Posts
A few months ago, the Language Arts teacher in the next classroom asked the following question for a writing assignment: “Is the United States the best country in the world?” Only about 25% of our students thought so. We used to teach that to schoolchildren, but now they grow up hearing more about slavery and killing Indians than the ideals spelled out in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution with its Bill of Rights. It’s those documents that make us the best. We will remain so as long as we abide by them. I asked the 75% who said the United States wasn’t the best, which country they thought was better. Although nobody could name one, they were certain it couldn’t possibly be us. For months I’ve been wondering why. There are several possible reasons, and most originated in the 1960s. My generation of baby boomers - the one most famous for rebelling against their parents generation as all generations do - never grew up. If it had, it would have realized that utopia is only a dream - that humans are imperfect and always will be this side of the grave.
I watched a PBS fundraiser last week with Pete Seeger and his fellow leftists performing sixties songs like “Blowing In The Wind” and “If I Had A Hammer.” They’re nice tunes and I still like them, but it occurred to me that my generation really believed it was possible to eliminate war forever.
Bob Dylan wrote and sang nice lyrics like:
“Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls flyand
Before they're forever banned?”
“Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knowsPete Seeger wrote and sang nice lyrics like:
That too many people have died?”
“It's the hammer of justiceYahoo Answers asked about the meaning of “If I Had A Hammer” and picked the following as the best explanation:
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land”
“It was recorded during the early '60s as a song of enlightenment. It tells about the injustice of our society at that time, which really hasn't changed much in 40-plus years. It speaks of the effort by the then baby boomer generation, to set the world straight about freedom and justice for all people regardless of race. We're still waiting!”Indeed. The baby boomers are still waiting. Many still believe it’s possible to ban war and death and create justice and peace everywhere, and they’re running our universities. They control the mainstream media. A year ago, they took over the federal government. Now their savior, President Obama, goes around the world bowing to foreign leaders, apologizing for our country, and trying to redistribute our wealth.
At ninety-one, Pete Seeger is still a communist. President Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers claims he is a “small c” communist. He trains our public school teachers and writes textbooks about what they should teach. According to an article by Stanley Kurtz: “[Ayers] believes teacher education programs should serve as ‘sites of resistance’ to an oppressive system. The point, says Mr. Ayers in his ‘Teaching Toward Freedom,’ is to ‘teach against oppression,’ against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.”
Ayers and the University of Illinois are typical of professors and universities who train our teachers all over the country. Their “sites of resistance” are our public-school classrooms. It’s almost exclusively “American oppression” their teachers “teach against” rather than the communist variety, or the more recent Radical Muslim variety because that’s what was drilled into them.
Far more students are taught about Japanese internment camps in the US, for example, than about the Americans who died in the Bataan Death March at the hands of the Japanese in the Philippines.Although it goes against the multicultural shibboleths purporting that all cultures are equal, I would point to strong evidence that the United States is not only the best country in the world, it’s the best country in all of recorded history - a shining city on a hill, as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan called us. The finest example would be our role in World War II. The war had been raging for years but we were reluctant to enter until attacked by the Japanese. Then we mobilized, fought on two fronts, and won against terrific odds. At war’s end, we possessed a huge military, were the only country with nuclear weapons, and the only country not damaged in battle. What did we do with that hegemony? Unique in all of history, the United States did not establish an American empire. Instead, we assisted other countries to rebuild - even our enemies - and did everything we could to preserve the autonomy in every country on earth large and small.
In the face of all that, petulant, leftist baby boomers still wring their hands and call the United States “imperialist.” I shouldn’t be surprised by the way my students see their country, but I can’t help being saddened and dismayed. Whenever I have the opportunity, I shall emphasize more strongly what is unique and wonderful about the United States. We remain, as Abraham Lincoln described us: “The last, best hope on earth.”
107 comments:
Normally by now there are many posts to this blog. This one is really hard to dismiss. I have never seen the hate America attitude more virulent than it is now. David Horowitz's movement for academic freedom is desperately needed.
Well lets give these kids and some of the adults too, a year or two stay in China or most any of the 'Islamic' nations, or send them to Haiti or any so called third world country to help with the problems there. Lets take away their cell phones, computers, cars comfortable homes, three good meals a day, a warm bed to sleep in, actual punishment for wrong doing, and the freedom to choose. Even a couple of years in our own military would wake them up to the realities. Everything is not for everybody but I will take what I have and be very greatful. Most of these kids have it too easy, and guess whose fault that is.
"As the twig is bent, so shall the tree grow"...why are we surprised when the educational system as described by you, Tom, produces the masochistic USA-loathing students you describe? Fortunately, there are notable exceptions still teaching in our schools. Keep up the good work!
Here here. -Monroe Mann
That America is the greatest country both now and in the history of the world is a point on which everyone of all political persuasions can agree.
But let's face the truth--we are not #1 in areas such as health care--and what makes us great is that we never stop striving to be better. That is why the effort to bring affordable health coverage to all, to take just one example,is at the heart of what has made America great.
What's it like to think we're "The Best" when you despise half the country?
Andrew,
We are #1 in health care. That's why others in the world come here for medical care, including the premier of Newfoundland/Labrador comes here for heart surgery.
You seem to believe our government has an obligation to provide health care for every citizen. I don't. It's not the purview of government. If people want to form private charitable concerns to provide health care for others, fine. They're free to do so under our system, but don't use the coercive power of a central government to force the rest of us to pay for other people. We'll do it if we wish to, but we resent it when it's forced on us.
Anthony,
I don't despise half the population, but I do resent elite liberals who congratulate themselves by using government to give away the shirt off my back.
Let's leave the hyperbole and fear mongering alone for once, Tom. You seem to be doing just fine.
"We are #1 in health care."
Tom, you should put an asterisk next to that statement:
*if you can afford it and aren't denied coverage
It's fair to argue that it is not the governments job to provide health care. What I think is demonstrably cruel is when people who already have insurance and pay into the system are denied critical care.
When an insurance company denies coverage for a life-saving operation so that they're stock goes up a percentage point, I see no difference between that and seeing a person bleeding to death on the side of the road, refusing to help, and taking money out of his/her wallet.
One of those actions is illegal, but they're both the same and both should be illegal.
Can we at least agree on this, Tom?
You do belong to the party that touts the "sanctity of life" after all.
I'm an Independent conservative.
Tom, i know you like dodging questions, but here is one for you. What evidence do you have that Ayers is a "good friend" of Obama. Let's discount the fundraiser thing because surely you know that everybody that goes to a fundraiser at somebody's home is not a "good friend".
You have anything of substance or are you just talking out your arse again?
Really, Tom? Can't get you to agree on this one?
Excerpts from an article on NPR:
In 2000, health care experts for the World Health Organization tried to do a statistical ranking of the world's health care systems. They studied 191 countries and ranked them on things like the number of years people lived in good health and whether everyone had access to good health care. France came in first. The United States ranked 37th.
Some researchers, however, said that study was flawed, arguing that there might be things other than a country's health care system that determined factors like longevity. So this year, two researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine measured something called the "amenable mortality." Basically, it's a measure of deaths that could have been prevented with good health care. The researchers looked at health care in 19 industrialized nations. Again, France came in first. The United States was last.
France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist.
Americans often assume that when people get universal coverage, they give up their choice in doctors, hospitals and care. That's not the case in France, Dutton says. The system is set up both to ensure that patients have lots of choice in picking doctors and specialists and to ensure that doctors are not constrained in making medical decisions.
In France, the national insurance program is funded mostly by payroll and income taxes. Those payments go to several quasi-public insurance funds that then negotiate with medical unions to set doctors' fees. (Doctors can choose to work outside this system, and a growing minority now charge what patients are willing to pay out of pocket.) The government regulates most hospital fees. This system works collectively to keep costs down.
When someone goes to see a doctor, the national insurance program pays 70 percent of the bill. Most of the other 30 percent gets picked up by supplemental private insurance, which almost everyone has. It's affordable, and much of it gets paid for by a person's employer.
In France, the sicker you are, the more coverage you get. For people with one of 30 long-term and expensive illnesses — such as diabetes, mental illness and cancer — the government picks up 100 percent of their health care costs, including surgeries, therapies and drugs.
France has made an unusual guarantee that every cancer patient can get any drug, including the most expensive and even experimental ones that are still being tested, says Dr. Fabian Calvo, deputy director of France's National Cancer Institute. This kind of access is why the French — unlike Americans — say they are highly satisfied with their health care system, he says.
When compared with people in other countries, the French live longer and healthier lives. Rodwin says that's because good care starts at birth. There are months of paid job leave for mothers who work. New mothers get a child allowance. There are neighborhood health clinics for new mothers and their babies, home visits from nurses and subsidized day care.
France's health care system is one of the most expensive in the world.
But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.
Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
Tom said: "You seem to believe our government has an obligation to provide health care for every citizen. I don't. It's not the purview of government."
So, Tom, we should abolish Medicare? Or is it OK for the government to subsidize health care for some but not all?
That post on the French system is interesting. Thanks, even if you are anonymous.
Harry,
So nice to hear from you again after all this time. Bill Ayers wasn't just someone who lived in Barack's neighborhood as our president claimed. Together, they spent $100 million in Annenberg Challenge Grant funds to "reform" education in Chicago public schools between 1996 and 2001. They worked together quite closely, but our mainstream media was just as silent on that association as they were on John Edward's dalliances.
The federal government has no business in the health insurance business, period. If states want to provide it, fine. There's nothing in the US Constitution that allows it. It's bankrupting us. We cannot sustain it. People should pay for their own medical care.
Here's a thought, Educator McLauglin: how 'bout we stop brainwashing the kids by lying to them about American history and filling their heads with nationalistic nonsense? Instead we could perhaps transform this country into a place to be truly proud of. A place where everyone is equal, where justice is truly for all, not just for those who can afford it.
It seems you'd rather lie to and brainwash the kids, just as you've lied in this column. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama might have been involved in projects together, but you cannot prove your assertion that they were close friends. I'm certain you work with a lot of teachers, but you aren't close friends with all of them. See how that works? Using hyperbolic talking points is not especially interesting or creative.
Mr. McLaughlin, when I read a supposedly carefully written commentary I insist on the writer getting the facts correct. I have read your 'independent' ideas for years and I have been continually disappointed and dismayed by your 'style' of teaching your ideology in the classroom through 'leading' your students with just the right question. This is usually after you may not get the answer that you wanted to hear from the lead in question. I have seen this in many of your columns. But this particular time you have either outright lied (I hope not) or not bothered to do your homework (being a teacher this may be worse)to whit Pete Seeger has not been a communist since the 1950's and I believe, though I would not swear to it, it was the mid 50's that his alliance with that group changed to the point that he had heated arguments with acquaintances who remained communists. This is not as bad as plagiarism for a writer but it is sloppy and as a reader of your commentaries in the Sun I would expect a retraction and explanation. I would also think that you would want to discuss this with your students so that none of them could or would make a similar gaff in the future. Now that would be a teaching moment.
Oh, and the hackneyed attitude of the right, that only they truly love America, is laughable, with the caveat that people like you actually believe it. When you correct the actions of your child or students that you consider wrong is that a sign that you have no love for them? Have you looked up the meaning of ideologue?
Tom, you seem to underestimate human nature. When it comes down to it, we are all animals, and we will do what it takes to survive.
What happens when health care becomes completely unaffordable for most Americans? Do you think everyone will sit back, become sick and possibly die en masse just to appease some misguided political virtue that is unrealistic?
I wonder if you would feel the same if all the sudden you found yourself denied critical coverage to save your or a loved ones life. Would you deny life saving care just because some public money was involved?
Of course you wouldn't. No one who cares about life would die for such a silly reason.
What would Jesus do? I'm sure he'd deny someone coverage so his stock would go up a percentage point.
Tom's own health insurance is paid for by taxpayers. What a hypocrite.
Anonymous,
So is my salary. It's all part of the remuneration package for every employee, public and private. What's your point?
OK Tom you claim some vast media conspiracy by mainstream Americans, so what evidence does your radical right wing media people have? You mentioned none, just said they were in a business venture along with many others. What evidence exists showing them to be even friends, let alone good ones. Business aquantinces, yes perhaps, but your claim? Another outright lie. Who do you think you are fooling with that? You are hoping to ring in some uninformed reader who trusts you?
Shameless. I can't believe you even have the nerve to talk with me again after hiding like a baby from my other questions.
Well, I for one, am staying.
My feeling is that Mclaughlin is not the ignoramous that he appears to be with his sloppy journalism (calling people commies, claiming people are close friends, and the multitudes of other misinformation he regularly throws out). No, I think it is worse. I think that he knowingly regurgitates any lie that he thinks will help his cause. When cornered he doesn't even attempt to defend his lies. He wimps out and hides. The truth means nothing to the man if it gets in the way of his ideologue. Disgusting behavior from anybody, let alond a teacher.
Tom, you say that Obama goes around the country apologizing for America. Can you please give me some quotes so as to let me know when these "apologies" occured?
I searched and searched and found nothing that constituted an apology. I did find this related quote from Obama though:
" my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests…"
Thanks.
Why is apologizing a bad thing for the Radical Right? Do these people raise their children to never apologize? Do they think that America is, and has always been, perfect?
I think it has something to do with the stubborness and indifference to reality that these people display. I can't imagine McClaughlin ever apologizing....no, he'll run and hide and pretend that his errors were never called out, but he is not man enough to admit he was wrong, or that he lied. It takes courage to apologize. It takes a strong moral character. Things that some people do not understand.
So, which is it Tom, are you not bright enough to research facts and understand reality, or are you an ideologue who understands it but chooses to ignore it and spew lies in hopes of convincing idiots that what you say is true for your own cynical political purposes?
"What would Jesus do? I'm sure he'd deny someone coverage so his stock would go up a percentage point."
Jesus would heal them on the spot. He was healthcare in more ways than one!
Government healthcare wasn't his thing. He was more into personal responsibility and accountability.
Dawn
You may be right about what Jesus himself would have done. But what would he have us do? Jesus was all about personal responsibility--specifically our responsibility to love God and love others.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) makes it pretty clear where Jesus stood when it came to helping the poor. In this country we have so many poor people--poor through no fault of their own--and through health care reform we have the chance to help them.
What we do for the least of these, we do for Him. Matthew 25:40.
WWJD? Seems pretty clear to me.
And Tom, you're right . . . how naive of Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan to believe that we could end war; how unrealistic of Dr. Martin Luther King to believe that racism could be eradicated; how stupid of Mother Teresa to dedicate herself to India's sick and poor.
The best country in the world is what it is because of people who believed they could change things. You and other conservatives would have been adamantly opposed at the time to all of the revolutionary thinking that has helped get us where we are today. You'd have moved to Nova Scotia in 1777.
Andrew,
The Revolution is one of the few American wars in which I would have fought. As an 18-year-old living in Lovell and knowing what I know now about America's conflicts, I would not have enlisted in War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, or WWI.
Some wars can be avoided and should be. Others are inevitable and must be fought. If we avoid them, we will become slaves.
Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa didn't work for government. They worked through private, religious institutions. Their work was marvelous. I supported Mother Theresa's efforts, but I was too young for MLK's.
Government is the proper vehicle for war, but not for humanitarian work. When government attempts such things, it performs them poorly at best. Most often, they become corrupted and I resent being forced to subsidize them by coercive taxation imposed on me by liberal do-gooders. That's my only point.
Stephen,
Obama has given speeches in Prague, Strasbourg and Cairo, and elsewhere in which he's apologized for American "arrogance," among other things.
Haven't you heard about this?
@ Andrew
"What we do for the least of these, we do for Him. Matthew 25:40"
Yes, but that's NOT forced giving. We are to give out of the abundance of the heart. Forced giving is NOT scriptural.
The bible also says "if you do not work, you do not eat."
Are you familiar with God's welfare program? Read the book of Ruth (only 4 chapters) and you'll get an idea.
God also said "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." He does not want us to give unless the heart is right. Otherwise it means nothing.
The whole Robin Hood ideology is NOT biblical.
BTW...what do you think about the time expensive precious oil was poured over Jesus head and he was criticized because that could have gone to help the poor? Matt 26:11
All I can say, Dawn, is that you and I have very different notions of Jesus's message. I don't think Jesus meant that we should be generous to the less fortunate only if we feel like it.
Giving "out of the abundance of the heart" isn't cutting it. The poverty rate in America was the highest in 11 years in Sept. 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58943C20090910
Probably there is much more the wealthy could do, but they aren't doing it voluntarily. The very wealthy could obviously do more, but those of us who aren't wealthy can lend our voices to the cause of economic justice, including health care reform. After all, isn't doing what we can to rectify the injustices of life at the heart of Jesus's message?
Oh, and Harry? KMA.
So Andrew, you think Jesus would have you lobby your congressman to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy back up to 92%?
No, Tom--I don't assume that the call gets anywhere so specific.
But I do think we are called to be compassionate, both in our individual lives and as citizens in society. What course of action that translates to is debatable, but clearly the call is there, whether we be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, what have you, because compassion is the defining human quality.
So yes, I believe I am called to advocate for the the least among us. It's no coincidence that the poverty level increased while taxes on the most wealthy fell during the past decade. So much for the trickle down theory. And if the wealthy are too greedy to share "out of the abundance of their hearts," then hell yes, tax them. And you? Is there any moral or theological underpinning to your advocacy? Natural selection maybe?
"Stephen,
Obama has given speeches in Prague, Strasbourg and Cairo, and elsewhere in which he's apologized for American "arrogance," among other things.
Haven't you heard about this?"
Yes, To,. I've heard the speeches and went back and reread the Cairo one. My question remains: can you give me the quotes from these 3 speeches that constitute an apology?
"Stephen,
Obama has given speeches in Prague, Strasbourg and Cairo, and elsewhere in which he's apologized for American "arrogance," among other things.
Haven't you heard about this?"
Yes, To,. I've heard the speeches and went back and reread the Cairo one. My question remains: can you give me the quotes from these 3 speeches that constitute an apology?
"Oh, and Harry? KMA."
Did you make a choice that you would enjoy that, Tom? The truth hurts doesn't it?
And Stephen, don't expect any answers from Tom. Just like when I trounced him in the "choice" debate he'll probably go into hiding.
Again, one wonders - is Tom just another uninformed sucker who heard Fox news and other Radical Right Wing Media refer to the "Apology Tour" and is blindly repeating it himself, or is he another morally corrupt being who knows it is a lie but believes they can create their own reality if the lie is repeated often enough?
Stephen,
Here I quote Karl Rove quoting Obama:
"'[The US] has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe.' In Prague, he said America has 'a moral responsibility to act' on arms control because only the U.S. had 'used a nuclear weapon.' In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by 'just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy' -- as if that were a bad thing."
I'm sure you've seen this and you'll likely suggest that it's not a "smoking gun" apology quote. Then you're prepared to cite George Soros's "Media Matters" parsing Karl Rove's parsing of Obama.
Let's skip all that. I interpret his remarks as apologetic. You don't. If you voted for Obama, perhaps you're starting to feel guilty the way I felt guilty having voting for Clinton in 1992 (I still do) before I finally grew up. Perhaps you're not ready to admit Obama is a disaster in the making for America. It seems you're still willing to defend him by fending off attacks on him from people like me.
Fine. But you're still reading this web site, so you'll likely come around in your own time.
Just because you "interpret" Obama's remarks to be an apology don't make them one. Here is a definition for you (words have meanings):
:an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret
Let's give an example. If I say "I bumped into you" it is not an apology. If I say, "ooops, sorry that I bumped into you", that IS an apology. The difference is not that subtle.
You also know something is an apology when it is admitted that an apology was made, such as when Bush apologized to the Knig of Jordan.
"The White House released an announcement yesterday that said the President apologizes for the torture photos. White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said that President apologized for what happened."
Daily World News
And Harry,
I don't like your tone, so I said KMA. And yes, it feels good to tell someone to kiss my ass. It would feel even better to look you in the eye when I say it. That way it's a direct, man-to-man challenge and we'd see who the coward is. But alas, that's not possible in this forum.
I don't hide from challenges. I just don't have time to answer all of them. Wish I did. My name is on everything I write and my address is in the phone book. I don't know who you are.
Of course I knew where you were going with your questons about my sexuality. I told you I like women and I'm faithful to one. Have been for forty years.
You weren't satisfied with that and you wanted me to go into more detail about what "turns me on" and what doesn't, even though that's none of your business. You wanted me to say that men don't turn me on, never did, and never will. That's true, Harry. It's the way I was created. If other men do get turned on by men, it's a perversion, plain and simple.
If homosexuals want to give free rein to their perversions, that's none of my business. However, when they want society's approval in the form of homosexual "marriage," I'll object publicly as I always do.
During my forty years of monogamy, other women have tempted me and still do. It's my choice to avoid those temptations. If I gave them free rein, they would destroy my marriage and my family, so I don't. We make our choices and we live with them, Harry.
If I ever should give in, I would not ask society to ease my guilt and approve my behavior by legalizing polygamy. It's not in society's interest to do so. My wife would never go along with it anyway.
The marriage of one man and one woman is best for raising children and for our society. When it breaks down, society breaks down. The evidence is all around us.
To whatever anonymous wuss said Pete Seeger hasn't been a communist since 1950: Seeger said on PBS two weeks ago that he was asked during the sixties to renounce his association with communism as a pre-condition for appearing on network television, but he refused.
"If homosexuals want to give free rein to their perversions, that's none of my business. However, when they want society's approval in the form of homosexual "marriage," I'll object publicly as I always do."
AMEN! My thoughts as well.
"All I can say, Dawn, is that you and I have very different notions of Jesus's message. I don't think Jesus meant that we should be generous to the less fortunate only if we feel like it."
that's the problem...you "don't think." You want to believe what you want to believe picking and choosing what Christ said ignoring the stuff you don't want to hear. You didn't answer my question about the expensive ointment I see.
It reminds me of a story of Abe Lincoln. He bought freedom for a pretty slave girl who was being auctioned. He protected her from the perverts who wanted her. When Lincoln handed her her freedom via a piece of paper he said she was now free.
Am I free to do what I want? Go where I want? Say what I want? He said yes. Then she said...I want to follow you.
That's the same with Christ. He set us free from sin and the wages of death attached to that sin. If our heart is right with God we will take care of the poor and needy. It's not the government's job to force us.
Tom said:
"...men don't turn me on, never did, and never will. That's true, Harry. IT'S THE WAY I WAS CREATED."
Thank you Tom! It is the way you were created, just as it is for gays. Case closed.
Boy, you must feel goofy for writing a whole nasty column claiming the opposite a few weeks back. At least you are learning and admiting the truth now.
Ah, a glorious day when old misconceptions are put to rest.
The question wasn't whether Seeger was or wasn't a communist in the sixties, it is if he is NOW. That is the claim you made.
My definition of a wuss is one who calls people names from behind the safety of their keyboard.
Only in your dreams, Harry.
Andrew, do not question Dawn on God's word or Jesus' word. For some mysterious reason she is the only one who knows the truth. All interpretations that differ from Dawns are wrong. That is just the way it is. Just ask Dawn.
Only WHAT in my dreams, Tom? Take a breath, get a grip, and try to write something that makes sense.
"My definition of a wuss is one who calls people names from behind the safety of their keyboard."
That from someone who hides behind anonymity.
Pete Seeger in 2004 to Mother Jone Magazine:
"I'm still a communist . . ."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1619
Close enough for you?
That is 2004, not NOW.
You're impossible. I suppose you want me to call him up and ask him.
You do it. Let me know what he says.
"do not question Dawn on God's word or Jesus' word. For some mysterious reason she is the only one who knows the truth."
well, instead of attacking me anonymously..why not at least debate me fairly? Back up what you believe with God's word.
I read the truth...all of it. Do you?
A lawyer went to Christ and said:
"you have said the TRUTH for there is one God and there is none other but he; and to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the soul and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Christ said back..."you are not far from the Kingdom of God."
It all comes down to the heart issue. God doesn't want our sacrifices. He wants our heart.
So don't use government forcing charity as a biblical interpretation because it's just not there.
This excerpt from the writings of St. Vincent de Paul (Epist. 2546: Correspondance, entretiens, documents, Paris 1922-1925, 7)
(But I suppose Dawn know more than him)
"Even though the poor are often rough and unrefined, we must not judge them from external appearances nor from the mental gifts they seem to have received. On the contrary, if you consider the poor in the light of faith, then you will observe that they are taking the place of the Son of God who chose to be poor.
Although in his passion he almost lost the appearance of a man and was considered a fool by the Gentiles and a stumbling block by the Jews, he showed them that his mission was to preach to the poor: He sent me to preach the good news to the poor. We also ought to have this same spirit and imitate Christ’s actions, that is, we must take care of the poor, console them, help them, support their cause.
Since Christ willed to be born poor, he chose for himself disciples who were poor. He made himself the servant of the poor and shared their poverty. He went so far as to say that he would consider every deed which either helps or harms the poor as done for or against himself. Since God surely loves the poor, he also loves those who love the poor. For when one person holds another dear, he also includes in his affection anyone who loves or serves the one he loves. That is why we hope that God will love us for the sake of the poor. So when we visit the poor and needy, we try to understand the poor and weak. We sympathise with them so fully that we can echo Paul’s words: I have become all things to all men.
Therefore, we must try to be stirred by our neighbors’ worries and distress. We must beg God to pour into our hearts sentiments of pity and compassion and to fill them again and again with these dispositions.
It is our duty to prefer the service of the poor to everything else and to offer such service as quickly as possible. If a needy person requires medicine or other help during prayer time, do whatever has to be done."
Hmmm, that last bit is sounding like he'd support Obama's health care plan.
Tom, I see that after you saw the definition of "apology", you have given up the arguement that Obama went around apologizing to the world. Just to make sure you fully understand though, here are some words which DO make up a real apology:
"For here we admit a wrong"
Those words were said by Ronald Reagan during one of his "apology tours" where he admitted America's faults in throwing Japanese-Americans in camps. See how clear it is. There is no quibbling about whether or not it was an apology. Not that anything is wrong with apologies.
Wow, between this and your finally admitting that your sexuality is how you are created, you are really coming around to reality.
I said homosexuality is a perversion - as dictionary.com defines it:
"Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure."
A perversion of creation, if you will, but you won't of course.
You can think homosexuals were created that way if you want. I don't buy it and neither do the majority of other Americans, even in blue states as witnessed by the last seventeen state referendum questions in a row.
I know that's tough for you and Harry to swallow, but try it with a little bit of sugar. Sometimes that helps the medicine go down.
Oh, YOU were created the way you are, but not gays. Sorry but that is very, very lame and just doesn't fly.
Yes, perhaps it IS a perversion of creation, but nevertheless it is CREATION....therefore not a choice. Give it up, you admitted defeat yourself when you said you were CREATED the way you are.
Again, case closed, I'll argue no further with somebody who has already admitted they lose.
Two time loser - "choice" and "apologies"!!!!
"Hmmm, that last bit is sounding like he'd support Obama's health care plan."
soooo you're taking somebody's opinion instead of going to the truth? The source? Why is this guy's opinion better than the Word of God?
Jesus did not come to preach to the materialistic poor. He came to preach to the "poor in spirit." You're looking at the physical...not the spiritual.
Jesus did not come to make sick people well, he came to give dead people life.
To Stephen:
It's good to see you using quotation marks and giving credit to original authors now...rather than plagiarizing Andrew Sullivan columns.
To Harry:
It might be time to switch to decaf.
In your dreams, Harry.
What can a humiliated and defeated loser possibly say after getting trounced in consecutive arguments?
Only one thing appearently:
"In your dreams"
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."
Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."
Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
The message here is really very simple: help the needy. It's not hard to understand; it's just hard to do.
And the message is continuous. It's in the Torah; it's in the Prophets and Psalms; it's in the Gospels; it's in the Epistles.
Another thing to note about these verses is the lack of caveats-- the lack of excuses. None of them add "...once a year" or "...when you feel you can" or "...if they're moral" or "...unless they're black" or "...if they speak English". We have plenty of reasons (I'm sure you can think of a dozen) why we can't go out and feed the hungry, why we have to turn away the needy borrower-- and God help us, how many of us have sold so much as a lawnmower in order to have money to give away? But all those reasons belong to our sinful human nature, not to God. God just wants those needy people helped.
Deut. 15:10. You shall give generously to [your poor brother], and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings.
Luke 12:44. "Sell your possessions and give alms; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Tom, you sure are taking one hell of a beating. How can you possibly try and throw out the "apology tour" stuff after not being able to come up with ONE clear cut Obama apology, and then being shown explicit examples of Bush and Reagan apologizing for America?
How can you possible still claim that homosexuality is not a choice after stating yourself that your were CREATED a straight man?
How can you throw out the incredibly weak attempt at putting down our president for using a teleprompter when everybody knows that it has been widely used from Reagan on, AND your hero, Palin, resorts to writing on her hand?!!??
One by one your bitter attacks are shot down. But you will continue to make the same ones over and over like the shameless man you are. And I'll be laughing every time.
I don't know what you mean. I'm enjoying myself.
To the Anon who quoted all the bible verses. Not one advocates forced giving. Those scriptures advocate individual giving, not corporate giving. Most are OT mandates which were under the law. We are NOT under the law. We are under grace.
One of the NT scriptures you gave was of the Rich Young Ruler who was told by Jesus to sell all he had and follow him.
The point of the whole passage was NOT about "giving" but about showing this young man that he was breaking the commandments he said he was keeping. By NOT selling all he had (he walked away sadly) was showing not only was he covetous but most of all his money was his idol violating the very first commandment. Nothing at all to do with giving to the poor.
It all comes down to this:
"Every man according as he purposes in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Cor 9:7
"How can you possible still claim that homosexuality is not a choice after stating yourself that your were CREATED a straight man?"
How can you NOT know or understand that a man having a sex with a man is definitely a choice?
BTW...according to scripture God did NOT create homosexuals. So homosexuals are not genetically created but are environmentally made.
"Those scriptures advocate individual giving, not corporate giving. "
News flash Dawn ---the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are now treated as individuals.
"I don't know what you mean. I'm enjoying myself."
Ah, I see you have your leather-clad masochistic friend over tonight! How sweet, you little sadist.
Give up Tom
Dawn said:
"How can you NOT know or understand that a man having a sex with a man is definitely a choice?"
Dawn, what is your comment on Tom admitting that his being straight was due to creation. Just wondering.
@Harry
"Again, case closed, I'll argue no further with somebody who has already admitted they lose.
Two time loser - "choice" and "apologies"!!!!"
If you're mad at Tom for this it must be difficult to overstate your anger at Algore, Congressional Democrats, and Obama for advancing the Global Warming agenda. Especially now that Phil Jones (A Senior IPCC Scientist) admitted there has been no statistical global warming since 1995.
"BTW...according to scripture God did NOT create homosexuals. So homosexuals are not genetically created but are environmentally made."
Let's follow this logic here: this book says that God did not create homosexuals- therefore, homosexuals are not genetically created.
I'm sorry to say that this logic doesn't fly. Because unfortunately, this is America, and some people do not believe your book. Now, your ACTUAL arguments, such as societal influences and possible outcomes are much more valid. You, Dawn, whose son is a scientist, should have better arguments than this.
Just wondering, if I were to say that I am the Messiah, here for the Second Coming, how would you respond?
GBA - what the heck are you talking about? I think you wandered into the wrong conversation...
Hee hee...looks like GBA is trying to change the subject. Let's humor him and see what was said by Phil Jones (and this is verbatim):
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
I'm sure you feel foolish, GBA. Now can you quit interrupting with off topic issues.
@Alex:
"Just wondering, if I were to say that I am the Messiah, here for the Second Coming, how would you respond?"
I would laugh! Jesus said when he comes back he's coming the same way he left...and all eyes will see him when HE does. "as lightening from the east to the west."
"I'm sorry to say that this logic doesn't fly. Because unfortunately, this is America, and some people do not believe your book. Now, your ACTUAL arguments, such as societal influences and possible outcomes are much more valid. You, Dawn, whose son is a scientist, should have better arguments than this.
I can go "both ways" here. We were discussing the "book" so my comment was directed in that direction. The subject was about "creation." But I can go either in the direction of Science or societal influences if you wish. They back up the scriptures quite well and since I believe it all starts with the Word of God, I just naturally go to the source first.
"Dawn, what is your comment on Tom admitting that his being straight was due to creation. Just wondering."
I would agree with him. God doesn't "create" homosexuals.
Dawn, Tom said he was created in such a way that men could never turn him on. Exactly...he was CREATED that way. It is not possible for a straight man to be turned on by another man. This can only happen to a man that was created gay.
"This can only happen to a man that was created gay."
or..by a man whose mind has been seared!
Your mind has been seared, Dawn. BTW, you avoided answering why god not only had to slaughter all the babies (why not adoption?) AND all the animals in the discussion from the other thread.
Hmmm.
...and if you are not too busy avoiding the last question, can you tell me how exactly a person's brain gets "seared"?
Blogger Tom McLaughlin said...
To whatever anonymous wuss said Pete Seeger hasn't been a communist since 1950: Seeger said on PBS two weeks ago that he was asked during the sixties to renounce his association with communism as a pre-condition for appearing on network television, but he refused.
2/15/10 7:37 AM
Well, there's an outright lie Tom. In the biography of Pete Seeger called The Power of Song Mr. Seeger explains openly about having quit the communist party in the 50's and getting in heated discussion with friends who remained in the party. What you are referring to is his being blacklisted for 17 years by network television even after he had quit the party. It's obvious to me that you have no idea what you are talking about and further when you get backed into a wall you resort to name calling. You have no idea who I am but label me a wuss, further you find it o.k. to tell someone to kiss your ass. What kind of man are you?
Dawn, when trying to argue a point try and stick with reality. In other words, stop referring to an old book that most people do not take literally.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
"stop referring to an old book that most people do not take literally."
The book is just as relevant today as when written. That's the most interesting part of it all. I will not stop because I know what it says and it brings peace and truth to the hearer.
Once you've walked in a room full of light, there's no desire to go back into darkness.
I agree that MOST don't take it literally but there are still plenty that do. The "book" itself warns that "most" will take the broad way that leads to destruction.
"BTW, you avoided answering why god not only had to slaughter all the babies (why not adoption?) AND all the animals in the discussion from the other thread."
Anyone who knows me knows I avoid nothing but foolishness. I thought I answered that.
In order to understand this you have to understand the enemy who was out to destroy Israel. This is a war between good and evil. It's spiritual.
These people were descendants of Esau (twin brother to Jacob)the babies were warring even in the womb of their mother Rebekah before they saw the light of day.
So it's very complex but involves the protection of the Messianic line in which Jesus would be born later. Satan, was trying to corrupt it so in order to protect the line God issued this unique but divine command.
The enemy, Satan, tried to destroy God's people right in the Garden of Eden. Later he tried to corrupt the world (leading to Noah's flood). He then tried to destroy Israel by attacking armies and then by corrupting Israel with their idolatry by intermarrying with them (can't beat them join them mentality).
Any type of interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies which predicted the Messiah and the line he was to come through (Judah).
As far as the animals, I'm not sure only that God had cursed these people and anything owned by them. In the original language it was written they were "set apart" for destruction just as his people are "set apart" (sanctified) for eternal life.
To Harry and Anonymous,
I grew tired of Harry's quixotic rantings against Tom and decided that a subject change was needed. Hence, my previous post.
Also, here is another Phil Jones quote from 2/14/2010 copied verbatim, "for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming." So if we take your quote where Jones said that man is responsible for global warming and the quote he uttered 3 days ago we have this...
Man is responsible for no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years.
The fraudsters perpetrating Great Global Warming Hoax are admitting their 'errors' almost daily now and I'm still curious as to the level of Harry's anger about this.
I don't give a rat's ass about Global Warming. I think that pollution should be limited though for all sorts of health issues.
So you saying, Dawn, that the slaughtering of babies is not always wrong.
Do you think it possible that God could speak to you, Dawn? If so, what would you do if God asked you to slaughter some babies?
This god of yours sure seems like a psychopath.
That is probably why some other pyschopaths took up his work:
Hitler, at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
" I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2.
Again, Dawn - how does one get their brain "seared'?
What Phil Jones really said about global warming
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
What did climate scientist Phil Jones say to get the global warming deniers all, well, hot and bothered?
The Daily Mail has a story with this erroneous headline getting a lot of attention: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."
Uh, no, that's not what he said.
Don't take my word for it -- or the Daily Mail's -- in reporting what Jones has said. He has temporarily stepped down as the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Read the entire interview Jones had recently with the BBC, which was the source for the Daily Mail's story.
Here's the key part of the interview regarding warming in recent years:
Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.
"So you saying, Dawn, that the slaughtering of babies is not always wrong."
No. I never said that.
You are looking at Israel's history and trying to apply that to our modern day? Slaughtering babies is wrong. We are NOT God.
It's his divine right to do what he believes needs to be done. In this case it was for the salvation of the whole world.
He's the giver of life, not us. He takes lives everyday. We all die. That was a unique command and you're going to build a theology around that alone without taking into consideration the context?
The OT was about the letter of the law. The NT is about the heart of the law. We are NOT under the law. We are under grace.
"Again, Dawn - how does one get their brain "seared'?"
I didn't say brain. I said mind.
"Do you think it possible that God could speak to you, Dawn? If so, what would you do if God asked you to slaughter some babies?"
Yes, and he has. But he NEVER contradicts his word. That's a clue.
God isn't going to tell me to slaughter babies neither has He told any individual in scripture to do so. You're talking about a specific historical battle with alot of context to it.
We are also told to "test the spirits." Hitler was not of God. He was on the "other side."
So Dawn, you think it was wrong that those babies were slaughtered in god's name? If you think it was wrong then you put god's word in question - good for you for thinking for yourself!
If you think god was right in ordering the slaughter of babies then you have to admit that you think the slaughtering of babies is not always wrong...because in that particualr case you think it was right. You can't have it both ways.
"God isn't going to tell me to slaughter babies"
Who are you to say what god is going to tell you? God wanted babies slaughtered once, maybe the occasion will call for it again someday. Are you telling me this is impossible?
Face it, you excuse the killing of those babies because it was supposedly done in "god's name" (what a sicko notion) - to me that is no better
then people who excuse the killing of abortion doctors, or, for that matter, Hitler excusing the slaughter of jews. You are all in the same sick boat.
So Dawn, how does one's mind get "seared"?
People that think it was ok that babies were slaughtered in "god's name" have a seriously warped moral compass. They have their priorities precisely backwards, they are obsessed with precisely the wrong things. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg once said:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Stephen, I have a question and statement for you…
Question: What is your opinion about the ‘moral compass’ of people who think the slaughter unborn/partially born babies in the name of ‘reproductive rights’ is ok? (roughly 40,000,000 in the US alone)
Statement: I commend you for annotating your comment. It seems you are beginning to wright your own moral compass away from plagiarism and towards integrity.
I do not approve of abortion.
Jim, do you also approve of the slaughtering of babies if god gives the command?
Stephen, while I'm glad you disapprove of abortion, you did not answer my question. What do you think about the ‘moral compass’ people (specifically people in leadership positions in this country) that think the slaughter of unborn/partially born babies in the name of 'reproductive rights' is ok?
Is their 'moral compass' warped?
To answer your question to me: No.
Jim, ANYTIME somebody approves of murdering a baby, be it in the name of god or "choice", I think their moral compass is way off.
It blows my mind (sears it?) that religious fanatics do not agree with this.
So Dawn, how does one's mind get "seared"?
by supressing truth.
A depraved mind is one that is tested and found to be useless; not functioning properly; disqualified for its intended purpose.
A depraved mind is when the moral law of God which is written on the heart is literally stamped upon and replaced with cultural immorality. A seared mind is one where the conscience cannot function as it was intended. A seared mind is one which does not do things which are proper; is not moral and can't find its way back because their mind is so corrupt. It's when people don't think right for so long they can't find the path they should. A seared mind is one that advocates all wretched things and ignores all virtuous things.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindness; they are whispers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:28-32
An example of this is Clinton, the leader of our country, engaging in immorality. Even though he knew it was wrong he did it anyway even knowing the consequences. After committing immorality with Monica his approval rating actually went up. This is because the rest of the sinners felt comfortable because he's just like them. Without conscience, without reason and without restraint.
Thanks for the definition, Dawn, I now know that your mind is indeed seared, as alre all minds that condone the murdering of babies in ANY instance.
"as alre all minds that condone the murdering of babies in ANY instance."
believe what you want, but that's NOT what I said.
That's not what you said? Then explain yourself by responding to my post you avoided earlier:
"So Dawn, you think it was wrong that those babies were slaughtered in god's name? If you think it was wrong then you put god's word in question - good for you for thinking for yourself!
If you think god was right in ordering the slaughter of babies then you have to admit that you think the slaughtering of babies is not always wrong...because in that particualr case you think it was right. You can't have it both ways."
Which is it, Dawn. You think god was wrong or do you condone the baby killing?
Fascism is here.
Post a Comment