say the vouchers would just go straight to the insurance companies. Ummm, that’s the point. That’s like saying money for food only goes straight to the grocery stores or money for clothes only goes straight to Wal-mart. Duhhh.
And an elderly couple that is getting a $5000 voucher to buy their own insurance doesn’t NEED as much (if any) Medicare. They have the same quality coverage everyone else has.
Again, vouchers get us used to paying for insurance ourselves and makes the private insurance companies more responsive to our needs.
(What about BO’s proposal? Fining me for not having insurance WON’T HELP! If I already can’t afford insurance, taking more money out of my family’s coffers still leaves me uninsured. Talk about an “unfunded mandate!” What’s more, this leads to MORE illegal government programs, not less. Less control for each family, not more. And those with socialist medicine, when asked by an UNBIASED researcher, are much LESS happy with their care than Americans are. We have the BEST system in world as far as technology and people getting what they want. The problems we have can be traced back to too much government involvement, not too little (but that is another post). Capitalism is why we have the technology we do; people are rewarded for healing illness.
Let’s brain storm and see if we can come up with other voucher ideas and how they would work. How do we replace Social Security? Fanny and Freddie? HUD? Etc? Let’s start a new revolution; a revolution in freedom and personal responsibility.
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are unconstitutional programs. They take up 50.4% of the federal budget.
Unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps, HUD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the recent Homeland Security bill, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, NASA, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Labor are all unconstitutional. They make up around 15% if the federal budget.
Department Of Defense, Department Of Justice, Department Of Treasury, Department Of The Interior are constitutional and need to be kept. They use around 18% of the federal budget.
“The war” is about 5%. I won’t argue either way on it as I see both sides.
So at least 65% of our budget is unconstitutional, possibly more.
9% of the budget is interest on the debt.
93% of the Fed’s income is income tax, FICA, or corporate income taxes.
If we eliminated all the unconstitutional areas, we could easily eliminate all income and FICA type taxes (69% of the Fed’s income). We could drastically reduce corporate taxes, too (14%).
Now, I have social security and Medicare separated for a reason. These are programs that people have paid into for their whole lives with the promise of a return in their senior years. We, as a country, owe this debt to them and MUST pay it. However, for those my age and younger, we should begin phasing them out.
(By the way, there never has been a “lock box” for Social Security. It has run on debt since the beginning. The first payment from employees went straight to the retirees of the day. It has NEVER had a “left over” amount to put aside for the future. The reason it is in trouble is because Baby Boomers are beginning to retire but they had an average of one child each (two per couple), meaning they only put one worker into the system for each worker they expect to receive Social Security. Simply put, we will soon have one worker for every retiree. That simply doesn’t produce enough money to make our promised payments. And our birth rate is falling (1.8 last I heard) so the problem is only going to get worse.)
The question is, “How do we get out of this mess?”
If we just suddenly go back to the constitution, eliminate all unconstitutional programs, too many people would go hungry. There would be riots, etc.
We need a gentler way to train us to take responsibility for ourselves again. I like the voucher idea. Here is how it goes for education.
Currently the feds give about $2000 to every school district for every child they have enrolled. (The average per child expense is $8000. The balance comes from the states, but that is a different subject only to be approached on a state by state basis as each state’s laws are different.) The Feds should send that $2000 to the parents instead of the schools. Public schools simply require the voucher in order to register the child in their school. The average private school is $3000 per year and even most poor families could swing the balance in monthly payments. Anyway, since some private schools cost $20,000 per year, we know a lot more cost $1000 per year to make the average around $3000. So, we give the parents $2000 to pick their child’s school and let them keep the change if the school costs less than that. This will keep prices down as schools compete for the children and their vouchers. Of course I would want provisions made for the homeschooler, too. That would have to come from each state, mandated by the Feds, as each state’s laws regarding homeschooling are different. Doing all this would 1) Get parents used to paying for their children’s education again. They would begin to weigh cost verses quality and learn to evaluate schools. And 2) would turn all schools into private schools, at least partially, making them pay attention to what parents want in an education in order to stay afloat. Studies have shown that the availability of vouchers drastically increases the quality of PUBLIC school’s education. Later the vouchers can be slowly reduced or just keep them the same and let inflation make them ever more irrelevant.
How about Healthcare? McCain has hopped on board the idea of giving every family a $5000 voucher to buy their own insurance (I have been hearing this idea for a good decade). First of all, our way of linking insurance to employment is, well, dumb. It began because the Feds froze wages years ago and businesses had no other way to compete for the best employees.
We need to remove the whole idea of the employer being responsible for insurance. Every family has unique needs. No employer could pick a plan that was right for everyone. We need to pick our own plans. My uncle with the severely ill wife has VERY different needs than my hubby and I do, and ours are different than my single cousin’s. Yet if they and my hubby worked for the same company, we would all have the same insurance. Vouchers give us the option of personalization (as well as giving those of us that haven’t had insurance in a while the chance at it). Just like with the school vouchers, the insurance companies would have to start paying attention to what the family needed instead of what the employer needed (did you know employers get kick backs for signing on to certain insurance plans?) We would require some sort of catastrophic/hospitalization insurance and then let every family pick how much coverage they want. By letting us keep the change, we have incentive to keep the costs down.
Now, there are those who say the vouchers would just go straight to the insurance companies. Ummm, that’s the point. That’s like saying money for food only goes straight to the grocery stores or money for clothes only goes straight to Wal-mart. Duhhh.
And an elderly couple that is getting a $5000 voucher to buy their own insurance doesn’t NEED as much (if any) Medicare. They have the same quality coverage everyone else has.
Again, vouchers get us used to paying for insurance ourselves and makes the private insurance companies more responsive to our needs.
(What about BO’s proposal? Fining me for not having insurance WON’T HELP! If I already can’t afford insurance, taking more money out of my family’s coffers still leaves me uninsured. Talk about an “unfunded mandate!” What’s more, this leads to MORE illegal government programs, not less. Less control for each family, not more. And those with socialist medicine, when asked by an UNBIASED researcher, are much LESS happy with their care than Americans are. We have the BEST system in world as far as technology and people getting what they want. The problems we have can be traced back to too much government involvement, not too little (but that is another post). Capitalism is why we have the technology we do; people are rewarded for healing illness.
Let’s brain storm and see if we can come up with other voucher ideas and how they would work. How do we replace Social Security? Fanny and Freddie? HUD? Etc? Let’s start a new revolution; a revolution in freedom and personal responsibility.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tax cuts for the rich
Ok, I am not for giving big business big tax breaks and goody packages from the government. However, I would like to know just how taxing anyone in any tax bracket helps ….me.
Selfish isn’t it? But isn’t this the point? I am a stay-at-home mom in a one income family. My hubby makes just under the national average income, so we are by no means rich. In fact we have a lot of times of struggle compared to every two income family I know.
So how is taking money from my hubby’s employer- and other employers- going to help me, Jane Average, afford clothes for my children or repairs on our home or our cars, or anything else we just don’t have the money for?
Will taxing the “rich” create any new jobs? I mean besides all the accountants that will be needed to find loop holes so businesses don’t go under. (My hubby isn’t an accountant; he’s middle management.) Won’t help us. Will it give him a raise? How exactly will it help Joe Blow Working-Man?
It won’t.
It will take money my hubby’s boss could give him in a raise or use to hire him his help back and give it to a government bureaucrat.
Gee, maybe welfare payments will go up, you think? Just what I always wanted
The whole “tax the rich” idea is based on the idea that wealth is finite. There is only so much wealth in the world so if Bill Gates is rich, obviously no one else can be because he has all the money. This view is plain and simply Class Hatred and ugly ole’ envy.
Wealth is infinite. There is no reason on earth we can’t all be as rich as Bill Gates. When we choose to work hard and be wise with our money and reinvest in the economy we are CREATING wealth. My hubby’s boss being well off in no way prevents us from investing and working hard and making our own money…if we are willing to work that hard.
The average millionaire in America owns his own business, works sixty hours per week, lives in a middle or upper middle class neighborhood, and owns at least one car that is more than ten years old (and not a “classic,” either). This is the “big Bad Guy” that so many want to tax.
Fact: neither party is going to raise taxes on the mega companies. Though they are highly visible, they simply don’t own enough to make it worth while. The real wealth lies with the working man; from the above described millionaire to hubby and me.
Actually, I believe we should cut EVERYBODY’S taxes. First, lets get rid of the unconstitutional and unbiblical government departments; education, housing, FDA, finance, farm bailouts, business bailouts, charity of all kinds, etc.
Our Founding Fathers said the Federal Government was to run an army, control immigration, control (and tax) imports, and control interstate commerce. They are permitted to do very little else. Imagine, instead of paying the 40% we all pay in known and unknown taxes, we could pay NO taxes and let the fees on imports take care of government expenses! This is what our Founding Fathers wanted. They actually wrote in the constitution that income tax for ANYONE (but the states as separate entities) was illegal.
The fact is we have traded our freedoms for a “bowl of beans.” We have agreed to pay income tax and to have our employers pay taxes and to pay all sorts of hidden taxes in exchange for a bunch of government goodies: unemployment insurance, disability, “free” education, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, business bailouts, and now- bank bailouts.
What did people do before all these goody programs? They saved 15% of every paycheck for a “rainy day.” What is a rainy day? Unemployment, disability, the barn burning down, daughter getting married, retirement…
If life ate up someone’s savings, family, the church and the community would jump in to help- willingly- because they knew it wasn’t their fault. It was just life. Our current system has destroyed this type of community and there is no way to get it back without kicking the intruder- government- out.
Selfish isn’t it? But isn’t this the point? I am a stay-at-home mom in a one income family. My hubby makes just under the national average income, so we are by no means rich. In fact we have a lot of times of struggle compared to every two income family I know.
So how is taking money from my hubby’s employer- and other employers- going to help me, Jane Average, afford clothes for my children or repairs on our home or our cars, or anything else we just don’t have the money for?
Will taxing the “rich” create any new jobs? I mean besides all the accountants that will be needed to find loop holes so businesses don’t go under. (My hubby isn’t an accountant; he’s middle management.) Won’t help us. Will it give him a raise? How exactly will it help Joe Blow Working-Man?
It won’t.
It will take money my hubby’s boss could give him in a raise or use to hire him his help back and give it to a government bureaucrat.
Gee, maybe welfare payments will go up, you think? Just what I always wanted
The whole “tax the rich” idea is based on the idea that wealth is finite. There is only so much wealth in the world so if Bill Gates is rich, obviously no one else can be because he has all the money. This view is plain and simply Class Hatred and ugly ole’ envy.
Wealth is infinite. There is no reason on earth we can’t all be as rich as Bill Gates. When we choose to work hard and be wise with our money and reinvest in the economy we are CREATING wealth. My hubby’s boss being well off in no way prevents us from investing and working hard and making our own money…if we are willing to work that hard.
The average millionaire in America owns his own business, works sixty hours per week, lives in a middle or upper middle class neighborhood, and owns at least one car that is more than ten years old (and not a “classic,” either). This is the “big Bad Guy” that so many want to tax.
Fact: neither party is going to raise taxes on the mega companies. Though they are highly visible, they simply don’t own enough to make it worth while. The real wealth lies with the working man; from the above described millionaire to hubby and me.
Actually, I believe we should cut EVERYBODY’S taxes. First, lets get rid of the unconstitutional and unbiblical government departments; education, housing, FDA, finance, farm bailouts, business bailouts, charity of all kinds, etc.
Our Founding Fathers said the Federal Government was to run an army, control immigration, control (and tax) imports, and control interstate commerce. They are permitted to do very little else. Imagine, instead of paying the 40% we all pay in known and unknown taxes, we could pay NO taxes and let the fees on imports take care of government expenses! This is what our Founding Fathers wanted. They actually wrote in the constitution that income tax for ANYONE (but the states as separate entities) was illegal.
The fact is we have traded our freedoms for a “bowl of beans.” We have agreed to pay income tax and to have our employers pay taxes and to pay all sorts of hidden taxes in exchange for a bunch of government goodies: unemployment insurance, disability, “free” education, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, business bailouts, and now- bank bailouts.
What did people do before all these goody programs? They saved 15% of every paycheck for a “rainy day.” What is a rainy day? Unemployment, disability, the barn burning down, daughter getting married, retirement…
If life ate up someone’s savings, family, the church and the community would jump in to help- willingly- because they knew it wasn’t their fault. It was just life. Our current system has destroyed this type of community and there is no way to get it back without kicking the intruder- government- out.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What's the difference?
I just read a bulletin about a California first grade class being taken to a gay wedding for a field trip. At the end of the article one person asks the question (referring to gay vs. “normal”) marriage, “What’s the difference?”
Good question. What is the difference? Today’s “traditional” marriage (which isn’t) has the parents get up, dump the children in the car, drive to the kiddy prisons daycares and schools, abandon the children there and go merrily off to “their own life.” They pick the kids up on the way home, grab some “drive through” or “zap and go” supper and race off, each member to his own activities.
Seriously, what difference does it make to a child in this kind of life whether his parents are the same or different sexes? He certainly isn’t getting the benefit of either mother or father, only “paid caretaker.”
Therefore shall a MAN leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis2:24
But if any provide not for HIS own, and especially for those of HIS own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an atheist. 1Timothy 5:8
The aged women likewise… That they may teach the young women to be … keepers at home, … that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 1Timothy 5:14
And did not He make one? Yet had He the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Mal 2:15
“And didn’t God invent marriage? Why? Because He wants godly children. So be careful that you don’t misuse your wife.” (paraphrase)
Marriage is God’s invention and we humans have no right to go around re-defining what “marriage” means- whether we want to make between one working man and one working woman and a daycare worker, two people of the same sex, or a sheep and a horse-WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHANGE IT.
Good question. What is the difference? Today’s “traditional” marriage (which isn’t) has the parents get up, dump the children in the car, drive to the kiddy prisons daycares and schools, abandon the children there and go merrily off to “their own life.” They pick the kids up on the way home, grab some “drive through” or “zap and go” supper and race off, each member to his own activities.
Seriously, what difference does it make to a child in this kind of life whether his parents are the same or different sexes? He certainly isn’t getting the benefit of either mother or father, only “paid caretaker.”
Therefore shall a MAN leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis2:24
But if any provide not for HIS own, and especially for those of HIS own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an atheist. 1Timothy 5:8
The aged women likewise… That they may teach the young women to be … keepers at home, … that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 1Timothy 5:14
And did not He make one? Yet had He the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Mal 2:15
“And didn’t God invent marriage? Why? Because He wants godly children. So be careful that you don’t misuse your wife.” (paraphrase)
Marriage is God’s invention and we humans have no right to go around re-defining what “marriage” means- whether we want to make between one working man and one working woman and a daycare worker, two people of the same sex, or a sheep and a horse-WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHANGE IT.
Friday, October 17, 2008
If you died tonight….
Where would you go?
Several people I know or know of have died suddenly in the last few months. One was a young grandmother who was killed in a car accident. Another a young woman just engaged to be married. She had a heart attack (I think she was 23). There isn’t one of us that has a guarantee of taking one more breath.
What would happen to you? I know many believe life just ends. That is it. No afterlife at all. You know, you would have to die to prove that to be true. It would be so sad to die and discover that there is more and you weren’t ready for it.
We are all human. What does that mean? It universally means we all make mistakes. The bible words it “There is none righteous, no, not one.” And ”All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Every human who has ever lived has sinned. EVERYONE. No exceptions.
There are two places to spend eternity: heaven and hell. Heaven is the total presence of God (we have a part of His presence now, but not the whole thing). Hell is the total absence of God. all the good things about this world are because of God’s presence; all the bad because of where He is absent (through human being’s refusal to let Him in). imagine a place with NO bad whatsoever. Man! What a party! Now imagine a place with no good at all (no pretty clouds, flowers, friends, puppies, chocolate). Yuck!
God is so pure and so good that sin can not exists in his pure presence. Thus anyone who has sinned cannot be with God. This means no one can be with God. the wages- the payment- that would be required for us to be able to go to God would be death by torturous execution- hell.
However, God loves us. He loves us so much He left His divinity behind, put on a robe of flesh, walked this earth for thirty-three and a half years making sure to never sin so He would not be tainted Himself…..and gave Himself as the payment for our sins. He paid the price for our disobedience, self-righteousness, dishonesty, pride, greed, laziness. He CHOSE to do this for us, even though we are dirty awful sinners. He gave this gift to us; a free present. All we have to do is take it, accept it.
If I take $1,000,000 and wrap it up all pretty and place it on your doorstep, can you spend that money? No, you can’t. not until you accept the gift; pick it up and open the box.
God has given you this beautiful gift of His salvation. But you have to accept it.
“Jesus, I know I have sinned. I deserve to go to hell. But I know, too, that you paid that price so I wouldn’t have to. I accept that gift now and ask you to come into my heart and guide my life.”
Several people I know or know of have died suddenly in the last few months. One was a young grandmother who was killed in a car accident. Another a young woman just engaged to be married. She had a heart attack (I think she was 23). There isn’t one of us that has a guarantee of taking one more breath.
What would happen to you? I know many believe life just ends. That is it. No afterlife at all. You know, you would have to die to prove that to be true. It would be so sad to die and discover that there is more and you weren’t ready for it.
We are all human. What does that mean? It universally means we all make mistakes. The bible words it “There is none righteous, no, not one.” And ”All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Every human who has ever lived has sinned. EVERYONE. No exceptions.
There are two places to spend eternity: heaven and hell. Heaven is the total presence of God (we have a part of His presence now, but not the whole thing). Hell is the total absence of God. all the good things about this world are because of God’s presence; all the bad because of where He is absent (through human being’s refusal to let Him in). imagine a place with NO bad whatsoever. Man! What a party! Now imagine a place with no good at all (no pretty clouds, flowers, friends, puppies, chocolate). Yuck!
God is so pure and so good that sin can not exists in his pure presence. Thus anyone who has sinned cannot be with God. This means no one can be with God. the wages- the payment- that would be required for us to be able to go to God would be death by torturous execution- hell.
However, God loves us. He loves us so much He left His divinity behind, put on a robe of flesh, walked this earth for thirty-three and a half years making sure to never sin so He would not be tainted Himself…..and gave Himself as the payment for our sins. He paid the price for our disobedience, self-righteousness, dishonesty, pride, greed, laziness. He CHOSE to do this for us, even though we are dirty awful sinners. He gave this gift to us; a free present. All we have to do is take it, accept it.
If I take $1,000,000 and wrap it up all pretty and place it on your doorstep, can you spend that money? No, you can’t. not until you accept the gift; pick it up and open the box.
God has given you this beautiful gift of His salvation. But you have to accept it.
“Jesus, I know I have sinned. I deserve to go to hell. But I know, too, that you paid that price so I wouldn’t have to. I accept that gift now and ask you to come into my heart and guide my life.”
Thursday, October 16, 2008
What do big families do to society?
First a scary movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405261826557501257&ei=pPf1SNOlMJHuqAKsrJHsDg&q=demographic+winter
This movie contains words like demographic catastrophe, survival, life as we know it, human extinction, we are at a crossroads.
Next, a bad joke staring Brooke Shields :-)
http://www.vw.com/routan/en/us/#/video/
I hope she got paid lots for looking like such an idiot.
Bigger families are happier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1048580/Why-middle-classes-bigger-families-says-TV-News-reporter-Colin-Brazier.html
Ok, here is the summary (minus the joke, LOL): If we don’t start having more babies, we are in deep, uhhh, stuff you find in your backyard where your dog lives.
Just run the numbers; if everyone only has one child, by the third generation you have one person entering the workforce for every FOUR leaving it. Can you imagine what taxes will have to be like to pay Social Security (shrinking workforce is what is really wrong with SS)? Plus, there will be no one to actually do the work necessary to keep a society running. Have the money for a chicken dinner? That’s too bad ‘cause the chicken factory couldn’t find anyone to run the machines. There are no chickens in the stores. Want to buy a car? Too expensive because the manufacturer must pay $100/ hour per worker. Not enough people out there to compete for the jobs and keep salaries low. We are talking total melt down of society here.
What happened to “Over Population”? It was all bad math. The fact is that technology to feed us has grown much faster than the population has. In fact the whole “population scare” was based on population growth, not from too many babies, but from more people living longer. There never were too many babies. The countries with the highest density (most people per mile) are some of the richest in the world (Japan, Singapore, etc.) The ones with people starving to death are ALL either socialist where the government tells you if you deserve food or not, or in the middle of war where both sides are blowing all the food up! If you are going to limit a demographic group in order to end hunger, it should be POLITICIANS! (Sorry about yelling. Starving babies for political causes makes me crazy)
All the predictions of the “population bomb” have failed to come true (mass starvation in the US (besides all those of us on diets to loose our extra food-inches of course), food riots in England, mass disease in Europe all by the 80’s.) All false.
The truth- BABIES ARE BLESSINGS, any time, any where.
Of course, we really don’t have to worry. There is one group that continues to have plenty of babies; the religious. Yes, orthodox Jews, fanatic Christians, and extreme Muslims all have large families.
So you elitist, educated, sophisticated yuppies, you just keep enjoying your big screen TVs and gourmet foods. We baby lovers will just continue quietly taking over the world. (Insert evil laughter here)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405261826557501257&ei=pPf1SNOlMJHuqAKsrJHsDg&q=demographic+winter
This movie contains words like demographic catastrophe, survival, life as we know it, human extinction, we are at a crossroads.
Next, a bad joke staring Brooke Shields :-)
http://www.vw.com/routan/en/us/#/video/
I hope she got paid lots for looking like such an idiot.
Bigger families are happier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1048580/Why-middle-classes-bigger-families-says-TV-News-reporter-Colin-Brazier.html
Ok, here is the summary (minus the joke, LOL): If we don’t start having more babies, we are in deep, uhhh, stuff you find in your backyard where your dog lives.
Just run the numbers; if everyone only has one child, by the third generation you have one person entering the workforce for every FOUR leaving it. Can you imagine what taxes will have to be like to pay Social Security (shrinking workforce is what is really wrong with SS)? Plus, there will be no one to actually do the work necessary to keep a society running. Have the money for a chicken dinner? That’s too bad ‘cause the chicken factory couldn’t find anyone to run the machines. There are no chickens in the stores. Want to buy a car? Too expensive because the manufacturer must pay $100/ hour per worker. Not enough people out there to compete for the jobs and keep salaries low. We are talking total melt down of society here.
What happened to “Over Population”? It was all bad math. The fact is that technology to feed us has grown much faster than the population has. In fact the whole “population scare” was based on population growth, not from too many babies, but from more people living longer. There never were too many babies. The countries with the highest density (most people per mile) are some of the richest in the world (Japan, Singapore, etc.) The ones with people starving to death are ALL either socialist where the government tells you if you deserve food or not, or in the middle of war where both sides are blowing all the food up! If you are going to limit a demographic group in order to end hunger, it should be POLITICIANS! (Sorry about yelling. Starving babies for political causes makes me crazy)
All the predictions of the “population bomb” have failed to come true (mass starvation in the US (besides all those of us on diets to loose our extra food-inches of course), food riots in England, mass disease in Europe all by the 80’s.) All false.
The truth- BABIES ARE BLESSINGS, any time, any where.
Of course, we really don’t have to worry. There is one group that continues to have plenty of babies; the religious. Yes, orthodox Jews, fanatic Christians, and extreme Muslims all have large families.
So you elitist, educated, sophisticated yuppies, you just keep enjoying your big screen TVs and gourmet foods. We baby lovers will just continue quietly taking over the world. (Insert evil laughter here)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What is your most important goal, cont’
Have you been thinking about your goals for your children? Have they changed over the last day? I tell you, when I changed my goals from “Academic Excellence” to “Warriors Worshiping At The Feet Of My King” It revolutionized my family. Oh, it probably looks the same from the outside, but it is now so infused with joy! We now enjoy each other so much more and have so much more peace in our home. And, surprisingly- to the human way of thinking- we have been achieving more academic excellence! “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things (including academic excellence) shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33.
But how exactly do you go about putting heaven first?
Let me give you two sample families;
Family number one says their number one goal is heaven. That is why they are at church every Sunday. Their children joyfully participate in the Sunday morning programs in their class and youth group on Sunday night. They tell their parents all about it. It sometimes bothers the parents when they have more to say about the entertainment value of what was going on or the gossip of their peers, but they are learning about God, right?
Monday morning mom gets everyone up and ready for school. All the children are instructed to remember to be witnesses to their classmates during the day (even though the five year old hasn’t made a confession of faith yet). They spend their day listening to their teachers lecture on different subjects and doing their work from their textbooks. The books are written by committees that are careful to not “offend” anyone, so mom and dad know their children won’t be hearing anything about Islam, Buddhism, or the Wiccan religion. In fact, they won’t hear anything about any God at all. They will study history, science, government, reading, math, grammar, spelling and penmanship, all without the mention of any gods, offensive or not.
When the children get home, mom gives them a snack in front of the TV while they watch their favorite after school program. Some of the language is a bit startling to mom, but she figures standards have changed since she was a kid. It also seems that the parents are always wrong on these shows. Well, parents can be wrong after all.
Supper is eaten in front of the TV. Why do they have to show so many people living together who aren’t married? Oh well. They will meet such people in life so they need to get used to it. An hour or so before bed time, the parents send the children to their rooms to do their homework. Then they tuck them in with a “Now I lay me down to sleep…” prayer.
Everyday is pretty much the same, different only in running each child to their separate sports activities after school. On Saturday, one child has a game, another a banquet, another practice. Dad goes golfing with his buddies and mom goes shopping. Jr. will spend the night with a friend tonight so he will miss church tomorrow, but he is usually there. The parents know their children will eventually come to God and embrace the Bible because they are so faithful in having their children in church on Sunday and doesn’t the Bible promise that “if you train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not depart from it?” Well they have done their part by having the children in church once a week haven’t they? They trust God to take care of the rest.
Sound familiar? Know families like this? Been a family like this?
Second family; Sunday starts out much the same. The family gets up and gets ready for church. When they arrive at the church they go in and find a place to sit together. The mom and dad prefer to worship with their children. They feel it bonds the family together. They also know for certain everything their children hear and are taught.
Monday, mom gets everyone up and dressed. After breakfast and chores, they gather in the living room for school. Mom enjoys knowing that none of her children will be bullied nor pressured into doing something the she has taught them not to by their peers. She knows she won’t have to do damage control when school is over.
They begin their school day with prayer and Bible reading. Each child draws a picture of the day’s chapter and tells how it applies to life. Then she dictates a verse from Proverbs to them for them to practice penmanship and spelling on. they discuss the meaning of the verse while they are at it.
Then they sing a hymn. Their church doesn’t sign the old hymns often and momma loves them so. She has drawn so much strength from them in hard times that she wants her children to have that tool also.
History and science both begin with creation studies. After all that is where both subjects start. History is taught chronologically, mixing the Bible stories in where they fit in the timeline. The kids are surprised to learn that Daniel and Plato lived about the same time. All of history is taught with an eye out for God’s hand working. They see how often countries that deny His principles fall and how He blesses those that obey Him.
Science is studied to discover God’s marvelous hand in our Universe. Part of their studies are to learn evolution, but the children have no trouble picking out the logic flaws in the theory. They are well founded in true, observational science. Above all, glory is given to God for the things in our world.
The older children do their math and grammar while mom teaches the five year old to read. He hasn’t asked Jesus into his heart yet, but today he asks mom questions about God and sin. She explains it to him until he is satisfied he understands.
Mom corrects each child’s work and has him read her his reading lesson. She points out how the child in Jr’s lesson was rewarded for his honesty in the long run even though it cost him his birthday dollar in the short run.
After school, the children go out back to play while mom catches up on emails and some housework. Some friends come over so mom serves a snack on the patio and hangs around to listen to what is going on. When she hears a neighbor child use an inappropriate word, she explains to him that they don’t use that word in their house and why. She makes sure she does so with a non- judgmental attitude, but gives logical reasons why they have the rules they do. The children play until daddy gets home, and then tell him all the things they learned that day. He tells them about his day and then they go to the supper table. Daddy gives God thanks for the food and everyone enjoys the meal seasoned with laughter and jokes.
After supper the children play until bed time. Then they all pick a book and gather in the living room where mom reads to them. The younger children pick cat-in-the-hat type books, but the older children pick chapter books. On any given day they might read Tom Sawyer, Heidi, Little House on the Prairie, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and the Hobbit. Mom or dad will stop to discuss parts of the books that apply to life and teach lessons. Then mom reads a chapter from the bible and they all sing a hymn together. They each find something to thank God for and pray, asking God to bless their family, friends, church and country.
There is no TV because the parents don’t approve of the values taught on TV (consumerism, sex, violence, greed) and know they can’t always be right there to teach their children different than what is being taught by Hollywood. They also think children have better things to do than zonk in front of the Boob Tube. Things like running, building tree houses, making forts, rescuing (or being) the fair maiden, reading, writing their own stories, drawing, playing music, etc. Goodness, there isn’t enough time in a day as it is without spending the eight hour per day the average child spends in front of TV!
Each school day is pretty much the same, except Friday when they go help the single lady from church move to a new apartment. On the way home, one of the children asks where her husband is. Mom explains the best she can about sin and its effects on people and their lives. This lady may not have done anything wrong, but she is suffering the effects of other’s sin.
Saturday the family goes for a drive together. Some drives have lots of jokes. Others have songs, “pretends,” or philosophy questions discussed. When they get home they get ready for church the next day (baths, make sure they have all the clothes they need, etc.). Then it’s movie time! Daddy picks a movie or old TV show on DVD for the family to watch together. Though they try to pick God-honoring things, sometimes things sneak through mom and dad forgot about from their childhood. They use these as chances to teach their children. Dad isn’t above stopping a movie in the middle to discuss the underlying philosophy of the current plot. They make a point of pointing out that every show has an underlying philosophy and it either honors God or denies Him. The children soon get good at figuring out the philosophy of each show. Reading and prayer and to bed for the start of another week.
This mom and dad believe child training happens every waking moment (Duet. 6:7); that everything a child experiences “writes on his book” of character. Ephesians 6 tells them to “not frustrate their child but to bring him up in the culture and education of the Lord.” They try to craft a truly godly culture in their home and to make the children’s education center around God and His plan for humanity. They don’t frustrate their children by having them straddle two opposite cultures. They carefully expose their children to the negative effects of sin while making sure their home is full of fun and happiness. They know they can’t make their children choose to serve God, but thy can make it so attractive and so ingrained that they find God irresistible.
Which family is most likely to achieve their goal of seeing their children in heaven?
But how exactly do you go about putting heaven first?
Let me give you two sample families;
Family number one says their number one goal is heaven. That is why they are at church every Sunday. Their children joyfully participate in the Sunday morning programs in their class and youth group on Sunday night. They tell their parents all about it. It sometimes bothers the parents when they have more to say about the entertainment value of what was going on or the gossip of their peers, but they are learning about God, right?
Monday morning mom gets everyone up and ready for school. All the children are instructed to remember to be witnesses to their classmates during the day (even though the five year old hasn’t made a confession of faith yet). They spend their day listening to their teachers lecture on different subjects and doing their work from their textbooks. The books are written by committees that are careful to not “offend” anyone, so mom and dad know their children won’t be hearing anything about Islam, Buddhism, or the Wiccan religion. In fact, they won’t hear anything about any God at all. They will study history, science, government, reading, math, grammar, spelling and penmanship, all without the mention of any gods, offensive or not.
When the children get home, mom gives them a snack in front of the TV while they watch their favorite after school program. Some of the language is a bit startling to mom, but she figures standards have changed since she was a kid. It also seems that the parents are always wrong on these shows. Well, parents can be wrong after all.
Supper is eaten in front of the TV. Why do they have to show so many people living together who aren’t married? Oh well. They will meet such people in life so they need to get used to it. An hour or so before bed time, the parents send the children to their rooms to do their homework. Then they tuck them in with a “Now I lay me down to sleep…” prayer.
Everyday is pretty much the same, different only in running each child to their separate sports activities after school. On Saturday, one child has a game, another a banquet, another practice. Dad goes golfing with his buddies and mom goes shopping. Jr. will spend the night with a friend tonight so he will miss church tomorrow, but he is usually there. The parents know their children will eventually come to God and embrace the Bible because they are so faithful in having their children in church on Sunday and doesn’t the Bible promise that “if you train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not depart from it?” Well they have done their part by having the children in church once a week haven’t they? They trust God to take care of the rest.
Sound familiar? Know families like this? Been a family like this?
Second family; Sunday starts out much the same. The family gets up and gets ready for church. When they arrive at the church they go in and find a place to sit together. The mom and dad prefer to worship with their children. They feel it bonds the family together. They also know for certain everything their children hear and are taught.
Monday, mom gets everyone up and dressed. After breakfast and chores, they gather in the living room for school. Mom enjoys knowing that none of her children will be bullied nor pressured into doing something the she has taught them not to by their peers. She knows she won’t have to do damage control when school is over.
They begin their school day with prayer and Bible reading. Each child draws a picture of the day’s chapter and tells how it applies to life. Then she dictates a verse from Proverbs to them for them to practice penmanship and spelling on. they discuss the meaning of the verse while they are at it.
Then they sing a hymn. Their church doesn’t sign the old hymns often and momma loves them so. She has drawn so much strength from them in hard times that she wants her children to have that tool also.
History and science both begin with creation studies. After all that is where both subjects start. History is taught chronologically, mixing the Bible stories in where they fit in the timeline. The kids are surprised to learn that Daniel and Plato lived about the same time. All of history is taught with an eye out for God’s hand working. They see how often countries that deny His principles fall and how He blesses those that obey Him.
Science is studied to discover God’s marvelous hand in our Universe. Part of their studies are to learn evolution, but the children have no trouble picking out the logic flaws in the theory. They are well founded in true, observational science. Above all, glory is given to God for the things in our world.
The older children do their math and grammar while mom teaches the five year old to read. He hasn’t asked Jesus into his heart yet, but today he asks mom questions about God and sin. She explains it to him until he is satisfied he understands.
Mom corrects each child’s work and has him read her his reading lesson. She points out how the child in Jr’s lesson was rewarded for his honesty in the long run even though it cost him his birthday dollar in the short run.
After school, the children go out back to play while mom catches up on emails and some housework. Some friends come over so mom serves a snack on the patio and hangs around to listen to what is going on. When she hears a neighbor child use an inappropriate word, she explains to him that they don’t use that word in their house and why. She makes sure she does so with a non- judgmental attitude, but gives logical reasons why they have the rules they do. The children play until daddy gets home, and then tell him all the things they learned that day. He tells them about his day and then they go to the supper table. Daddy gives God thanks for the food and everyone enjoys the meal seasoned with laughter and jokes.
After supper the children play until bed time. Then they all pick a book and gather in the living room where mom reads to them. The younger children pick cat-in-the-hat type books, but the older children pick chapter books. On any given day they might read Tom Sawyer, Heidi, Little House on the Prairie, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and the Hobbit. Mom or dad will stop to discuss parts of the books that apply to life and teach lessons. Then mom reads a chapter from the bible and they all sing a hymn together. They each find something to thank God for and pray, asking God to bless their family, friends, church and country.
There is no TV because the parents don’t approve of the values taught on TV (consumerism, sex, violence, greed) and know they can’t always be right there to teach their children different than what is being taught by Hollywood. They also think children have better things to do than zonk in front of the Boob Tube. Things like running, building tree houses, making forts, rescuing (or being) the fair maiden, reading, writing their own stories, drawing, playing music, etc. Goodness, there isn’t enough time in a day as it is without spending the eight hour per day the average child spends in front of TV!
Each school day is pretty much the same, except Friday when they go help the single lady from church move to a new apartment. On the way home, one of the children asks where her husband is. Mom explains the best she can about sin and its effects on people and their lives. This lady may not have done anything wrong, but she is suffering the effects of other’s sin.
Saturday the family goes for a drive together. Some drives have lots of jokes. Others have songs, “pretends,” or philosophy questions discussed. When they get home they get ready for church the next day (baths, make sure they have all the clothes they need, etc.). Then it’s movie time! Daddy picks a movie or old TV show on DVD for the family to watch together. Though they try to pick God-honoring things, sometimes things sneak through mom and dad forgot about from their childhood. They use these as chances to teach their children. Dad isn’t above stopping a movie in the middle to discuss the underlying philosophy of the current plot. They make a point of pointing out that every show has an underlying philosophy and it either honors God or denies Him. The children soon get good at figuring out the philosophy of each show. Reading and prayer and to bed for the start of another week.
This mom and dad believe child training happens every waking moment (Duet. 6:7); that everything a child experiences “writes on his book” of character. Ephesians 6 tells them to “not frustrate their child but to bring him up in the culture and education of the Lord.” They try to craft a truly godly culture in their home and to make the children’s education center around God and His plan for humanity. They don’t frustrate their children by having them straddle two opposite cultures. They carefully expose their children to the negative effects of sin while making sure their home is full of fun and happiness. They know they can’t make their children choose to serve God, but thy can make it so attractive and so ingrained that they find God irresistible.
Which family is most likely to achieve their goal of seeing their children in heaven?
Monday, October 13, 2008
What is your number one goal for your children?
Most Americans answer “To make sure they get a good education.” Christian and non-Christian alike.
If you are a Christian, I would like to rephrase that question;
“As a CHRISTIAN parent, what is your number one goal for your children?”
If you are like me you are probably backtracking real fast about now. I had to change my answer quickly after I answered this the first time.
A CHRISTIAN parent’s number one goal for their child should be HEAVEN.
Do you realize how brain washed we are? That even people who have been raised in church would answer that question the same way as sinners?
Something to think about, don’t you think?
If you are a Christian, I would like to rephrase that question;
“As a CHRISTIAN parent, what is your number one goal for your children?”
If you are like me you are probably backtracking real fast about now. I had to change my answer quickly after I answered this the first time.
A CHRISTIAN parent’s number one goal for their child should be HEAVEN.
Do you realize how brain washed we are? That even people who have been raised in church would answer that question the same way as sinners?
Something to think about, don’t you think?
You need to read this.
I feel the need to write about propaganda techniques because I see so many of them being used in relation to this election. I have studied these techniques through my studying of logic and writing. You would be surprised how often they are used- every commercial, TV show, movie, newspaper article, political forums, and magazine article. Yes, I said EVERY ONE. There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone has an opinion. If not when they start, then by the time they have finished their research for their article or show. This bias is difficult, if not impossible to keep out of the finished product, though it may be subtle. Those who know propaganda techniques, (and even some who don’t) sometimes use them unintentionally, but they always use them.
Propaganda Techniques
Definition- propaganda techniques are the methods and approaches used to spread ideas that further a cause and cause people to agree with you. That cause can be political, commercial (“Buy my product”), religious, or civil.
Name calling (also called an ad hominem attack): This is calling the opponent bad names and attacking his person, history, education, etc. instead of his opinion or ideas. It is used instead of explaining the attacker’s opinion or finding facts to support it.
An example of this would be;
Making fun of Bush’s intelligence instead of defending your call for more taxes.
Calling Obama “The chosen one” (in sarcasm) instead of answering why his healthcare plan is bad.
Making fun of McCain’s age instead of explaining why we need out of Iraq immediately.
Saying Palin should be home taking care of her family and that Trig isn’t really her baby (a totally unfounded accusation) instead of explaining why she may not be qualified for office.
Glittering Generalities- the use of “happy” words that make you feel good about a person or idea. These can not be proved.
Example:
“New and Improved!” Newer than what and improved how?
“Faster acting!” Faster than what?
“Just like Grandma used to use?” Invoking nostalgia. There is a reason Grandma quit using it!
“Clinton is an honest man.” Actually said by Tom Brokahv. He went on to explain that it was possible to lie and be honest as long as you believed in abortion rights (???)
Words like "good," "honest," “intelligent,” "fair," and "best" are examples of "glad" words.
Transfer: The use of something you like in order to make you like something entirely different.
Example:
Michael Jordan says I should buy certain shoes. How does he know? Is he an orthopedist? A fashion expert? How exactly does being good at basket ball qualify him to tell me what shoes to wear?
Doris Day is voting for Obama (I have no idea if this is true. Her’s was just the first name that popped into my head:-) So what? Is she a tax or health care expert? Constitutional lawyer? How does making a living by pretending qualify her to pick a president? Why is her opinion on this subject better than mine? Now if the subject were leading men that are easy to work with that would be different.
Did you know that the tallest candidate always wins? This is a transfer of our preference for height. How tall you are has no bearing on how good of a leader you are.
Using the American flag as a backdrop for a political event makes the implication that the event is patriotic and in the best interest of the U.S.
False Analogy- the comparing of two things as if they are similar when they are not.
Example:
Homosexual rights compared to racial rights.
Homeschooling compared to racism.
Plain Folks- depicting ordinary looking people doing ordinary activities.
Example:
A commercial showing an ordinary family (mom, dad, two children, wearing normal clothes) watching their brand new wide screen TV. This leaves you with the unconscious impression that all normal families have wide-screen TVs.
Card Stacking- This term comes from stacking a deck of cards in your favor. Card stacking is used to slant a message. Key words or unfavorable statistics may be omitted, leading to a series of half-truths. Keep in mind that an advertiser or political commentator is under no obligation "to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
I have observed this often, especially in politics. I recently saw a clip of a four woman political board debating about the candidates. First let me point out that more than 80% of those in the media say they are liberal or ultra liberal and “always” vote democrat. On this panel, one woman was a longhaired, young blonde. She was the only conservative. We have been trained to think of longhaired blondes as bimbos, so unconsciously, we think of her as less than intelligent. The fact that it was three to one made it appear that most people disagree with her positions (which isn’t true. The American public is split about 50/50 liberal/conservative.) Because she was younger, it appeared she was less experienced and because she was a bit less aggressive she appeared to not be as convinced of her position. The sum total was that the liberal position appeared far more intelligent and reasonable –before anyone even opened their mouths! Do you really think the (liberal) producers of this show only had one applicant for this position? More likely, they went through dozens of possible, conservative, female commentators before they found one that would present the image they were looking for.
Another example; A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to read three different articles from three different newspapers about the same incidence involving a homeschooler in Montana. Read separately, each article appeared to be neutral. Read together it was obvious that the first whole-heartedly supported homeschooling, the second hated it, and the third had never really considered the idea before but was leaning in favor of it. Here is how they portrayed their ideas: most people won’t read (or listen to in audio/visual media) more than the first paragraph of an article, so they put the position they agree with first. Then they leave out certain information. For example; the second article (anti-homeschooling) first explained that Montana has almost no laws governing homeschooling, then told us how a young lady who had been homeschooled since second grade took the test to become a nurse and failed. He then quoted “education experts” (school teachers and administrators, people who stand to lose money and power the more people homeschool) who called for way tighter standards and testing for homeschoolers (Montana is one of the least restricted states in the union). The article would have been VERY convincing if I had not just read the story from a pro-homeschooling author. It seems the second author “forgot” to tell us that the young lady has Cerebral palsy. Left in a traditional school she would have not been taught to read much less given the chance to aim for being a nurse! The next year she retook the test and passed! It also failed to mention that the test scores among homeschoolers in states with lots of controls are the same as those from states with no controls. Yet if all you read, all you knew about homeschooling, was the second article, you would be very much against parents taking responsibility for their own children without a great deal of government oversight.
A third example: a TV station wanted to do a report on the abortion issue during the “Right to Life” protests a few years ago. They first showed a thirty second clip from a pro-choice advocate in his air-conditioned office, in a three-piece suit, in front of his expensive looking book shelves. He was saying how we must prevent women from having to seek out unsafe, back-alley abortions like they did before Roe v Wade. Then they showed a thirty-second clip from the president of the Right To Life organization at a protest (he wanted to be filmed in his office but the TV station refused) in August, in Arizona! His sleeves were rolled up with sweat stains on them. He had to yell to be heard and the clip was edited to only contain phrases like, “We must end abortion.” No logic. No mention of the suffering the baby goes through. No mention of the many negative side affects women suffer from supposedly “safe” abortions. All things I am sure he mentioned. He ended up looking like a fanatical idiot while the opposite side looked intelligent and concerned. Yet, unless you were just paying attention to these details, it looked like the TV station had presented a fair, balanced report. Both sides got the same amount of time to state their arguments, right?
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out.
Example:
The commercials showing large numbers of people owning cellphones.
The constant telling us Obama is ahead (when he really isn’t if you ask only those who are likely to vote. It is really very close with McCain ahead by a small margin).
Either/or fallacy: This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues.
Example:
In the vice presidential debates Biden stated that McCain had not done anything for education. He had not voted once for increased funding of daycare or schools. This leaves out the position that what education needs is NOT more money thrown at it, but new ideas such as vouchers and accountability (which have both proven to be highly effective.) He made the same kind of statement on several issues, implying that the only options were those Obama supports (more government).
The schools do this often also. You either vote to increase spending or you are against education. Hello. Some of us think there are other options, such as redirecting spending to vouchers so competition can make all schools better.
Doctors talking about homebirth do this too. Either go to the hospital to have your baby or you birth in a dark dirty, cellar with a neandrathal (midwives carry pitocin, methorgin, oxygen, do stitches, and use many modern techniques, plus most of us live less than ten minutes from a hospital and most complications that actually need more than a midwife carries give you a couple of hours to get the help you need.)
You must use birth control or you will have 25 children! Never mind the average before birth control, when people married ten years younger than they do now, was only 7. God put natural stoppers in there. We really can trust Him to not overburden us (an option besides pills and surgeries).
My favorite; if you don’t cut your hair sometimes it will grow until you are dragging twenty feet of hair behind you everywhere! Puhhh-leeese. Few people could grow hair that long if they wanted to! We all have a natural length it will stop at (an option besides regular hair cuts).
Faulty Cause and Effect- thinking that because B follows A, A must cause B.
Example:
Did you know that EVERYONE who ate carrots in the 1850 has DIED! Bet you didn’t know carrots were so dangerous, did you?
80% of those in care accidents have eaten green beans in the last week. Maybe we need government controls on these dangerous vegetables!
The number of children diagnosed with learning disabilities in Texas went up after the Cowboys won the Super Bowl. Isn’t it sad that they would put winning a game over children’s education and continue to try to win?
“The Internet came into existence during the Clinton administration, thus, Clinton caused the Internet.” No. He happened to be president at the time technology came together to cause it. It had nothing to do with him.
“Bush was in office when the housing market crashed so the crash is his fault.” Now, he may be partly at fault, but the crash of programs created in the thirties and seventies, that were told by congress during the 90’s, to give mortgages to people that could not make the payments is not very much his fault. It was inevitable that mass numbers of people would default. Like Clinton and the Internet, he just happened to be president when it happened.
“Clinton was president when the economy boomed thus his policies must have caused it.” The groundwork laid in the previous administrations had nothing to do with it? Neither did the republican congress that ignored Clinton’s budgets and made their own? How would we know Clinton caused the boom?
“Public schools are in universal use. Most people can read. Thus schools caused literacy.” Goes against the evidence to the contrary.
“Babies began to be born at hospitals in the early 1900’s. Newborn and mother fatality fell drastically at this time. Thus hospitals caused the drop in birth related deaths.” Does not take into account that homebirths had an even greater drop in deaths at the same time due to better over all nutrition and the discovery of germs and the institution of hand washing!
Errors of Faulty Logic (also way too common in politics)
Contradiction: Information is presented that is in direct opposition to other information within the same argument.
Example: If someone stated that schools were overstaffed, then later argued for the necessity of more counselors, that person would be guilty of contradiction.
Or if they argued that government is too big or taxes too high and then promised “goodies” if they are elected.
Accident: Someone fails to recognize (or conceals the fact) that an argument is based on an exception to the rule.
Example: By using selected scholar-athletes as the norm, one could argue that larger sports programs in schools were vital to improving academic performance of all students.
Begging the Question: A person makes a claim then argues for it by advancing grounds whose meaning is simply equivalent to that of the original claim. This is also called "circular reasoning."
Example:
Someone argues that schools should continue to have textbooks read from cover to cover because, otherwise, students would not be well-educated. When asked to define what "well-educated" means, the person says, "knowing what is in the textbooks."
Or the evolutionists dating the fossil by the rocks it is found in and then dating the rocks by what fossils they find in them (I am serious. This is how they “know” how old fossils AND rocks are!)
Evading the Issue: Someone sidesteps and issue by changing the topic.
Example: When asked to say whether or not the presence of homosexuals in the army could be a disruptive force, a speaker presents examples of homosexuals winning combat medals for bravery.
Or just watch any presidential debate. They seldom actually answer any questions.
Arguing from Ignorance: Someone argues that a claim is justified simply because its opposite cannot be proven.
Example:
Ministers arguing that the historical view of prophecy can’t possibly be right because Paul said the son of perdition has to come (those who believe the historical view believe he came during the dark ages.)
School principals saying parents can’t give a good academic education when all correctly done scientific studies show they do a better job than either public or private schools.
Doctors saying babies don’t get enough oxygen during birth when born out of the hospital when the ONLY study to say such a thing mixed “Honey we ain’t gonna make it” births and teens popping the kid out in a mall bathroom and dumping it in the trashcan with PLANNED home births. Other studies that did make a difference in the type of out of hospital birth have shown homebirths to have LESS oxygen deprivation.
Composition and Division: Composition involves an assertion about a whole that is true of its parts. Division is the opposite: an assertion about all of the parts that is true about the whole.
Example:
“My dog has fleas, thus all dogs have fleas”
Some religious people are a little nuts (name me a category that doesn’t have its nuts) so all religious people are nuts.
Some religious leaders are evil so all religious leaders are evil.
Some homeschoolers abuse their children thus all homeschoolers abuse their children. (homeschoolers actually have a lower rate of abuse than traditional schoolers)
Some babies die at homebirth so all babies die at homebirth. (Again, the rate of severe problems at home are actually lower than at hospitals. Due to genetic defects and other unavoidable problems, some babies just don’t make it no matter where they are born).
Errors of Attack
Appealing to Force: Someone uses threats to establish the validity of the claim.
Example:
Opponents of year-round school threaten to keep their children out of school during the summer months.
Supporters of Obama warn of racial riots if he doesn’t win.
Supporters of Palin warn of mass moose rebellions if she looses.
Errors of Weak Reference
Appeal to the People: Someone attempts to justify a claim on the basis of popularity.
Example:
Children love potato chips and ice cream so we must have it at every meal.
Opponents of year-round school claim that students would hate it.
A politician states that “everyone” wants universal government health care so we should create it.
Appeal to Emotion: An emotion-laden "sob" story is used as proof for a claim.
Example:
See the above story about the girl who flunked the nursing test.
Newspapers telling us about a family with big medical bills that is barely too rich to qualify for Medicaid.
A talk show host telling us about a business that closed because of high taxes.
Word approval – The use of words or phrases by the media or celebrities to make them more popular. Soon everyone is using those words. This has caused the increase in the use of cuss words as well as politically correct terminology.
Word disapproval – Same as above only in reverse. Celebrities act upset when certain words are used making us think the use of such words will bring disapproval. Also, laws are passed making the use of certain words or phrases a “hate crime.”
Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times.
Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilized conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.
Typical examples are
'gay' for sex pervert;
'love-making' for casual copulation;
'multi-cultural' for anti-western;
'negotiated settlement' for surrender;
'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate;
'value-free' for unprincipled
Pro- choice for pro- abortion,
Pro- education for anti-homeschooling,
pro-modern medicine for anti-natural healing techniques.
Censorship – On a legal level, confined to the government out-lawing certain words, expressions or ideas. Some forms of censorship are of course good; for example when applied to pornography (which causes violence against women), national security and libelous material. The limits of the Bible and Constitution determine whether or not censorship is good or bad.
There is a move in congress to require talk radio stations to have “equal time” for liberals as for conservatives (talk radio is the only media source that is predominantly conservative). The same people are not calling for “equal time” in newspapers or on TV. Thus the motive for this move is obviously to shut up the conservative talk show hosts.
Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism.
Example;
Sexually active singles are featured in numerous programs as if they were normal and acceptable. They are often depicted as highly intelligent, responsible, exemplary and 'caring' people, who enriche our society in every way. In popular radio and TV series they are almost invariably cast as model citizens, and heroes by program-makers aptly described as 'inverted missionaries.' And if the plot will not sustain too many obvious sexual references, they are gratuitously inserted into background scenes.
The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the “non-traditional sexual relationship” campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.
‘Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life – no, not even politics – more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
‘...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?’
Matthew Parris, London Daily Mail, 21 April 1996
Propaganda Techniques
Definition- propaganda techniques are the methods and approaches used to spread ideas that further a cause and cause people to agree with you. That cause can be political, commercial (“Buy my product”), religious, or civil.
Name calling (also called an ad hominem attack): This is calling the opponent bad names and attacking his person, history, education, etc. instead of his opinion or ideas. It is used instead of explaining the attacker’s opinion or finding facts to support it.
An example of this would be;
Making fun of Bush’s intelligence instead of defending your call for more taxes.
Calling Obama “The chosen one” (in sarcasm) instead of answering why his healthcare plan is bad.
Making fun of McCain’s age instead of explaining why we need out of Iraq immediately.
Saying Palin should be home taking care of her family and that Trig isn’t really her baby (a totally unfounded accusation) instead of explaining why she may not be qualified for office.
Glittering Generalities- the use of “happy” words that make you feel good about a person or idea. These can not be proved.
Example:
“New and Improved!” Newer than what and improved how?
“Faster acting!” Faster than what?
“Just like Grandma used to use?” Invoking nostalgia. There is a reason Grandma quit using it!
“Clinton is an honest man.” Actually said by Tom Brokahv. He went on to explain that it was possible to lie and be honest as long as you believed in abortion rights (???)
Words like "good," "honest," “intelligent,” "fair," and "best" are examples of "glad" words.
Transfer: The use of something you like in order to make you like something entirely different.
Example:
Michael Jordan says I should buy certain shoes. How does he know? Is he an orthopedist? A fashion expert? How exactly does being good at basket ball qualify him to tell me what shoes to wear?
Doris Day is voting for Obama (I have no idea if this is true. Her’s was just the first name that popped into my head:-) So what? Is she a tax or health care expert? Constitutional lawyer? How does making a living by pretending qualify her to pick a president? Why is her opinion on this subject better than mine? Now if the subject were leading men that are easy to work with that would be different.
Did you know that the tallest candidate always wins? This is a transfer of our preference for height. How tall you are has no bearing on how good of a leader you are.
Using the American flag as a backdrop for a political event makes the implication that the event is patriotic and in the best interest of the U.S.
False Analogy- the comparing of two things as if they are similar when they are not.
Example:
Homosexual rights compared to racial rights.
Homeschooling compared to racism.
Plain Folks- depicting ordinary looking people doing ordinary activities.
Example:
A commercial showing an ordinary family (mom, dad, two children, wearing normal clothes) watching their brand new wide screen TV. This leaves you with the unconscious impression that all normal families have wide-screen TVs.
Card Stacking- This term comes from stacking a deck of cards in your favor. Card stacking is used to slant a message. Key words or unfavorable statistics may be omitted, leading to a series of half-truths. Keep in mind that an advertiser or political commentator is under no obligation "to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
I have observed this often, especially in politics. I recently saw a clip of a four woman political board debating about the candidates. First let me point out that more than 80% of those in the media say they are liberal or ultra liberal and “always” vote democrat. On this panel, one woman was a longhaired, young blonde. She was the only conservative. We have been trained to think of longhaired blondes as bimbos, so unconsciously, we think of her as less than intelligent. The fact that it was three to one made it appear that most people disagree with her positions (which isn’t true. The American public is split about 50/50 liberal/conservative.) Because she was younger, it appeared she was less experienced and because she was a bit less aggressive she appeared to not be as convinced of her position. The sum total was that the liberal position appeared far more intelligent and reasonable –before anyone even opened their mouths! Do you really think the (liberal) producers of this show only had one applicant for this position? More likely, they went through dozens of possible, conservative, female commentators before they found one that would present the image they were looking for.
Another example; A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to read three different articles from three different newspapers about the same incidence involving a homeschooler in Montana. Read separately, each article appeared to be neutral. Read together it was obvious that the first whole-heartedly supported homeschooling, the second hated it, and the third had never really considered the idea before but was leaning in favor of it. Here is how they portrayed their ideas: most people won’t read (or listen to in audio/visual media) more than the first paragraph of an article, so they put the position they agree with first. Then they leave out certain information. For example; the second article (anti-homeschooling) first explained that Montana has almost no laws governing homeschooling, then told us how a young lady who had been homeschooled since second grade took the test to become a nurse and failed. He then quoted “education experts” (school teachers and administrators, people who stand to lose money and power the more people homeschool) who called for way tighter standards and testing for homeschoolers (Montana is one of the least restricted states in the union). The article would have been VERY convincing if I had not just read the story from a pro-homeschooling author. It seems the second author “forgot” to tell us that the young lady has Cerebral palsy. Left in a traditional school she would have not been taught to read much less given the chance to aim for being a nurse! The next year she retook the test and passed! It also failed to mention that the test scores among homeschoolers in states with lots of controls are the same as those from states with no controls. Yet if all you read, all you knew about homeschooling, was the second article, you would be very much against parents taking responsibility for their own children without a great deal of government oversight.
A third example: a TV station wanted to do a report on the abortion issue during the “Right to Life” protests a few years ago. They first showed a thirty second clip from a pro-choice advocate in his air-conditioned office, in a three-piece suit, in front of his expensive looking book shelves. He was saying how we must prevent women from having to seek out unsafe, back-alley abortions like they did before Roe v Wade. Then they showed a thirty-second clip from the president of the Right To Life organization at a protest (he wanted to be filmed in his office but the TV station refused) in August, in Arizona! His sleeves were rolled up with sweat stains on them. He had to yell to be heard and the clip was edited to only contain phrases like, “We must end abortion.” No logic. No mention of the suffering the baby goes through. No mention of the many negative side affects women suffer from supposedly “safe” abortions. All things I am sure he mentioned. He ended up looking like a fanatical idiot while the opposite side looked intelligent and concerned. Yet, unless you were just paying attention to these details, it looked like the TV station had presented a fair, balanced report. Both sides got the same amount of time to state their arguments, right?
Bandwagon: The "bandwagon" approach encourages you to think that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, or you'll be left out.
Example:
The commercials showing large numbers of people owning cellphones.
The constant telling us Obama is ahead (when he really isn’t if you ask only those who are likely to vote. It is really very close with McCain ahead by a small margin).
Either/or fallacy: This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues.
Example:
In the vice presidential debates Biden stated that McCain had not done anything for education. He had not voted once for increased funding of daycare or schools. This leaves out the position that what education needs is NOT more money thrown at it, but new ideas such as vouchers and accountability (which have both proven to be highly effective.) He made the same kind of statement on several issues, implying that the only options were those Obama supports (more government).
The schools do this often also. You either vote to increase spending or you are against education. Hello. Some of us think there are other options, such as redirecting spending to vouchers so competition can make all schools better.
Doctors talking about homebirth do this too. Either go to the hospital to have your baby or you birth in a dark dirty, cellar with a neandrathal (midwives carry pitocin, methorgin, oxygen, do stitches, and use many modern techniques, plus most of us live less than ten minutes from a hospital and most complications that actually need more than a midwife carries give you a couple of hours to get the help you need.)
You must use birth control or you will have 25 children! Never mind the average before birth control, when people married ten years younger than they do now, was only 7. God put natural stoppers in there. We really can trust Him to not overburden us (an option besides pills and surgeries).
My favorite; if you don’t cut your hair sometimes it will grow until you are dragging twenty feet of hair behind you everywhere! Puhhh-leeese. Few people could grow hair that long if they wanted to! We all have a natural length it will stop at (an option besides regular hair cuts).
Faulty Cause and Effect- thinking that because B follows A, A must cause B.
Example:
Did you know that EVERYONE who ate carrots in the 1850 has DIED! Bet you didn’t know carrots were so dangerous, did you?
80% of those in care accidents have eaten green beans in the last week. Maybe we need government controls on these dangerous vegetables!
The number of children diagnosed with learning disabilities in Texas went up after the Cowboys won the Super Bowl. Isn’t it sad that they would put winning a game over children’s education and continue to try to win?
“The Internet came into existence during the Clinton administration, thus, Clinton caused the Internet.” No. He happened to be president at the time technology came together to cause it. It had nothing to do with him.
“Bush was in office when the housing market crashed so the crash is his fault.” Now, he may be partly at fault, but the crash of programs created in the thirties and seventies, that were told by congress during the 90’s, to give mortgages to people that could not make the payments is not very much his fault. It was inevitable that mass numbers of people would default. Like Clinton and the Internet, he just happened to be president when it happened.
“Clinton was president when the economy boomed thus his policies must have caused it.” The groundwork laid in the previous administrations had nothing to do with it? Neither did the republican congress that ignored Clinton’s budgets and made their own? How would we know Clinton caused the boom?
“Public schools are in universal use. Most people can read. Thus schools caused literacy.” Goes against the evidence to the contrary.
“Babies began to be born at hospitals in the early 1900’s. Newborn and mother fatality fell drastically at this time. Thus hospitals caused the drop in birth related deaths.” Does not take into account that homebirths had an even greater drop in deaths at the same time due to better over all nutrition and the discovery of germs and the institution of hand washing!
Errors of Faulty Logic (also way too common in politics)
Contradiction: Information is presented that is in direct opposition to other information within the same argument.
Example: If someone stated that schools were overstaffed, then later argued for the necessity of more counselors, that person would be guilty of contradiction.
Or if they argued that government is too big or taxes too high and then promised “goodies” if they are elected.
Accident: Someone fails to recognize (or conceals the fact) that an argument is based on an exception to the rule.
Example: By using selected scholar-athletes as the norm, one could argue that larger sports programs in schools were vital to improving academic performance of all students.
Begging the Question: A person makes a claim then argues for it by advancing grounds whose meaning is simply equivalent to that of the original claim. This is also called "circular reasoning."
Example:
Someone argues that schools should continue to have textbooks read from cover to cover because, otherwise, students would not be well-educated. When asked to define what "well-educated" means, the person says, "knowing what is in the textbooks."
Or the evolutionists dating the fossil by the rocks it is found in and then dating the rocks by what fossils they find in them (I am serious. This is how they “know” how old fossils AND rocks are!)
Evading the Issue: Someone sidesteps and issue by changing the topic.
Example: When asked to say whether or not the presence of homosexuals in the army could be a disruptive force, a speaker presents examples of homosexuals winning combat medals for bravery.
Or just watch any presidential debate. They seldom actually answer any questions.
Arguing from Ignorance: Someone argues that a claim is justified simply because its opposite cannot be proven.
Example:
Ministers arguing that the historical view of prophecy can’t possibly be right because Paul said the son of perdition has to come (those who believe the historical view believe he came during the dark ages.)
School principals saying parents can’t give a good academic education when all correctly done scientific studies show they do a better job than either public or private schools.
Doctors saying babies don’t get enough oxygen during birth when born out of the hospital when the ONLY study to say such a thing mixed “Honey we ain’t gonna make it” births and teens popping the kid out in a mall bathroom and dumping it in the trashcan with PLANNED home births. Other studies that did make a difference in the type of out of hospital birth have shown homebirths to have LESS oxygen deprivation.
Composition and Division: Composition involves an assertion about a whole that is true of its parts. Division is the opposite: an assertion about all of the parts that is true about the whole.
Example:
“My dog has fleas, thus all dogs have fleas”
Some religious people are a little nuts (name me a category that doesn’t have its nuts) so all religious people are nuts.
Some religious leaders are evil so all religious leaders are evil.
Some homeschoolers abuse their children thus all homeschoolers abuse their children. (homeschoolers actually have a lower rate of abuse than traditional schoolers)
Some babies die at homebirth so all babies die at homebirth. (Again, the rate of severe problems at home are actually lower than at hospitals. Due to genetic defects and other unavoidable problems, some babies just don’t make it no matter where they are born).
Errors of Attack
Appealing to Force: Someone uses threats to establish the validity of the claim.
Example:
Opponents of year-round school threaten to keep their children out of school during the summer months.
Supporters of Obama warn of racial riots if he doesn’t win.
Supporters of Palin warn of mass moose rebellions if she looses.
Errors of Weak Reference
Appeal to the People: Someone attempts to justify a claim on the basis of popularity.
Example:
Children love potato chips and ice cream so we must have it at every meal.
Opponents of year-round school claim that students would hate it.
A politician states that “everyone” wants universal government health care so we should create it.
Appeal to Emotion: An emotion-laden "sob" story is used as proof for a claim.
Example:
See the above story about the girl who flunked the nursing test.
Newspapers telling us about a family with big medical bills that is barely too rich to qualify for Medicaid.
A talk show host telling us about a business that closed because of high taxes.
Word approval – The use of words or phrases by the media or celebrities to make them more popular. Soon everyone is using those words. This has caused the increase in the use of cuss words as well as politically correct terminology.
Word disapproval – Same as above only in reverse. Celebrities act upset when certain words are used making us think the use of such words will bring disapproval. Also, laws are passed making the use of certain words or phrases a “hate crime.”
Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times.
Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilized conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.
Typical examples are
'gay' for sex pervert;
'love-making' for casual copulation;
'multi-cultural' for anti-western;
'negotiated settlement' for surrender;
'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate;
'value-free' for unprincipled
Pro- choice for pro- abortion,
Pro- education for anti-homeschooling,
pro-modern medicine for anti-natural healing techniques.
Censorship – On a legal level, confined to the government out-lawing certain words, expressions or ideas. Some forms of censorship are of course good; for example when applied to pornography (which causes violence against women), national security and libelous material. The limits of the Bible and Constitution determine whether or not censorship is good or bad.
There is a move in congress to require talk radio stations to have “equal time” for liberals as for conservatives (talk radio is the only media source that is predominantly conservative). The same people are not calling for “equal time” in newspapers or on TV. Thus the motive for this move is obviously to shut up the conservative talk show hosts.
Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism.
Example;
Sexually active singles are featured in numerous programs as if they were normal and acceptable. They are often depicted as highly intelligent, responsible, exemplary and 'caring' people, who enriche our society in every way. In popular radio and TV series they are almost invariably cast as model citizens, and heroes by program-makers aptly described as 'inverted missionaries.' And if the plot will not sustain too many obvious sexual references, they are gratuitously inserted into background scenes.
The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the “non-traditional sexual relationship” campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.
‘Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life – no, not even politics – more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
‘...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?’
Matthew Parris, London Daily Mail, 21 April 1996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Women who get an abortion between the ages of 18 and 30 have twice the risk of breast cancer than women who never have an abortion. Wome... -
What is Quiverful? Nothing I say here is in condemnation of those that are infertile through no fault of their own. Some infertility is the...
-
Chapter 53 1Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Who will choose to believe the prophets o...