As a follow-up to my last blog, in which I pointed out that the American left has the same ideological worldview as Hezbollah and Al-qaeda terrorists and therefore resist any effort to combat them or defend America or Israel against them, I want to point out another example of it that I've been hearing in the news today.
Several pundits are discussing the obvious disparity between the left's outrage over Mel Gibson's anti-semitic comments and the total pass they are giving Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his interview by Mike Wallace. The pundit's ask why there is outrage in one case and not in the other, and then sit there and discuss it like they don't really know the answer.
The answer is obvious. Mel Gibson does not share their worldview and Ahmadinejad does. Anti-semitism is simply a label that is used as a political weapon. It is used by the left, not as an attempt to defend or in any way to help Jews, but to harm a political opponent. The same is true regarding the labels of racism.
The left abandoned Mel Gibson when his worldview became obvious. He made it plain when he produced the "Passion of the Christ" against the advice of everyone in Hollywood. Mel Gibson is a Christian, he is "connected" to the God of the bible (see my last blog for my discussion of "connection"). Ahmadinejad is as far from a Christian as you can get, so consequently, he shares the same worldview as most of the media.
The outrage over Mel Gibson's foolish comments are nothing more than an attempt to use a political weapon against an ideological enemy. This is the left's chance to hurt him for having an ideology that they hate. Ahmadinejad is obviously anti-semitic and says so daily, but the left has no desire to use that weapon against him - they don't want to use any weapon against him - he is their ideological ally.
We're seeing the same exact phenomenon as the world realizes that the recent UN resolution to stop Israel from defending itself was nothing more than a cleverly disquised attempt by France to give Hezbollah terrorists a breather. In the left's mind, they see Israel as evil for simply fighting back, and have no outrage over Hezbollah using civilians as a shield.
This is a war of ideologies. Looking through this lens will always help you determine who will take what position on any issue. The world hates Jews and Christians - who both worship and serve the God of the Bible. President Bush is a Christian. Mel Gibson is a Christian. Most conservatives are Christian. It is for this simple reason that the American left hates Bush, Mel Gibson, and the conservative right. It is for the same reason that Muslim's hate America and Israel.
This isn't a disagreement that will end with a middle east peace deal. The current events that we see and discussed today have their roots in the same division that has existed since Abraham fathered Ishmael (the father of the Arab nations) and Isaac (the father of Jews and "spiritual" ancestor of Christians) in the book of Genesis. Even then it was prophesied that Ishmael would be a problem child, "He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." (Gen 16:12)
The battle between left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, will always be based on core beliefs. There are only two positions - you are either "His" or you're not. Consider this as you try to figure out the bizarre prediliction of the left to support the terrorist on every level.
Technorati Tags: Ideology, Israel, Hezbollah, Christianity, Mel Gibson, Ahmadinejad
The World is Divided
Many on the right wonder why the world doesn't seem to understand that the war in the middle east began with aggression by Hezbollah. We sit back and marvel how clueless the United Nations seems to be. We yell at the reporters on CNN. It just seems so obvious: Israel has given up land for years and has never started a conflict, they simply respond when their enemies attack them. Israel always abides by the terms set forth in these "cease-fires" and the other side never does. Why doesn't the world get it?
The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this question: "Why doesn't the left support any of the efforts made by the president to combat terrorism?"
Simply put - there are only two main ideologies in the world. There are splinters and sects within each ideology, but there are only two sides to the real battle. I made a stab at explaining what these two sides are in this blog a few months ago. Essentially, you're either with the God of the bible or your not. Every political debate and issue comes down to that fundamental core question.
It is a question of the spirit. I wrote in another blog, "Spirit, Soul, and Body", that the essence of the spirit is the ability to "connect." To be spiritual is to be "connected." We are relational beings. It is in our nature to desire to connect with others and to connect with God. But we choose what we will do with our spirit. We choose where we will connect. We choose our relationships. We choose what "god" to connect to.
There are many "gods", but there is only one God. You are either connected to this one God or you're not. That is the defining issue for determining your worldview. That one relationship is at the heart of who you are. God is searching throughout the earth for those who want to be called by His name - and He knows those who are His.
It seems to be such a waste of time debating with the left about Lebanon and Israel, Iraq, or any other political issue for that matter, without taking the debate to the core issue involved, which are deeply spiritual. So we end up debating the "results" of our ideologies rather than the ideologies themselves. What a huge waste of time. If you change someone's core ideology, then the "consequences" of their ideology will change. Meaning, when you change the deeper belief, the positions a person takes on political issues will change.
So Ann Coulter is right when she says, "we need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Although the statement sounds harsh to our sensitive, politically correct ears, converting people to Christianity is the surest way to change their politics. People don't change because we're "nice" or we send them money and medicine. When you give something away, people will line up to take it - but their heart toward you will not change, they just see you as an idiot who is giving stuff away. As soon as the goods stop flowing or you place any demands on them, their friendly faces disappear and you still have an enemy.
The world is divided. This divide does not follow national borders, it follows "relational borders." Its sides are determined by "Who" you love, not by where you were born. When it looks like the political left in America supports the terrorists of Al-Qaida or Hezbollah - its because it actually does.
Technorati Tags: Cease-Fire, Israel, Hezbohhal, Ann Coulter, Terrorism
The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this question: "Why doesn't the left support any of the efforts made by the president to combat terrorism?"
Simply put - there are only two main ideologies in the world. There are splinters and sects within each ideology, but there are only two sides to the real battle. I made a stab at explaining what these two sides are in this blog a few months ago. Essentially, you're either with the God of the bible or your not. Every political debate and issue comes down to that fundamental core question.
It is a question of the spirit. I wrote in another blog, "Spirit, Soul, and Body", that the essence of the spirit is the ability to "connect." To be spiritual is to be "connected." We are relational beings. It is in our nature to desire to connect with others and to connect with God. But we choose what we will do with our spirit. We choose where we will connect. We choose our relationships. We choose what "god" to connect to.
There are many "gods", but there is only one God. You are either connected to this one God or you're not. That is the defining issue for determining your worldview. That one relationship is at the heart of who you are. God is searching throughout the earth for those who want to be called by His name - and He knows those who are His.
I point that out to show that in this debate over the cease fire and why so much of the world lines up against Israel, and in the United States, why so many oppose the fight against terrorism, why there seem to be only two sides. The left leaning media, the left leaning United Nations, the left leaning countries of the world like France, Russia, Germany always seem to support the terrorist rather than Israel. Why? Because they share the same ideology. It might take a dramatically different form than radical Islam, but their ideology is based on the same "relationship", i.e. "No relationship with the God of the bible."For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. (2 Chron
16:9)
They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, This is My people; And each one will say, The LORD is my God. (Zech 13:9b)
It seems to be such a waste of time debating with the left about Lebanon and Israel, Iraq, or any other political issue for that matter, without taking the debate to the core issue involved, which are deeply spiritual. So we end up debating the "results" of our ideologies rather than the ideologies themselves. What a huge waste of time. If you change someone's core ideology, then the "consequences" of their ideology will change. Meaning, when you change the deeper belief, the positions a person takes on political issues will change.
So Ann Coulter is right when she says, "we need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Although the statement sounds harsh to our sensitive, politically correct ears, converting people to Christianity is the surest way to change their politics. People don't change because we're "nice" or we send them money and medicine. When you give something away, people will line up to take it - but their heart toward you will not change, they just see you as an idiot who is giving stuff away. As soon as the goods stop flowing or you place any demands on them, their friendly faces disappear and you still have an enemy.
The world is divided. This divide does not follow national borders, it follows "relational borders." Its sides are determined by "Who" you love, not by where you were born. When it looks like the political left in America supports the terrorists of Al-Qaida or Hezbollah - its because it actually does.
Technorati Tags: Cease-Fire, Israel, Hezbohhal, Ann Coulter, Terrorism
What do they want?
I'm baffled to some degree about the reporting on gas prices recently. These are the messages:
"Gas prices are too high."
"If gas prices were higher, more alternative energy sources would be developed."
"We need to conserve - people should drive less."
"The government should increase gas taxes to reduce demand."
I can't figure out what the real concern is. For example, why develop alternative forms of energy? They won't be cheaper than gas, at least not right now and not for a long time - so what is the push? Trying to save money? You won't save money.
Are people worried about running out of fuel? I don't think so, I think they actually want us to run out of fuel so we'll quit ruining the environment with our stinky cars. Global warming is supposedly caused by burning fuel, so we're all gonna die because of gas anyway - sheesh, we should be banning fuel, not trying to conserve or reduce prices - isn't that the message?
Should we be trying to conserve? Why? If people can afford the gas, let them buy it and drive as much as they want. The price is the incentive to conserve, what other incentive do you want to create - ration stamps? Why conserve anyway? The more we use, the sooner we start to run out, the sooner the price drives us towards alternative energy sources. As we run out, other methods of transportation will be developed, so why freak out about it?
So I ask all these questions because the questions I hear being asked all have certain assumptions built in such as:
"The fuel companies are ripping us off."
"Burning fuel is destroying the world."
"America is evil for being modern and using so much fuel."
"I don't want to spend so much on fuel, the government should do something."
So these "concerns" or better yet, these "whining complaints" are creating another opportunity for politicians to take action due to the public mood. It makes me sad. Because so few people understand the beauty of the free market system, they respond to a desire to get something for nothing, and have no clue that they give up something precious to get something useless. This is what I'm saying: as the government acts in response of the envy, hatred, laziness, and blame of the uninformed public, they take actions that reduce the quality and quantity of energy, thus raising prices, growing government beauracracy and making life more challenging in the end.
People should be celebrating the success of the oil companies because as they succeed, they are pouring that money into development of the technologies and infrastructure that will actually provide inexpensive, clean, reliable energy sources for years to come. Oil companies succeed because they provide the product you want and their success will improve the environment you want.
My general message is this: nothing is wrong here, nothing needs to be fixed. Prices will drive the exact right amount of conservation. Leave the system alone. If you want to bring prices down, then allow the energy companies to increase supply by removing road blocks (regulations). Please, don't let the government get involved in trying to develop alternative energy or alternative transportation - that is such a huge waste of our tax dollars. Beauracracies don't innovate! They regulate! They get in the way of innovation, they slow down the wheels of progress.
But people want something for nothing and the politicians will give it to them to buy votes. So maybe the message between the lines of all the recent reporting on oil is this: "Bush is a jerk, oil companies are evil, America is destroying the world, the government should give us oil for free."
Technorati Tags: Gas Prices, Oil Companies, Alternative Energy
"Gas prices are too high."
"If gas prices were higher, more alternative energy sources would be developed."
"We need to conserve - people should drive less."
"The government should increase gas taxes to reduce demand."
I can't figure out what the real concern is. For example, why develop alternative forms of energy? They won't be cheaper than gas, at least not right now and not for a long time - so what is the push? Trying to save money? You won't save money.
Are people worried about running out of fuel? I don't think so, I think they actually want us to run out of fuel so we'll quit ruining the environment with our stinky cars. Global warming is supposedly caused by burning fuel, so we're all gonna die because of gas anyway - sheesh, we should be banning fuel, not trying to conserve or reduce prices - isn't that the message?
Should we be trying to conserve? Why? If people can afford the gas, let them buy it and drive as much as they want. The price is the incentive to conserve, what other incentive do you want to create - ration stamps? Why conserve anyway? The more we use, the sooner we start to run out, the sooner the price drives us towards alternative energy sources. As we run out, other methods of transportation will be developed, so why freak out about it?
So I ask all these questions because the questions I hear being asked all have certain assumptions built in such as:
"The fuel companies are ripping us off."
"Burning fuel is destroying the world."
"America is evil for being modern and using so much fuel."
"I don't want to spend so much on fuel, the government should do something."
So these "concerns" or better yet, these "whining complaints" are creating another opportunity for politicians to take action due to the public mood. It makes me sad. Because so few people understand the beauty of the free market system, they respond to a desire to get something for nothing, and have no clue that they give up something precious to get something useless. This is what I'm saying: as the government acts in response of the envy, hatred, laziness, and blame of the uninformed public, they take actions that reduce the quality and quantity of energy, thus raising prices, growing government beauracracy and making life more challenging in the end.
People should be celebrating the success of the oil companies because as they succeed, they are pouring that money into development of the technologies and infrastructure that will actually provide inexpensive, clean, reliable energy sources for years to come. Oil companies succeed because they provide the product you want and their success will improve the environment you want.
My general message is this: nothing is wrong here, nothing needs to be fixed. Prices will drive the exact right amount of conservation. Leave the system alone. If you want to bring prices down, then allow the energy companies to increase supply by removing road blocks (regulations). Please, don't let the government get involved in trying to develop alternative energy or alternative transportation - that is such a huge waste of our tax dollars. Beauracracies don't innovate! They regulate! They get in the way of innovation, they slow down the wheels of progress.
But people want something for nothing and the politicians will give it to them to buy votes. So maybe the message between the lines of all the recent reporting on oil is this: "Bush is a jerk, oil companies are evil, America is destroying the world, the government should give us oil for free."
Technorati Tags: Gas Prices, Oil Companies, Alternative Energy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)