Joe Whitten Blog : Theology, Rants, Photography, Politics, Denver, Colorado

Yesterday, 9/5/2009, Van Jones resigned as the Green Jobs Czar. If you are unsure what that czar means: A male monarch or emperor (especially of Russia prior to 1917), or a person having great power.

Jones left crying foul, claiming that he has been the victim of a smear campaign with people inventing lies and distortions about him. I’ve been listening to some of his critics lately, such as Glen Beck and Fox News in General. Nothing Glen Beck said about Van Jones was invented by him. Beck showed videos and documents for evey claim he made about Jones.

Jones obviously does not like white people. According to Jones immigrants are allowed into into the United States so we (whites) can spray poison on them. Am I, a white person, not supposed to feel insulted by this lie aimed at distorting my image in the eyes of others? Jones said this on a video. No one made this up.

Jones refers to the animals on this planet as our brother and sister species. What? Animals are not our brother and sister species.

“Don’t stop there, don’t stop there”. That’s Jones’ mantra. He seems to enjoy working a crowd up with his perception of reality and then creating the illusion that his vision extends far beyond what he has just revealed on a subject. Jones constantly reverts to the white man is evil, black man (and all other races) is victim theme in order to gain support for people thinking that he exists to shift the wealth in this country away fro these evil people who have taken it from them and “Give them the wealth”. According to Jones, the new focus on Green Energy is all about shifting the wealth in order to make up for broken treaties of the past. Jones made these statements at the Power Shift ‘09 Conference in March. He’s really using this idea of new Green Jobs as a mask for redistributing wealth in this country. Finding cleaner energy is a good thing, but that is not what Jones is truly concerned about. He’s a socialist looking for an opportunity to restructure the power in the United States and do it in a way that appears to be for the betterment of us all..

Jones signed a petition which calls for an investigation of the Bush administration as co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks in 2004. Today he claims that the ideas on the petition do not reflect his beliefs then or now. So why did he sign the petition? He says he should have read it more carefully. Does that mean he will continue to give his signature and approval to issues he has not researched? Or does it mean that he will continue to deny responsibility for his actions when they interfere with a more current and more personally important agenda?

By his own statements Jones reveals himself as an extreme radical, racist, propagandist, and divisor of classes.

By selecting him for such a high post, our president, Barack Obama, reveals his continuing inability to make sound decisions. Or maybe the president thought that as they were when he was elected, most people here in the U.S. were still asleep and no one would notice this continuing move to drive our country to socialism. Perhaps he made a bad decision either way. Please wake up citizens of the United States. Maybe Jones was just a decoy to divert attention from Obama’s socialist agenda.

I’m glad he’s gone. I hope and pray that the other leftists in the current administration can be stopped before they do great harm to our country.

If you think Obama is doing a good job and is concerned about the future of our country, then ask yourself this: Why is our president spending trillions of dollars that don’t really exist without having done one thing to repair the economy? Shouldn’t we get the economy on track before we start the spending? The current administration is behaving like a teenage kid with no job who just received a credit card with a $10,000 limit. It’s not too difficult to see how the teenager would get in trouble in that situation, but shouldn’t our president be capable of making a more sound decision?

Hasty, Foolish Decisions and Consequences

Terrorists were hiding there and the evil dictator was speedily acquiring the tools and building nuclear and chemical weapons very quickly. So many of the leaders in the president’s party as well as great military minds said it was so; how could it not be true?. Then some other evil people who may are may not have had any ties with the dictator building the weapons to destroy us attacked us with hijacked airliners.

We had to act – fast. Quick and decisive action was the order of the day. Quick and decisive; well, we’ll be debating the decisive part for generations to come, action was taken. The man who planned the attacks with the airliners is still out there more than seven years later. the man who was not involved and really had no weapons has been hanged. The world hates us more now than they did then. Should we learn a lesson from rushing into action without a plan? Well, yes…did we? Seems not. Will we? History shows that we most likely won’t.

How often does society in general learn anything from mistakes? Go ahead, present a good example. Just try.

Because of those attacks in 2001, many new laws have been passed in the United States. How many of us are completely aware of what these laws mean to our way of life? How many think none if it really matters because the prevailing attitude is that life will go on here in the Unites States regardless of a few bad political decisions now and then?

Too few people are aware of how that incident has made people more sympathetic to a group of people, Islamists, who are determined to rule the world. Instead of realizing that the hijackers represented what Islam truly is, people have bought into the lie that Islam is peaceful and that the killings taking place in the name of Allah every day are being committed by a fringe element of Islam. Political correctness is becoming the weapon of mass suicide.

Making poorly researched, bad decisions is not uncommon on a large scale in the United States. Since I live in the U.S. that is where I’ll limit my examples.

Flu Shots:

In 1976, at the advice of the CDC, WHO, and pharmaceutical corporations, then president, Gerald Ford, provided funding for a massive Swine Flu vaccination program. Because two soldiers at Fort Dix were found to be infected with a new(?) strain of influenza, several organizations convinced the government (the president and congress were convinced or duped) – that a massive, worldwide outbreak like the one that occurred in 1918 which killed 20+ million people could occur again. More on the 1976 vaccination. The evidence was not that great, but the potential for a few corporations and people to make millions of dollars was very great and the plan was approved. It is a certainty that a few thousand people died from the shots and many developed Guillain-Barre (pronounced Gee-Ann Barray; hard G in the first word)Syndrome. Amazingly, people still line up every year for flu shots. Flu strains (there are many different ones) vary from year to year so that it is not really possible to predict which strains will be most active during any season. People die, people contract Guillain-Barre and suffer other symptoms. Flu shots for children also contain mercury. What was learned from 1976? Apparently nothing.

Vietnam War:

We have no doubt all heard plenty from both sides of the argument about whether The United States should have ever been involved in the battle between North and South Vietnam. It could be argued that the United States at least partially caused that war though.

In 1954, after the French suffered a crushing defeat by the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh they were trapped and forced to eat rats to survive. Though the United States had financed a large part of the French campaign to rule Vietnam, President Eisenhower decided not to offer assistance in the form of air strikes as the French requested. As a result of the French being defeated by a foe they considered incapable of offering any significant resistance to them, a peace conference was scheduled in Geneva Switzerland. The French were allowed to remove their troops and Vietnam was divided into the North and South, the South being non-communist and the North being Communist. The agreement also stated that elections would be held in 1956 to elect a leader and the North and South would be reunited.

The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, with backing from the United States, decided against allowing South Vietnam to participate in the elections likely because he feared a decisive defeat by Ho Chi Minh. So the United States actively supported South Vietnam reneging on the agreement reached at the peace conference in Geneva. Both countries decided not to live up to the agreement they made for fear that things would not go their way. Considering that the United States pulled out of South Vietnam eventually and let the communist north take control, this decision does not seem, in hindsight, to have been very well thought out.

Eisenhower had sent 1500 “military advisors” to South Vietnam in 1955. He was concerned about a growing communist influence in Asia. In 1959, Hanoi basically declared war against Saigon and South Vietnam.

While Eisenhower believed in using technology – “more bang for the buck” – to combat foes, John Kennedy, who became president in 1961, leaned more toward using combat troops. Kennedy, like Eisenhower, believed that stopping the spread of communism was crucial. To combat the spread of communism Kennedy sent 18,000 troops to South Vietnam. He also approved the use of napalm and defoliants such as agent orange. Countless innocent people including children were victim to these horrible inventions. In attempting to stop evil, the Unites States may very well have become more evil than its enemies. How could anyone not realize that using such inhumane weapons would take such a toll on innocent people. Napalm is basically jellied gasoline. It sticks to a person’s skin and burns though the skin to the muscle and bone causing unthinkable pain. Can evil be fought with more evil?

Because he feared Ngo Dinh Diem would give in to the pressures of Ho Chi Minh’s forces and attempt to create a neutral coalition of some type, Kennedy either sanctioned or allowed South Vietnamese generals to murder him in order to prevent an immediate loss to the North. Was Kennedy concerned about the people of South Vietnam or merely the United States losing face?

The Viet Minh that the United States were fighting were not afraid of death. In fact, they feared allowing foreign powers overtaking their country more than they feared death. By 1965, Johnson being the president, it was clear that the United States was not making progress against the North Vietnamese. By 1968 the United States had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam and we were not winning. The North left the jungles and began fighting in cities. The United States had ravaged the country with bombings and chemicals but the strength of the enemy was not diminished.

Five years after Nixon was elected president, the United States removed its troops from Vietnam. The south instantly fell to the North. Thousands of South Vietnamese evacuated the country seeking refuge in other countries.

Thousands of people died, the United States (despite arguments by many to the contrary) lost face. When the going got too tough, we pulled out. Many men who bravely fought, thinking they were fighting for their country, returned home to a society that shunned them. The way veterans of that war were and still are treated by the United States is a disgrace.
None of what happened in Vietnam would have or should have happened if the agreement reached in Geneva in 1955 had been honored. There is no justification for the destruction and loss of innocent lives in that war. The United States got involved in the affairs of other people without any clear reason. Our sovereignty was not being threatened and South Vietnam was not clearly asking for our intervention.

Today, Vietnam is peaceful and it has a thriving tourist trade. How much sooner could that have come to pass if an unnecessary war, brought about by foolish, hasty decisions had not taken place?

Does anything happening today seem familiar? Did anyone learn anything from that horrible war in Vietnam or is it now just a vague memory and a few lines in history books?
Only a small number of the events of the Vietnam war have been covered here since the point is to show that it was a hastily made, poorly thought out decision. There are numerous sites covering it in more detail however and many films, videos, and books are available for anyone interested in more detail.

Bad financial management:

For years too many people in the United States have been living on extended credit. It has been too easy to obtain credit far beyond any means to repay. Paying high interest rates on credit cards results in less material wealth because money that could be spent on goods is given to companies like Citibank that make billions of dollars exploiting people’s inability to postpone the desire to own what they cannot pay for at the time they buy it. Obtaining a credit card and running it to its limit is a hasty and very unwise decision. Purchasing a $500 piece of furniture and then paying $1000 for it by the time the payments to the credit card company are made is foolish. Living without the piece of furniture for six months and saving enough cash to pay for it when you get it is much wiser. So why don’t more people wait until they can afford to pay cash before buying expensive items?  We live in a hedonistic society that is unwilling to postpone gratification when not forced to do so. People are no longer willing to work toward goals feeling that society owes them all of the conveniences available.

In 2008 a financial crisis occurred in the United States and globally. What caused this catastrophe in the financial sector that is still wrecking the economy in April 2009? Many factors are involved. The unquenchable desire for more wealth is almost certainly the driving force behind the terrible recession that is plaguing the US and the rest of the world. Although the common term used to describe the situation is recession, that seems like a poor descriptor. Recessions are caused by slow downs in areas of economies that people cannot always control. The current crisis was caused almost entirely by stupid, ill conceived schemes to make people rich. Rather than a market driven by supply, demand, and quality. The current economy has been driven by an attitude of making sure that there is no risk in any transaction or business deal. There is a long chain of one group or another agreeing to insure the risks being taken. The insurers thought that by taking enough money from enough people they could cover any losses and still make a handsome profit. Everyone seems to have thought that there was so much money in the world and that production of something actually possessing a value is not necessary for an economy to flourish that  they could continue to reap the fruits of the economic trees even though no one was tending the garden. People have become incredibly myopic in regards to finances and no one seems to care about anyone else as long as they are making money.

The details of the financial crisis of 2008-2009 are far beyond the scope of this paper (and the ability of the author to explain). The reaction to the crisis is the point to be addressed. By October of 2008 we were hearing that if the government was not allowed to pump 700 billion dollars into the failing institutes the country would experience a depression worse than the one that occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. How could anyone have arrived at that conclusion accurately?

How can a country already at the brink of bankruptcy in terms of debt and deficit come up with almost two trillion dollars to repair a failed economy. What can be repaired by pumping money into a failing system? Is this not like a gambler continuing to borrow so he can place bets in a stacked card game? Too much of the bailout money is being used to save reckless companies like AIG and others or the car manufacturers. The automotive industry in this country had a warning in the 1970s. They ignored it and perversely refused to restructure. Now they are paying the price. Why should anyone have to pay to bail them out? Companies that make stupid decisions should fail and disappear. That’s Capitalism. Are we to become the Socialist States of America? Rather than using the resources we have to rebuild and secure a more solid future, our resources are being squandered on failing institutions that have proven their incompetency. Why do people always think that throwing money at problems is the way to correct them? People have been convinced that if the money is not spent in this foolish, hastily conceived manner, we will go into a depression. Could be we are going into one anyway after a brief period of false optimism.

Consumers and government mirror one another in the United States. Both like to spend beyond their means and then find new ways to borrow to spend more after it is obvious that they are completely broke. The mantra is always “Things are going to improve and we will be able to repay this temporary debt tomorrow”. Why pay your hard earned money today for anything you can get on credit and pay for tomorrow with more credit?
Obama is quick recently to point out that he nor his staff did not create this crisis. While that is true, it does not excuse poor management of a recovery and repeating the same reckless mistakes of the past. The United States needs discipline as a country and a new way of managing our economy and our infrastructure. Without a plan for the future, spending large sums of money on temporary fixes is not going to help the United States in the years to come. It is only going to leave us all further n debt with no manufacturing sector. Unless we are producing something worth value on the global market, we may be n for a very hard crash.
Hasty decisions to spend a lot of money with no plan for change.

Weapons of War, Appeasing the Enemy:

Just a few years ago experts were telling the world that it would be years before Iran could build a nuclear weapon. How foolish is it to think they don’t already have one? When the Manhattan Project was formed to build an atomic bomb to end the Japanese assault on the world, did the U.S. have stockpiles of plutonium at its disposal? Did we build the bomb anyway? Is high grade plutonium necessary to build an atomic bomb? No, it isn’t. Only one of the bombs used to end WW2, the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki, Japan contained plutonium. The other bomb, “Little Boy”, dropped on Hiroshima Japan used uranium-235. Is our government being stupid acting as if Iran cannot build an atom bomb since they don’t have high grade plutonium? Could Iran be using the Plutonium issue as a ruse to hide the fact that they are building a bomb with uranium-235? Recently the news is that Iran is almost ready to build an atomic weapon now. In just a couple of years estimates from experts have gone from Iran being at least ten years from being able to build a nuclear weapon to Iran being almost capable now. The question should not be whether they have one but whether their leaders think there is a specific time that is best to use it on Israel. Making hasty decisions without careful analysis, based on inaccurate assumptions is not in the best interest of national defense.

Iran almost surely has atomic capability already. The Persians invented chess; they are not stupid. The Iranian leaders are almost surely thinking about destroying Israel and the United States. President Obama thinks he can begin dialogue with Iran and solve all of the problems between Iran and the United States. Obama seems to think that he can intellectualize the situation and resolve it. Islam hates everyone who is not Muslim. Is it wise for a leader to try to negotiate with those about whom he knows nothing? Anyone who refers to Islam as peaceful is ignorant. There is no valid excuse for the president of the United States to be so ignorant. There is no excuse for most people in the United States not to recognize the threat posed by Islam. Muslims try to tell others that they are peaceful. Muslims state that the Quran tells them not to kill innocent people which it does. But anyone who is not a Muslim is not innocent according to the Quran.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Obama, regardless of what he claims, is not a Christian and certainly not Jewish, so maybe that verse won’t apply to him. Maybe if he outlaws the mention of Yeshua’s name and agrees to impose more Sharia like laws in the U.S. he can become pals with Ahmadinejad. With his ultra-liberal mindset Obama may decide to pass laws forbidding speech that criticizes Islam in order to appease the very people who will gleefully chop his head off once they have gained control. If you think this is far-fetched, you need to put your Nintendo down and start paying attention to the world around you.

Hastily deciding that Islam is peaceful and does not pose a threat is foolish. There were many who did not think that Hitler posed a threat. Read about the Munich agreement, reached on 29 September signed by Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini and Édouard Daladier. Chamberlain was a naïve man who thought that diplomacy could bring about an understanding with a group of people whose intent was world domination and who thought nothing of lying in order to gain power. Thinking that a lion would enjoy being petted is a good way for a fool to lose his arm.

From the Bukhari:
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al−Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). “The Prophet said,”You may say it.”
Sura (48:29) – Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves….

The disbelievers are those who do not accept Muhammad as the prophet or Allah as the true God. If you do not accept the teachings of Islam, you are a disbeliever.
Sura (9:30) – And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

If you are a Christian, you are perverse.

Surah 5.33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

If you disagree with Islam and see Muhammad as a false prophet, you have a very harsh punishment awaiting you. People who enjoy ridiculing Christians and others may find the consequences of insulting the intolerant members of Islam to be very unpleasant and unlike the reaction they get from members of other beliefs. Those who decide to accept Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance need to turn off the television and start doing some research. Dropping the politically correct attitude might be a good idea as well. Going out of your way to appease people who want to see you obliterated will only result in your death. Before you make a quick and unwise decision about your view of Islam, you are well advised to spend some time learning about its true history and its true goals. Muslims not a race. Don’t allow yourself to be deterred by accusations of racism when you begin to realize the truth of Islam.Obama is demonstrating one of the core weaknesses of liberalism. The idea that he can solve a problem he doesn’t even understand with his intellect. Obama is not that intelligent. If he was, he would have taken the time to thoroughly research Islam and the Quran. Instead he is hastily trying to show the world what a great man he is. When he makes a deal with Iran he will convince himself that he has succeeded and many people will hail his great success. But the people he makes his great deal with won’t think twice about dishonoring it. The United States is not Islam’s friend. We cannot be unless we accept Islamic laws and give up our freedoms. Islam is not a religion of tolerance.

Once again, a hastily made, poorly thought out decision. This one though is going to have grave consequences. The United States is going to distance itself from Israel and begin forming alliances with our enemies thinking that we are securing our peace.

Some of you may know what that phrase refers to before you opened this article. Many of you may be about to read something you don’t like. Please read it anyway. I’m not making anything up. If you feel something  here is incorrect, send me a message and tell me.

The phrase “itching ears” refers to the disturbing tendency of a a great portion of society that loves to consider itself intellectual, sophisticated, and well, cool seeking to hear what they want to believe rather than accepting the truth and trying to adapt to reality. A society that thinks its existence can be explained through psuedo-intellectual explanations of unprovable facts. As long as the current state can be explained in a manner that denies creation by Elohim.

So why exactly is it that so many people want to deny the creator? I think there may be many answers to that question. Certainly one possibility for many is that obeying the laws of Elohim requires a level of discipline that few of us can master. If there is no creator and we simply evolved then giving in to lust and greed is merely part of our nature. Why should we fight what is a part of us? Why live according to His laws if He does not really exist? I’m not going to address that issue in this post, I only bring it up as an observation of the current state of attitudes.

The current election campaign and the popularity of Borack Obama clearly demonstrate how eager people are to seek that which they want to hear and to believe it adamantly. I have been shocked recently by the hostility I face from people (liberals) who support Obama and seem to believe he is the answer to their salvation when I bring up his dishonesty. Obama is telling people exactly what they want to hear. His words are as a drug to many of the people buying his lies. The high is great right now, but when the drug wears off – soon after the election – coming down is going to be rough for many.

Obama constantly refers to the tax cuts he will provide. Sounds good, but how much and when. He never mentions this. Seems his speech addicts hear what they want to hear and create their own delusional states of future utopia in their minds. Fine for now but how is it going to feel when Obama starts rationalizing to explain why he cannot provide any tax relief or spends his entire term promising that the tax cuts are coming soon and they never come? Or maybe he will provide a .05% tax cut of some type that is offset by $10/gallon gas? The president doesn’t have the power to simply sign a tax cut into effect. Maybe the huge cuts in the defense budget proposed by several democrats in the house are aimed at providing a means of providing tax cuts to make the democrats look like heroes. That’s a dangerous trade off and shows how irresponsible many representatives really are in the zeal to maintain their political power.

Both candidates are promising things they cannot possibly deliver. The president of the United States has three important responsibilities: Veto, Commander in Chief, and Chief Foreign Diplomat. The president has very little real impact on the economy. Voting for a president thinking that you are voting for the best hope for a sound economy is not unlike flagging a taxi driver when your sink is clogged. Neither candidate is campaigning on the real responsibilities of the office. A truly intellectual society would be aware of the job the president is called to do and confront the candidates on this. Voters let it slide, the media lets it slide, and the candidates themselves don’t seem to know what the responsibilities of the job really are. We are in deep doody in this country.

I read an excerpt from one of Obama’s books recently in which he writes about how liberals tend to be more intellectual and think matters through better than conservatives. I would say that is just another one of his attempts to scratch itchy ears.

2 Timothy 4:3

Romans 1:22

I pray that people will awaken. If you are a believer please pray also.

jw

When questioned about abortion, Obama recently replied that the decision was above his pay grade. What? What kind of answer is that? It’s the type of uncommitted answer that people give when they don’t want their true beliefs to be known. I think that If Obama knew without doubt that the majority of the voting public were apposed to abortion his answer would have been different. Obama claims to be a Christian, a man who believes the word of God. If we cannot be sure when life begins then shouldn’t we make the choice that assures we are not murdering babies? Anyone who thinks that partial birth abortion is not murder is totally detached from any sense of morality and reality. I don’t want a president who claims to be a man of faith but refuses to take a stand. I don’t want a man who claims to be a Christian, but puts man’s law above God’s law. Forget the religious aspect; Obama is a hypocrite. He will say anything to further his own cause. God does not make allowances for people to go against His will because they are running for or hold public office.

While the U.S. is facing a financial meltdown of historic proportions, Obama has decided to focus on his own cause and continue campaigning instead of doing the job he was elected to do in the senate. Is shirking commitments in favor of furthering one’s own personal interests a quality that makes a person a good leader. If foreign warships are heading toward the coasts of this country in 2012 will Obama be too preoccupied with his re-election campaign to remain in Washington and command our military?

Obama’s campaign recently seems intensely focused on criticizing others and offering little of his own plans. During the debate it looked as if he won the argument about corporations paying very little in taxes by using loopholes. But geeeee, did i just not hear his solution to the problem or did he in fact not offer one. Although McCain was partially wrong, he was more correct than Obama. It is important to keep corporations and factories in the mainland to prevent the loss of jobs. Obama just used the moment to make himself appear more savvy than McCain. As usual though, he offered no real solution.

Some quick research into Obama’s lineage reveals that he is more white than black and that is he more Arabic than African. All of that is fine and has no weight in his qualifications. What’s wrong is that he has created the illusion that he is this country’s first black (inference being African-American) presidential candidate. Again, he is using deception to increase his appeal.

I believe also that Obama has voted “present” a few too many times in the senate. He seems to have issues taking a stand.

Obama is very good at telling us what is wrong and stating that when he is president all will be different. But tell me, what exactly does he intend to do about anything? Being fast on the draw and hitting your opponent with a sharp criticism may seem really cool to some but it’s not a skill that will help him run this country. And personally, I think that Putin could kick Obama’s butt in 30 seconds or less and given that Putin probably does not take kindly to Obama’s type of liberal “I’m smarter than you” responses I don’t want Obama leading this country.

.

obama-reveals-the-truth

.

.