Thoughts of John

What is on my mind.


A gentlemen was wondering why he was unemployed one day. He went to sleep and woke up on a bed made in Mexico. The alarm that woke him up was made in Japan. After he took a shower and put on the clothes that where made in Indonesia the gentleman went to his kitchen to get some breakfast. He promptly cooked an egg in a fry pan from China and his toast was cooked in a toaster also made in China. He sat down in his chair that was made in Brazil to look on the Internet for a job. The computer that was been used came from Taiwan. Yet all the while he was wondering how he was going to find a job.

June 12, 2009 Posted by | culture, Democrat, liberal, politics, Republican, Uncategorized, unemployment, writing | | Leave a comment

Helping the Homeless

A question arose within a group of my friends today. And that question is “should we or should we not help the homeless.” There where several responses to this question. One response that came about was to buy food for the individual instead of giving them money for the simple fact that you can control what happens to your money. In response to this a member of the group said that he was in a McDonald’s in NYC and saw a Christian man buy a homeless person a meal and once the Christian man left the McDonald’s the homeless person took the meal up to the counter and said that there was something wrong with the meal and received the money back for the meal and left the McDonald’s.

Another person in the group saw a person on the side of the street with a sign that said “need money for beer.” He had a bag of pretzals and gave him the bag of pretzals. He felt that what goes better with beer than a bag of pretzals.

A couple in the group went to Baltimore on a trip. While there they did some sight seeing and came across a homeless person and gave the person a couple of bucks. Later that evening they where having a nice dinner out and the so called homeless person came in and had dinner themselves. However, this so called homeless person had more expensive clothes on and had a nicer dinner then the couple who gave him a couple bucks earlier in the day.

In my experience living in a big city and working downtown you see the same homeless people on the same street corner every day. I have even given them a buck or two to have them come back to me a couple blocks from where I gave them a buck and ask for another one.

I think the best thing for one to do is to donate either time or money to rescue type missions that help the homeless. That way you know where your money is going and you know that the money is being put to good use.

Does anybody else have any good thoughts that they would like to share?

March 8, 2009 Posted by | blogging, Christian, Christianity, conservative, culture, Democrat, family, liberal, politics, relationship, Republican, socialism, Uncategorized, welfare, writing | Leave a comment

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Now that Barack Hussein Obama and his enablers have enacted the most massive redistribution of wealth in history — more than four trillion dollars of
it, with trillions more yet to come — just ask yourself: “Are you better off today than you were in the good old days under George W. Bush?”

Is your home, or your market investment, or your retirement account worth more today than it was last November, when the election of BHO ushered in the era of “hope ‘n’ change”?

For some reason, both the housing and equity markets began declining after Democrats regained control of the Senate and House in 2006. Since Obama’s election, the bottom has dropped out. We as Americans have not only lost income and jobs, but also some 35 percent of the value of our homes and market/retirement accounts.</p

What happened? I thought the election of Obama and the rush to pass his so-called “economic stimulus package” was supposed to restore confidence in the economy and our national leadership? Could it be that some folks were duped into electing a Leftist “community organizer” to lead the world’s most powerful nation out of its worst economic crisis of confidence in decades? Indeed, this reality is just now sinking into the spongy heads of a growing chorus of Democrats. Could it be, too, that Obama’s policies actually have much less to do with economic recovery than with, to use his own words, “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” into a socialist republic?,

Many distinguished economists have issued loud warnings about the consequences of Obama’s socialist policies. They remind us that those policies didn’t work for Roosevelt (Obama’s model), and they won’t restore our economy today — assuming that economic recovery is actually Obama’s objective. For the record, Obama and his Leftist cadres have used the current economic crisis (which they seeded) as cover to implement their socialist “transformation of the USA” in under 60 days.

So, what will work? Economic liberty, which has always been self-regulating — free enterprise coupled with limited taxation and regulation, as outlined below.

President Ronald Reagan created the most recent template for economic and moral prosperity, outlined in “A Time for Choosing” and codified in the 1984 Republican Platform.

Inheriting the last great economic crisis in 1981, President Reagan said, “We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. … Only private industry in the last analysis can provide jobs with a future. … The fact is, we’ll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. … In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Of course, Reagan was quick to admit that his outline was based on the timeless wisdom of those from generations before his.

The free-enterprise principles Ronald Reagan advanced are rooted in those espoused by 18th-century moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, who is most noted for authoring “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Smith wrote, “In a market free from monopolies and self-serving public policies, competition among the
self-interests of isolated consumers and producers produces a stable and expanding economy. The self interested pursuit of wealth may not be individually satisfying but leads to an aggregate increase in wealth that is in the best interests of a nation. …
Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they sometimes are by public prodigality and misconduct.”

Our Founders understood these principles and advanced them into the 19th century. “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. … [A] wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

“The essence of Government is power,” wrote James Madison, “and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. … Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.”

According to John Adams, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. … A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

In the 20th century, there were three giants among free enterprise economists: Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek and Milton Friedman. Austrian economist and philosopher von Mises (1881-1973) argued, “All that good government can do to improve the material well-being of the masses is to establish and to preserve an institutional setting in which there are no obstacles to the progressive accumulation of new capital and its utilization for the improvement of technical methods of production…. The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer….[Consumers] make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities.”

Classical libertarian and free-market capitalist F.A. von Hayek (1899-1992) wrote, “Capitalism is not only a better form of organizing human activity than any deliberate design, any attempt to organize it to satisfy particular preferences, to aim at what people regard as beautiful or pleasant order, but it is also the indispensable condition for just keeping that population alive which exists already in the world. I regard the preservation of what is known as the capitalist system, of the system of free markets and the private ownership of the means of production, as an essential condition of the very survival of mankind…. Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom. … Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”

Perhaps the best known economist of the last century was Milton Friedman (1912-2006), who authored “Free to Choose.” Friedman, who in 1976 was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote, “The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy. … Roosevelt’s policies were very destructive. Roosevelt’s policies made the depression longer and worse than it otherwise would have been.”</p?

In regard to socialism, Friedman wrote, “The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both….
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. … We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.”

Of course, there are great free-market economists in our midst today — notable among them are Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams. Of Obama’s plans, Sowell writes, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. … It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. … The first lesson of economics is scarcity:
there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all of those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics….The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.”
Characteristically, Walter Williams cuts to the core: “Two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that’s exactly what thieves do — redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders’ vision, it’s a sin in the eyes of God. … No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical
expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive….One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting,
plundering and enslaving one’s fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him.”

So, what is one to conclude about the policies of Obama versus Reagan, and all the Patriots who went before Reagan?

Obama’s policies have nothing to do with economic recovery, but with growing the size and influence of the central government — the ultimate objective being to socialize the economy. The residual of free enterprise may well right our economy, in spite of Obama’s antics, but the consequences of the current government folly will certainly leave future generations
with a greater debt of servitude to our government masters — short of real “change.”
So, what constitutes “real” change?

There is a growing enthusiasm for “tea parties” around the nation, and some Patriot readers have inquired as to whether it is time for a tea party on the Potomac. I am quite sure, however, that if Thomas Jefferson and our other Patriot Founders were with us today, there would not be the smell of tea in the Potomac, but the smell of burnt powder over the Potomac. As
Jefferson asserted, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

by Mark Alexander of

March 7, 2009 Posted by | conservative, Democrat, politics, Republican, socialism, Uncategorized, welfare | Leave a comment

Taxes – Democrats Do Not Pay Unless Caught


Another Obamaphile fails to pay taxes: “As you can well imagine, I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns. I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them.” –Tom Daschle in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) ++ “I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly. My mistakes were unintentional.” –Daschle on Daschle ++ But back then…: “Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” –then-Sen. Tom Daschle on 7 May 1998

Throwing in the towel: “[I]f 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction. Right now, I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction.” –former Sen. Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services

Excuses: “Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I. But that mistake and this decision cannot diminish the many contributions Tom has made to this country.” –President Barack Obama

World’s smallest violin: “And when [Tom Daschle] ended up losing an election, he didn’t cash in and leave. He lost an election ending his public career. His net worth was less than a million dollars at that point. And here he went out in the private sector, and now he’s found himself having made a mistake and admitted to it. He took the steps necessary to start paying the taxes, make sure they’re paid. Now, that’s the right thing to do. I believe Tom Daschle’s one of the most honest people I’ve ever known or worked with in public life.” –Sen. Dick Durbin D-IL

Why should we just let Tom Daschle off with out penaltiy. If I did not pay my taxes like Mr. Daschle I would end up in jail or  a very stiff fine to say the least.

February 5, 2009 Posted by | conservative, culture, Democrat, liberal, Republican | 1 Comment

A Biblical Perspective on How to Approach Politcs

    Conclusion, Part. 5

The future we await is life eternal in the presence of the living God in a transformed world that again fully reflects the goodness and beauty intended by the Creator.
    We have failed miserably at faithfully fulfilling the creation mandate given to us in the Garden of Eden. We have created civilizations of great beauty and considerable justice, but they are pervasively marked with tears and injustice. Mercifully, the Creator who is the Redeemer intends, at the second coming, to remove the pervasive evil in our mixed efforts at building civilizations. God plans to take the glory of the nations into the new city (Rev. 21:26). The story that starts in a garden ends in a city with God reweaving the tangled strands that we have wrought in vain, transforming our feeble efforts into glorious cultures that sing the Creator’s praise.
    That understanding of the future shapes faithful Christian political life now in numerous ways. First, that understanding of the future, just like the biblical understanding of creation and persons, underlines the importance of the material world. It is so good that the Creator intends to restore it to wholeness.
    Second, there is clear continuity between history, the present, and the coming kingdom. To be sure, the sin that will persist until Christ’s return is evidence of the discontinuity that exists as well. We cannot create
perfect societies now. But if God plans to purge the glory of the nations of all evil and take it up into the New Jerusalem, then there is a connection between our imperfect work now to create just, beautiful civilizations and the perfection we await.
    Third, the knowledge that persons are designed for a future that far transcends the socioeconomic goods that any human government can provide this side of the coming kingdom dramatically relativizes all politics. A good life now of material abundance, justice, and freedom is important. But we are made for far more—for more than even the best human politics can ever deliver. Therefore politicians must make humble claims. They should promise only limited goods. Christians will reject political claims to offer more as idolatrous. And when faithful Christians have political power, they will only claim to offer modest, albeit significant, results. Knowing that persons are made to live forever in the presence of the living God, they know that government at its best can only offer a modest portion of what persons need to enjoy the good life.
    Fourth, because we know the whole story line, including the final chapter, we know where history is going. We know that God wants more justice, peace, and societal wholeness now because we know that wholeness will be complete at Christ’s return. And the vision of that future justice provides a powerful norm to judge the broken societies in which we live.
    Knowing where history is going and knowing the one who promises to write the final chapter, Christians have hope. To the extent that we truly believe the promise of Christ’s coming victory, the Christian story can produce powerful political movements for justice, peace, life, and freedom.
    Sometimes, of course, we will fail. Sin remains alive and powerful. Sometimes, for a generation or more, injustice, war, totalitarianism, and social evil of all kinds may advance rather than retreat. Even then, the assurance of Christ’s final victory provides hope that sustains our persistent, faithful struggle for justice even when the political tide is sweeping in the other direction.
    Knowing the Resurrected One, knowing that He will return, we also know that crusading evil can succeed only for a time. The decisive victory has already been won. Even when faithfulness involves martyrdom, even then we know who holds the future. Because He lives, we can face even the most terrifying tomorrows. Because one day the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord who will reign forever and ever.

Discipleship Journal, Issue 165, Ron Sider

Technorati Tags     ,,,,,,,,,,,,

May 11, 2008 Posted by | Christian, Christianity, conservative, culture, Democrat, Discipleship Journal, John McCain, Republican, Theology, Uncategorized, vote | Leave a comment

A Biblical Perspective on How to Approach Politcs

Sin’s Effects, Part. 3

The biblical story shows that sin has devastated the created order. No part remains uncorrupted. In the fall, we refused to accept God as Lord, choosing instead to place ourselves at the center of reality and make our own moral rules. The result has been devastation in all our relationships—with God, neighbor, earth, and self.
Our relationship with God is radically broken. Disobedience means that rebellious sinners no longer rightly reflect who God is. However God continues to love even defiant children, providing a plan of salvation and continuing to call us to repent and return to Him.
In our self-centered, individualistic actions we violate communal obligations and trample upon the common good of our neighbors. But we cannot abolish our communal nature, no matter how selfish we become. Since we are irrevocably social beings, our accumulating set of selfish personal choices eventually shapes whole social systems that are radically flawed. Vast numbers of personal sinful choices that are racist or sexist or economically unjust eventually produce complex social and legal systems that are racist, sexist, and unjust.
Earlier we saw that central to the meaning of God’s image in us is His call to act as stewards of the rest of creation. That truth helps us understand how our sin has devastated even the nonhuman world.
Finally, the fall has devastated not just our relationships with God, neighbor, and earth but also our very being. Every part of our being is affected. Not just our bodies, but also our reason and will are corrupted. Our rational minds no longer see truth clearly. The more brilliant we are, the more sophisticated are the subtle rationalizations we develop to defend selfish interests and wrong ideas. One only needs to read some of the subtle justifications written to defend slavery, racism, unjust treatment of women, or unfair economic arrangements to see how deeply our minds are corrupted.
The biblical teaching on sin has vast implications for our understanding of politics. First, every politician is a frail, finite, sinful person who will certainly make a mixture of good and bad decisions, and every political platform is a smorgasbord of good and evil, wise summons to justice and subtle rationalizations of self-interest. Therefore Christians should never trust any politician completely and dare never embrace any party or platform uncritically.
Second, a central task of faithful political action is to design political systems built on this understanding of persons as being a complex mix of good and bad moral insight and self-centered distortion. As Lord Acton said long ago, “In a fallen world, power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” Therefore we need checks and balances on all power so that even though everyone acts selfishly, the competing acts of self-interest tend to balance each other and prevent great evil. Government must be limited. At the same time, precisely because sin has not destroyed all good
in persons, we can also create social systems that appeal to and encourage the best in human beings.
Third, since sin became embedded in self-perpetuating social systems, it is essential that we seek to change not just individual persons through personal spiritual transformation but also societal structures via political change. In the face of laws and legal structures that prevented African-Americans from voting, we needed more than evangelism and a call to individual white Americans to treat African-Americans fairly. We needed better laws and judicial systems that enforced the rights of everyone to vote.
It would, however, be fundamentally naive to suppose that we can create new, basically good persons if we only correct unjust social systems. We can make things
better through wise structural change. We have been able to end slavery, promote democracy, and encourage economic justice through wise political changes. But the human problem lies far deeper than merely unjust social systems, however evil. At root, the human problem is grounded in fallen, selfish persons who continue to seek and find ways to manipulate even the best social systems. For that reason, Christians reject every Utopian illusion that imagines, as did Marxists and some kinds of humanist educators, that we can eradicate evil in society if we will only make the right structural or educational changes.

Discipleship Journal, Issue 165, Ron Sider

May 11, 2008 Posted by | Christian, Christianity, conservative, culture, Democrat, Discipleship Journal, Republican, Uncategorized, vote | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Biblical Perspective on How to Approach Politcs

How You View the Created World, Part. 2

Enormous political consequences flow from how we view the material world and human beings.
The created world. Not everyone thinks the material world is real or good. Much of Eastern religious thought considers the material world to be an illusion that spiritual wisdom will teach us to ignore. If such views about the physical world are right, Philip Wogaman points out in Christian Perspectives on Politics, then hunger, starvation, economic exploitation, slavery, and physical torture “are not moral problems for us.” We can live on a “spiritual” level, ignoring the illusions of the insignificant or evil material world.
Other views see the world as divine. Animists believe that the trees and the rivers are divinities to be worshiped—and left as unchanged as possible. How dare we then cut down trees and dam rivers to create human civilization?
The biblical story tells us something radically different. Repeatedly in the story of creation, after God calls a crucial part of the material world into existence, the text declares, “God saw that it was good.” Indeed, at the end of the story, we hear that “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen. 1:31).
Rather than an evil to escape or an illusion to ignore or a deity to worship, the world is a wondrously good, albeit finite, reality that God designed both to sing His praises and provide a home for humanity.
Human beings. The biblical text declares that God created men and women in the very image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Human beings are fundamentally different from every other part of God’s creation because they alone are declared to be made in the image of the Creator. As a consequence, human beings enjoy a dignity and value that no other creatures possess.
But what exactly does it mean to be created in the image of God? Genesis 1 points to two things. Verse 26 connects the image of God with our stewardship responsibility:
Let [human beings] rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
We are placed as God’s assistants to exercise a loving, watchful stewardship over the rest of the earth. That does not mean that God authorizes us to trample and destroy the nonhuman creation. But it does mean that we rightly use trees and rivers, birds and animals to create complex civilizations.
Verse 27 connects the image of God with our communal nature: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them” (NRSV). An isolated individual cannot adequately image the God who is triune, a loving community of three persons in the one God. That is not to deny the importance of the individual. Both the communal and individual nature of persons is important.
Individual and communal. Each person is made in the image of God. God also summons each individual to repent personally in free obedience to the divine call. Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of eternal. Furthermore, since the invitation to life eternal is the truth about all persons, governments have no right to make laws that contradict or undermine this reality. When they do, their legitimacy disappears. Thus, the Christian belief in eternal life contributes significantly to placing limits on government.
A one-sided emphasis on either our material or our spiritual side has disastrous political consequences. If we believe that persons are just complex machines that evolved in a blind materialistic, evolutionary process, we will encourage society to place exaggerated emphasis on material well-being. We will also find it difficult, if not impossible, to develop moral norms that can check the totalitarian tendencies of government. Whatever the state decrees is declared “right.” There is no appeal to some “higher, divine law.”
On the other hand, many Christians have so emphasized the spiritual side of human beings that they have belittled the importance of history, politics, and material well-being. For decades, many evangelicals taught that saving souls was all-important; therefore good Christians should ignore politics and focus largely or exclusively on evangelism.
What we need is the biblical balance. We are created to find joy and delight in a material world that wise politics can help shape for our blessing. The results, however, are always limited. They are never important enough to abandon our relationship with God. But the Creator wants us to spend substantial time during our life in this material world enjoying and shaping it so that everyone can share its bounty. In fact, this material world is so good that some day the risen Christ will return to finish His task of removing all evil from this earth. Then all who believe in Him will receive resurrected bodies to live on this transformed earth and enjoy life eternal in the presence of the Lord.

Discipleship Journal, Issue 165, Ron Sider

May 11, 2008 Posted by | Christian, Christianity, conservative, culture, Democrat, Discipleship Journal, Republican, Uncategorized, vote | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Presidential Election

The question for this election year is who do you vote for a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican. “For all of John McCain’s admirable qualities as a man, as a politician he has a disturbing tendency to jump on the bandwagon of fashionable liberal causes. Too often when a bad idea has captured the collective imagination of liberals—whether it was campaign-finance regulation, hysteria over global warming, or embryonic stem-cell research—McCain has stood with them or even led them. It’s no coincidence that he’s had to rely on non-Republican voters to become the Republican frontrunner (” So as a conservative Christian voter there is no clear good candidate to support my general views. As a voter I need to keep in mind the candidates views on spending, on the current war against terrorism, and on how they view the Supreme Court and any pending cases.

February 15, 2008 Posted by | Christian, conservative, culture, Democrat, John McCain, Republican, vote | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: