Gun Violence-Short and Sweet

For all the talk lately about ways to reduce gun violence; there seems to be very little hard evidence. Lots of facebook memes, talking heads, and celebrity videos to be sure; but precious little hard evidence. So, I'm going to present you with some.
This is a link to a table that was published in the Washington Post on gun ownership and gun violence. http://goo.gl/68ozG. Don't worry, I'm not asking you to go and sift through the data and determine what it means; it's just so you can see where the numbers came from
I put this data in Excel, and ran a formula* that will give you the statistical relationship between two different sets of data. Go ahead and scan the results; noting the cells highlighted in green.

Now, if you think about it, if the number in the cell (called the correlation coefficient) is less than .5, then the two numbers coincide only half the time; meaning that you could have come up with them by flipping a coin or rolling a die; thus for our purposes, we will say that any number under .5 is not meaningful. You can see that there is:

NO CORRELATION between either A) Guns per 100 people and % of homicides by guns (percentage relationships) OR B) Total Civilian Guns and Total Homicides By Guns  (Total number relationships)
A SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE CORRELATION between both A) guns per 100 people and homicides by guns per 100,00 people (percentage relationships) and B) Total Civilian Guns and Homicides By Guns Per 100,000 people (crossing a percentage with a hard number). If you're a conservative, this makes sense. If you're a liberal, I would encourage you to think about why this doesn't make sense.

Now, I am not a mathematician or statistician; but you don't have to be either to look at these numbers, which  came from A) The Washington Post (not a conservative company) and B) Excel 2010 (An unbiased computer program.) To see that more guns DOES NOT mean more gun violence, and actually means a little bit LESS gun violence.



*=Correl(Data Range 1, Data Range 2)

The Unemployment Rate

Fox News has got it right; it's basic, undeniable math. Great article by Elizabeth MacDonald!
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/10/05/real-unemployment-rate/

Presidential Debate-Round 1

At the request of the City Rose:

Two nights ago, President Barack Obama squared off against Governor Mitt Romney in the first of three presidential debates.
I will say this: I don't particularly like either of the candidates; but Romney is the clear choice over the re-election of President Obama.

Romney: "I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am."

This statement scares me; because it shows one of two things.
A) Romney doesn't actually believe this, and he's just saying it because he thinks that saying he'll cut taxes for the rich won't go over well. If this is the case, then he could take a few lessons in manning up (Chris Christie comes to mind as a good teacher for that class)

B) He actually does believe this, in which case, he is, at heart, a progressive, and does not believe in the truth of the Laffer Curve, which is the basic theory of conservative economics. He believes that the rich should be taxed, because they earn more, when really, they could do more good with their wealth if they were allowed to hang on to it.

Obama: Under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they're the job creators, they'd be burdened.under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they're the job creators, they'd be burdened.

Question: What is the difference between a large business and a small business?
Answer: According to the Small Business Administration, a small business may generate no more than $7 million in revenue; and they may employ no more than 500 people. So, our President wants to penalize  businesses that employ large numbers of people; why does this seem like a good idea?

On the topic of Obamacare; Romney had this to say. One of the things that makes me nervous about Romney is that as governor of Massachusetts, he actually implemented what basically amounted to Obamacare at a state level. His argument is that it's a states rights issue, which I'll buy; but only because the alternative is so much worse.

Romney: So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer and drove it through.

What we did in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together; 200 legislators in my legislature, only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. What were some differences? We didn't raise taxes. You've raised them by $1 trillion under Obamacare. We didn't cut Medicare. Of course, we don't have Medicare, but we didn't cut Medicare by $716 billion. 

This is accurate. There was not a single Republican that voted for Obamacare, not one. Obama decided that he knows what's best for the country, and he rammed the bill through over a plethora of objections. Romney worked with his party and the Democrats to accomplish his goal, in my mind, showing that he is a team player.

There is so much more to say about this debate; but at this point, I am going to act on Proverbs 10:19

Where words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise. 

Dear God, thank you for making us a great nation. I pray that you would continue to make us a great nation; and that we would honor you in our actions. I pray for this election, I pray that you would remove the corrupt and unrighteous from power, and put those who are righteous in power. Thank you God, for making me an American.

The Animal I Haven't Become

In my last post I talked about the necessity of morality for a society to function normally. For a society to function normally; it is necessary for all people, particularly leaders, to exhibit some degree of self-restraint. If they don't, then the whole society descends into some twisted coalescence of anarchy and statism. We observed this in the USSR, Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan.

And so the question is, why is this significant? Or IS it significant?

I think it is, and for this reason: Humans are the only beings on earth where we observe this phenomenon. With regard to every animal on earth, dogs, horses, wild cats, etc; the only thing that benefits me and mine is for me to be the biggest, baddest, meanest, one in the pack.

There is one exception to this; and that is the phenomenon of symbiosis. In symbiosis, what we see is two individual members of separate species working together to benefit each other. And this is a phenomenon that we observe with humans too, though with us it is across multiple species. We provide a dog with a home, food, and water; he provides us with joy. We provide a horse with corn cobs, sugar cubes, a stable, and in turn he works for us. In doing this, it benefits us to be kind to others.

But it is significant this is a cross-species occurrence. With the exception of immediate family, (and in many cases not even then) We do not observe an intraspecies Luke 6:38 (For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you) phenomenon anywhere in nature. Humans are the only beings to exhibit this trait.

Nowhere else do we observe a relational trait that is unique to that kind. There is nothing unique in the way that cats relate to other cats, lizards to other lizards, flies to flies; what have you. Humans are the only beings in the universe that are unique in the way we relate to each other.

This is significant. Evolutionarily; this makes absolutely no sense. If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, only the strong survive; and it seems an unlikely branch on the evolutionary tree to suddenly evolve caring and kindness for the other members of your species as opposed to only you and yours. So why is this? Why is this a reality for the human race?

The answer comes in two parts:
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Put another way, God is in charge, and this is the way that He designed reality. With all the facts laid out in the previous post and this one; it seems that this is the logical conclusion.

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together,”
    says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
    they shall be like wool.

A Moral Society

I have been kicking this around in my head for awhile now, and it is now time to get it out on paper.

In order for a society to function normally (between the ditches of anarchy and statism), some degree of self-restraint is required. Here is what I mean:. If I decide to show absolutely no self-restraint, and do whatever I feel like in the moment, than a lot of people, including me, would wind up hurt. But I do restrain myself; and as a result of that, my life flows more smoothly. This principle scales upward, and I mean all the way upward; to the global view of society. And here is why.

There's this thing called the PAR principle: Privilege, Accountability, Responsibility. As Privilege rises, so must Accountability and Responsibility. As people  want to take the P without A and R; governments must clamp down, limiting people's privileges
A couple of examples:

I know a man who has done some work with houses; and he told me one time about a house that he'd worked on in Stop Six. (For those innocents or non-Fort Worthians, Stop Six is the part of town that you should not go to if you don't have to). And he told me that in Stop Six, when you go to sell a house, you sell it without carpet and without air conditioning. If you do put in A/C and carpet while the house is not occupied, than it will not be there the next day. PAR has been violated, over and over again in this neighborhood, and as a result, the whole society is negatively affected; descending into some sort of twisted combination of anarchy and statism. Anarchy occurs regularly, whenever carpet or A/C is stolen. Statism occurs on the rare occasion when the police come to town, they assume that everyone is a criminal; and with impunity, they start putting everyone they see in handcuffs.

Another example: I saw the movie Dredd recently (which I do NOT recommend doing.) It was exremely graphic; but it was a look at a society that has completely descended into this statist-anarchist combination. The society has become so utterly amoral, that the government is forced to give the Judges the combined powers of Judge, Jury, and Executioner, because they don't have the time or the money to give everyone a fair trial; and because most people are guilty, the judges assume that everyone is guilty until they are proven innocent. This is what happens when PAR is repeatedly violated.

Now, here is the part that I've been working through. It is clear to me that society functions in this way because God has ordained it from above.
Proverbs 14:34
Righteousness exalts a nation,
    but sin is a disgrace to any people.

Psalm 81:13-14
If my people would but listen to me,
    if Israel would follow my ways,
¹⁴ how quickly would I subdue their enemies
    and turn my hand against their foes! 

 Psalm 144:14
Blessed are the people of whom this is true;
    blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.

 If you follow the logic train that way, it makes total sense: God is good, and he has designed reality so that when it functions according to how he has set up reality, the results are more beneficial for everyone. But here's what I want to know: Is it possible to reverse that train, and reverse-engineer this principle, (that when society functions morally, it works out better for everyone) to logically show that there is a God who has designed reality to work this way? I think there is, and the process of that will be coming in the next post. If anyone has any ideas on how that might work, comment below, or email them to me at achristianpolitician.gmail.com.
 Stay Tuned!

Waiting For The One.

This is possibly the most romantic thing I have ever read; and I highly recommend it.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/14/staying-celibate-before-marriage-was-best-thing-ive-ever-done/?intcmp=features

On Target

Having worked in the construction industry, I can say without a doubt that he is on the money!
http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2012/09/the-first-four-years-are-the-hardest/comment-page-1/#comments

A Constitutional Failure

I got an email from the ACLU today. I subscribe to the ACLU and the moveon.org emails, so that I can follow Ronald Reagan's example in "keeping up with the other side."

The email included this text: "That sure doesn't sound like the separation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution to us"

At this point, I am going to sit in a corner and cry. Because, as I pointed out in a previous post, The Constitution does not contain the phrase, or even the idea of "Separation of Church and State". The phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists, declaring that "their legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So according to Jefferson, if the Congress wants to pray before every session, then they have the right to freely exercise their religion.

At this point, we have two possibilities. A) The ACLU hasn't actually read the Constitution, so they don't know that the phrase "Separation of church and state" doesn't appear in it; [which I find hard to believe, given the fact that a large portion of the ACLU's work is in the courts, meaning that it's employees should have law degrees; and I think that they still require you to read the Constitution in law school] or B) The ACLU is lying to give credibility to their words. I quite honestly don't know which one is scarier. Either they are ignorant, or they are deceptive; and for an organization as powerful as the ACLU, that's a frightening proposition.

So which is it? Are they ignorant, or deceptive?

American Capitalist

I’m a red-blooded, roughneck $%^%#^%

I’m a &)(*&^ American capitalist

I got a kill ‘em all, give *&^)^ license to hate

I’m that one shot one kill bringer of pain.

I don’t want to believe I’m empty

I don’t want to admit I’m wrong

I don’t want to regret who I’ve become

When I’m an American capitalist

An American capitalist

This point of view, expressed by Five Finger Death Punch, in their song American Capitalist, reflects many people’s attitudes towards the free market. Most people today, however subconsciously, however far it is buried in the back of their minds, on some level think that making a profit is somehow immoral and shameful. This message is encouraged by the media, the Hollywood elite, and the current occupant of the White House.

And that was the way I thought, for a long time. I recognized that American Capitalism[1] was far better than American Socialism; but I was slightly embarrassed at the prospect of making money. I was not even what Stalin would call bourgeoisie; I was not in business for myself, though I had plans to be there. But my thought was this: How can you justify the ‘obscene’ profits that many companies seem to make?

And then I came across, in the wonderfully written Thou Shall Prosper, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the idea that…make sure you’re sitting down…Making a profit is inherently moral.

Now, let me be clear, I don’t entirely subscribe to that philosophy; and neither does Rabbi Lapin. There are ways to profit that are inherently immoral; like knocking a lady down and taking her purse; or saying that you’re selling someone a pound of beans when you’re really selling them fifteen ounces. These are inherently immoral.

But beyond these inherent immoralities; Rabbi Lapin maintains, and I concur, that making a profit is inherently moral. It is good to make a profit, and here is why, I proudly call myself an American Capitalist.

When I make a profit, you benefit. When I profit, it’s because I have provided some good or service to you that you decided was worth more than the money you spent to acquire it. I have done something to serve you, and is anyone really going to argue that serving people is immoral?

No one will argue that serving people is immoral; but many will argue that serving people ought to be done for free.

But here’s the kicker. When I provide a service to you, and you give me money to do it; what you are doing is also inherently moral, even more so than I am doing when I provide you a service, because you are benefiting an entire group of people, or, to put it more precisely, an entire company of people. 

Business is inherently moral, despite what leftists, socialists, and communists will tell you.

 There are many other benefits to the system of American Capitalism, which will be covered in later papers. And so, Five Finger Death Punch, it is for this reason that I proudly proclaim myself a &)(*&^ American capitalist

---

[1] Just to be clear; I hate the term capitalism; it was designed by the USSR propaganda artists as a way of saying that money (capital) was the center of our lives (thus “Capital-ists). But, because it takes too long and is too awkward to say “The Free Market” every time, I will be using it in this paper 

How Devin Thomas Met His Wife

I am Devin Thomas. For the past year I’ve been in charge of Team Twelve; a brand-new counterterrorist team. Before I did that, I was in Delta Force, and before that I was a Green Beret.

It wasn’t my choice to go into the Army. A judge told me it was either that, or a lot of jail time. All told, I’d probably stolen around a hundred grand worth of stuff, I’d assaulted over thirty people, including a couple of cops, and I’d accidentally killed my girlfriend during a bank robbery. (The judge never knew about that one).

I really did love my girlfriend. And it’s entirely my fault that she’s dead. I was 16 when it happened; and that pretty much left me an emotional wreck.

I could fight through it though. When you’re as good as I am, your bosses want you to work all the time. And when you can’t emotionally bring yourself to ask a girl out, that leaves you with lots of time to work.

So I worked. I trained my team, day and night, to be the best in the world. We jumped out of more airplanes, spent more time in the shooting gallery, ran more miles, and had more hand-to-hand combat training time than any other team in the history of the world.

But that wasn’t all. We studied too, each team member always had to be making progress in a Middle Eastern language, and we were constantly studying the geopolitics of that entire region.

One night, we were doing a midnight training exercise in Fort Worth. Very basic “evade the local PD” exercise; with the theory being that if we can evade American cops, we can very much evade Middle Eastern cops. The cops were told that we’d stolen a lot of money, and they had no idea it wasn’t the real deal.

So we were speeding down Belknap in a black van. Plan was to get on I-35, wreck the car, disappear into the river, swim a couple of miles, and meet up on the other side of town. Tyler was driving; we had three police cars on our tail, and we were guessing that we had a couple SWAT vans incoming from either side. I was in the back of the van, getting my swimming gear on, when suddenly I hear a loud POP. “TYLER! What the heck was that?!”

He looked back at me grimly. “Spike strip, boss.”

Really? This is legitimately the best team in the world, and we run over a spike strip?

“Everybody out!” I pulled off my swim gear and grabbed my water pistol, which was filled with ammonia. You don’t ever want to pull a real gun on cops, that’s just a bad deal; but a water pistol filled with ammonia is a nice deterrent.

We hopped out of the back of the car and split. I didn’t have to say anything, everyone knew the backup plan: Meet up at the Auto Depot on Rosedale, steal a few cars, drive to the safehouse.

Unfortunately, the cops had a different plan. Three cars were bearing down on us, sirens screaming. So we split up, knowing that most likely, three of us weren’t going to make it.

See, all that “No soldier gets left behind!” stuff sounds really good in theory. In reality, it ain’t always possible. Not all of us were going to make it, and everyone had to accept that fact, and do their best to make sure that it wasn’t them being left behind.

I sprinted west on Belknap, trying to find a place where I could hide. And then I heard the sirens focus in on me.

Dangit. Why do they always have to pick the large black man who looks like he’s in charge?

Gotta hide, gotta hide, gotta hide… But there was nowhere. Open range, as far as I could see. I had to settle for running on the sidewalk, so they couldn’t just run me over.

They pulled alongside me, matching my speed. I had them on my right and a brick building on my left, nowhere to go. The guy riding shotgun leaned over and pointed a bean-bag shotgun at my face. I pulled my water pistol, which made him duck for a second, just enough time for me to sprint ahead and jump the fence into the parking lot.

I zigzagged away from the car; putting distance between me and the cops. Home free.

BAM.

The shot me with a bean bags round. Have I mentioned that I hate bean bag rounds?

They booked me and put me in general population, which I tried to tell them was a bad idea. It took a couple of broken bones to convince them to put me in interrogation.

I sat there for about eight hours, just waiting…waiting…waiting.

Finally, around 9, this blonde chick walked in. “Good morning, Mr…?”

I smiled. “Mister is good for now.” See, I don’t carry ID on me during training missions; because officially, I don’t exist.

“Okay.” She smiled at me “Well, my name is Maggie, and I’m the District Attorney who’s going to send you to jail.”

Ooooh, Barracuda.

“So, unless you want to be there for the next ten years; we can start with your name.” She smiled again.

I smiled back at her. “See, Maggie; I don’t think that’s going to happen. So, you can save yourself some time and let me go; or you can cause yourself a lot of frustration by continuing to interrogate me.”

She was good, she just smiled at me and kept walking around the interrogation table.

“See, Mr. Thomas, I don’t think that’s really going to happen.” She winked at me

What on earth… I almost fell over, but instead I just laughed. “Nice try, pretty lady; but that ain’t my name.”

“Oh really? I’m sorry, I must have you confused with another Devin Thomas who leads Team Twelve, and was scheduled for a midnight training exercise in running from the police.” She winked again.

Okay, this ain’t cool.

“Hey, Maggie; I don’t know who you think you’re talking to; but I ain’t Devin Thomas, and I don’t even know what Team Twelve is. Although, if you’re looking for a man named Devin, it’d be willing to change my name.”

She laughed. “Sorry, Mr. Thomas, I’ve got other plans for you. Let’s go.” She walked around the table. “Now, before I uncuff you; I just want you to know that there’s a sniper with his crosshairs on the door, and that one-way window retracts into the wall, and there’s four men with MP-5s pointed at you right now.”

Okay, this lady was starting to get under my skin. What’s worse, I kinda liked it. But there wasn’t anything I could do; I wasn’t about to start killing local PD.

She uncuffed me, and then she walked over to the interrogation camera and…unplugged it.

“Devin Thomas, you are in big trouble.”

Um, what? I just sat there.

“My name is Maggie, and I’m the legal eagle who’s been keeping your team out of legal hot water for the last year. You sir, are a very bad boy.”

Can’t argue with that. I decided that this increasingly attractive chick was legit, and I let my guard down.

“So…what’s the plan?”

“The plan is, you walk out of here with me, you learn your lesson, and you stop messing with local cops. Got it?”

“What about after that? My vote is you, me, Chili’s, 7 PM. Sound good? Awesome.”

She rolled her eyes. “Let’s just get out of here.”

We walked straight out of the police station, to the company car.

“We’re going to the airport, our flight leaves in three hours.” She handed me my ticket. “From the airport, you’re supposed to take a cab to the Pentagon, where you’ll be dressed down by Cole Wilson.”

            I nodded. “Great! And after the Secretary of Defense rips me apart, I’ll pick you up and take you to dinner. Sound good?”

            She looked at me, sizing me up. “…Fine. You pick me up at seven.”

            Sweet.

            “Hey!” She looked me in the eyes. “One date. Okay? And we’ll see what happens. Got it?”

            I smiled. “Yes ma’am.” 

            Oh, sometimes…I get a good feeling.

            EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER

            “Now sister, do you take this handsome man to be your lawfully wedded husband?” The pastor asked.

            “Yes I do.” She looked at me.

            “Now brother, do you take this fine, beautiful, deluxe, quality lady to be your lawfully wedded wife?”

            I considered breaking his jaw for talking about my wife like that; but I didn’t think that would look too good on the wedding video. Especially considering that I’d written my own vows.

            “Uh-huh”

            “Then by the power vested in me, by the District of Columbia and our Lord Jesus Christ, I do pronounce you man and wife. You may now kiss the bride.”

            Oh yes.

            “One date huh?” I whispered.

            She laughed. “Shut up and kiss me.”

            Gladly.

Church and State

Quiz Time! Where does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" come from?
A) The Constitution
B) The Declaration of Independence
C) The Mayflower Compact
D) None of the above

And the answer is....D! So, if the phrase "Separation of church and state" doesn't come from any of our founding documents, where does it come from?
Actually, the phrase comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. Here is the link to the full article, if you wish to read it, but the relevant text is provided below.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."  

"MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF" Jefferson said, and yet we never hear that part of the letter (Which, by the way, is in the Constitution (First Amendment)

We hear this phrase "Separation of church and state" tossed around by the courts constantly as if it were some bedrock of American principle, when in fact, it was part of a personal letter to a specific group of people, as part of a larger context. The founders never intended the state to limit the church, unless the church was harming people. Evidence:

Exhibit A) George Washington, speaking to the Indians: 

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion fo Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention" (Emphasis added)

Exhibit B) George Mason, "The Father of the Bill of Rights"

"All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free excercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to to others"

Exhibit C) Thomas Jefferson- 

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrimes, discipline, or excercises."  (Emphasis mine)

I could go on for volumes. David Barton, in "Original Intent" (From which I stole the all the quotes in this post) actually did go on... for over 600 pages. If you read that book, it is quite clear that if the Founding Fathers had had any concept what Jefferson's letter would be turned into, they might well have burned it. 

Capitalism

I saw something on facebook recently, a meme that had several quotes from Scripture, including "Give all you have to the poor." among others, and at the bottom it read "It's pretty clear, Jesus was a socialist." This is not uncommon; because socialists, in their attempts to revise a society that is based on, and even still influenced by the Bible, find that to get the results they want, they must use the Bible.

Before we start talking, let's define some terms.

Socialist: An advocate of a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Capitalist: An advocate of an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made by private individuals or corporations

Let's let the Scriptures speak for themselves.

Luke 6:38, Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Mark 10:21, Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Luke 3:11, ...“The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

Proverbs 14:21 He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy

It seems that the Scripture unequivocally advocates generosity. But does it advocate socialism? Remember, socialism doesn't give you a choice of whether or not to give; a socialist government takes what you have and redistributes it.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Matthew 20:15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

Matthew 25:26-27 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

Galatians 6:5 for each one should carry his own load

These verses seem dreadfully capitalistic. Let's look at two parables Jesus told. The first one is the parable of the talents

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Master gave each servant different amounts according to their ability. They took their different amounts and achieved different outcomes. Then the master returned and rewarded those who had earned and punished those who had not. This is capitalism that gave Vladimir Lenin nightmares.

Let's look at one more passage. Matthew 20:1-15

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6 About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

As far as I can tell, this is clearly capitalistic. A person who had a large amount of material wealth paid people who had less wealth than he did to produce more wealth for him; and he did this because he was able to do what he wanted with his own money. Under the socialist system, this is not possible, because there are none with wealth, so generosity is both impossible and, in the perfect socialistic system, which is unattainable (Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me) pointless.

One last thing, I quoted Galatians 6:5, which says "each one should carry his own load". If you go back a few verses to Galatians 6:2, you will find a verse commonly used to support the socialist position: "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." Antagonists of Christianity also love to point at this as a contradiction. However, if you look at the original Greek, the word that verse 2 uses is "Baros" which means a crushing load that cannot be carried without help. Verse 5 uses the Greek word "Phortion" which was used to denote the normal load carried by a soldier.

So, entirely consistent with the rest of Scripture, we are called to carry our own normal burdens, produce something, pay our own way, and to be generous and help others when they are being crushed by something especially heavy. This is Scriptural economics in action.

Why am I a Christian?

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING POST WAS AUTHORED BY SOMEONE IN A STATE OF EXHAUSTION.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence"-Richard Dawkins

In the modern world; faith in general, and Christianity in general; are subjects of derision and scorn among the intelligentsia. The general consensus among the intellectual elite is that "Religion is an opiate for the masses"-Marx. Personally; I think that "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool."-Orwell.

I've heard it said that evolution is proven; and truly, the academia and the media seem to be convinced that there is no God, and anyone that believes differently is an idiot. And so, because I am an "ordinary man" I'm going to disagree with the intelligentsia; and present a logical chain of evidence that shows why I believe that there is a God, and that His name is Jesus.

1. The evidence for evolution.

An unbiased look at the evidence for the case Creation vs. Evolution leaves no doubt. Evolution simply leaves too many questions unanswered; such as:

a) Why do we reproduce sexually? It's so much less efficient than just dividing ourselves, like the amoebas do.

b) How did the giraffe evolve? The giraffe, by necessity, has an extraordinarily powerful heart to pump the blood up the long neck. When a giraffe bends down to take a drink, that powerful heart is now working with gravity; which should flood the giraffe's brain with blood and cause it to explode. But it doesn't; it has a sponge at the base of the brain to absorb all that blood. This is what we call irreducible complexity. There are two functioning parts that had to have been present at the same time; and could not have evolved separately.

c)Why, in all the world, do we never see a place where the natural color scheme doesn't match? If each individual organism evolved individually, according to what suited itself, how is that possible?

d) Why have we not found the missing link?

As a reasonable human being; these questions just pose too much of a barrier to me. I don't have the faith to be an evolutionist.

Bearing that in mind; I come to the conclusion that there must be a God. So the next question becomes: whose God is real? The way I answer that question is to look at the societies that each individual belief system has produced, and see:

2.who's God has come out on top?

a. Buddhism/Hinduism/Eastern mysticism

The society that this has produced is one of complete and total apathy. Go to India, go to Thailand, and see the complete poverty that this way of thinking has produced.

b. Islamics

Islam has produced an inherently corrupt, violent, unstable society. Go over to any of the Muslim states; and see it. Bribery, drugs, and extortion are a way of life over there.

c. Pantheism

Africa. Somalia. Nigeria. Tunisia. Need I say more?

d. Christianity

Regardless of what others say; America was founded on Christian principles. This is clear in the Declaration, in the Federalist papers, in the writings of the Founding Fathers. And look what it's produced: A society that others are desperate to immigrate to. A place that people flock to.

3. Personal experience. I have experienced God. I have watched as my friend fell, shoulder-first, onto a pile of ironwood (with nails sticking out) and emerge without a scratch. I have been, at times, so far in over my head, that I couldn't think of a way out. All I could pray was a whimpering "God, take care of me." And I have been taken care of. I have taken steps of faith and watched God respond.

God is real, and his name is Jesus.

It Wasn't Meant To Be

WARNING: MATURE CONTENT

Quiz Time!

Question 1: What do all of the following have in common?

A) Rob Reiner's "8"

B) Stop Bullying

C) The Commitment Campaign

D) Project 10

E) It Gets Better

Answer: They are all campaigns by the militant left to normalize homosexuality. Project 10, "8" and It Gets Better are projects of California; and Stop Bullying and The Commitment Campaign are products of liberal DC politicians.

Question 2: How many states have enacted protections for traditional marriage?

Answer: Over 30.

Question 3:

How much of the American population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Answer: 2.8% of the male population, and 1.4% of the female population.

But is there really a reason that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, just like everybody else?

To be clear; in this post, I am not going to take the Psalm 144 approach. I could, very easily say: "1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God; Psalm 144 and 81:13-14 declare that nations should follow Him and receive his blessing. End of story."

But I'm not going to do that. This post is about the societal effects of homosexuality; and why we should not legalize it.

In 1973, the American Psychological Association removed "homosexuality" from it's list of mental disorders. It's probable that many people today would not agree that homosexuality is a disorder; even though it shows all the characteristics of a disorder, including a delineated cause, symptoms, and negative effects. Regardless; it's undeniable, and even admitted by the homosexual activists, that homosexuality is associated with both physical and mental health issues. Homosexual men have mental health issues at nearly five times the rate of heterosexual men, and lesbians at nearly twice the levels of straight women.(1) And the CDC, which seems to have flown under the Left's radar in their war on the traditional family, declares that “Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.” (2)

Look at some of those diseases, namely AIDS. Over a quarter of a million American men, who had no other risk factors except homosexuality, have died of AIDS since 1976. For comparison, a little over half a million people have died in alcohol-related car accidents since 1986 (3)

This list could go on; and indeed, it did. The Family Research Council, from whom nearly all of the information contained herein came; outlined the risks for homosexuals in their well-documented summary: The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuals http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

And so the question is thus: drunk driving is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. So why is homosexuality even discussed, much less encouraged, when it causes almost half as many deaths? And those quarter-million men that have died? That's from just one of the many diseases associated with homosexuality.

The pro-homosexual lobby will claim that the risk factors associated with homosexuality stem from the stress of being in an environment that discriminates against homosexuality; however, these trends hold up even in the Netherlands; which is the most socially liberal country in the world, and thus extraordinarily friendly to homosexuals. (4)

To be clear, the entire thesis here is that homosexuality is inherently dangerous; and thus ought not be legitimized. There's a myth that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone else; and that the government ought to, at best, stay out of it.

Normally, anytime I hear the words "The government should stay out of it" I instinctively agree; however, in this instance; I don't. Here are some more reasons why.

Homosexuals are already lobbying for the right to adopt children; and as long as they are still even on the fringes of the legal system, they will continue to demand that right. That is inherently a bad idea. Homosexual families are inherently less stable than heterosexual families; with far higher rates of infidelity and breakups; (5) and even the most liberal sociologist will admit that infidelity and broken families are far from the ideal environment for a child.

On top of that, it has been shown that out of the three possible family structures (heterosexual married parents, heterosexual cohabiting parents, and homosexual cohabiting parents), the children of the homosexual parents are by far the worst off. (6)

So homosexuality is inherently unsafe; so what? I've heard it argued that continuing to refuse recognition of homosexual marriage won't stop people from being homosexual. I agree, it won't. However, there are still several arguments against legalizing it; for instance: polygamy. If there's no problem with having two guys get married, what on earth is the problem with two guys and a girl? Or two girls and a guy? It's already happening; and if you don't believe me, I can send you an article that proves my point, though it is slightly sickening (Fun sidenote: Womens organizations that viciously fight for homosexuality fight just as viciously against polygamy, for the reason that it often victimizes women. I love it when the Left can't make up it's mind :D)

Also, legitimizing homosex is giving it the government stamp of approval; and soon after that happens, it will make it's way into the schools (it's already happened, see Project 10). And kids everywhere will begin to be indoctrinated with Alfred Kinsey's message; even over the objections of parents.

I am not anti-homosexuals. There's a lesbian that I interact with occasionally; she and I get along just fine. I am anti-homosexual behavior, and based on the reasons given above; I think that scientifically, and socially, that's the only reasonable position to take.

(1)Study: Young Gay Men At Higher Risk Of Suicide,” 365Gay.com, August 2, 2005; online at: http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/080205suicide.htm (page not available February 13, 2010; on file with Family Research Council

(2)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Viral Hepatitis And Men Who Have Sex With Men,” online at: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm (accessed February 5, 2010).

(3)http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html (accessed March 6, 2012)

(4)Theo G. M. Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, Rob V. Bijl, Paul Schnabel, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS),” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001), pp. 88-89.

(5)Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter,” American Sociological Review 66 (2001), pp. 159-83.

(6)Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia 21, No. 3 (1996): 23-31.

Why Am I Conservative?-Part 2

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume the powers of the earth, hte separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."--Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

I received an email from the ACLU recently, screaming about religion in America; and one of the main points of the email was that the God is not referenced in the Constitution. Strangely, they completely left out the fact that the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution, and was signed off on by many of the same people, is literally based on the assumption that God exists.

Our Founding Fathers, for the most part, believed that a) God exists and b) He is active in the affairs of men. There is extensive documentation of this, not least in the Declaration, quoted above. There were some who held strange views, without a doubt; but for the most part, they were Christians, the nation that they founded was intended to be run on Christian principles, and I would like to see this country run the way they intended to be run.

This is, quite frankly, the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want to stick with the Founding Fathers' vision. Liberals don't care about what the Founding Fathers thought; they know what they want, and they will do whatever they have to do to accomplish their goal. If you disagree with me, take a close look at FDR and President Obama, and you will see that I am right.

So why am I a conservative? Why do I care what a bunch of long-dead old white men intended?

Well, to start with, they are the reason that I'm here. Without them I'd be British or French or Spanish or something like that. They created this country, and that gives them the right to set the rules.

Second, they had a pretty good idea of how things ought to be done. (SLAVERY!) Some of you cry (IS ENSLAVING HUMAN BEINGS HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE DONE?!) I'll get to that in a moment. But if you look at their policies on taxation, foreign relations, the military, and just generally how America does business, up to around Teddy Roosevelt, most of our Presidents had a pretty good bead on things.

Now, let's address the slavery issue. Many people, when you praise the Founding Fathers, trot out the fact that they owned slaves. When this happens, most conservatives get tongue-tied. (Been there, done that). Some will point out that Washington set his slaves free, only to have their opponents point out that he was the only one. (And then the tongue-tying ensues).

As a whole, the Founding Fathers hated slavery. They didn't think that men had any right to enslave other men. Founding Fathers who spoke out against it include Benjamin Rush, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, and Charles Carroll (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=120)

So, if this is true, then why did they allow slavery? Ask yourself for a second: "What happened when we tried to abolish it?"

Think about that for a second. If we had tried to abolish slavery right from the very beginning of this country, would we have remained a unified nation? Of course not. There would have been a civil war right off the bat. South would have fought the North, and it wouldn't have mattered who won, because Britain, Spain, or Portugal would have come in and picked us off we were weak and vulnerable.

The Founding Fathers, as much as they hated it, allowed slavery to continue. However, they designed a society in which they knew that slavery could not survive. Think about it: In America, the status quo is constantly changing. If the status quo is constantly changing, is it not only logical then, that one group can only remain on the bottom for so long?

This is the answer to the standard slavery argument, which is the main argument that is raised against the Founding Fathers. Thus, this is why I support the Founding Fathers, and this, along with the reasons given in the last post, is why I am a Conservative.

Why Am I Conservative?

My politics have long been defined by Psalm 144; particularly verse 15 (By the way, I dare anyone to challenge my interpretation of v. 12: "Our sons will be jacked and our daughters will be gorgeous").

Psalm 144, after an entire chapter of describing a nation that God has obviously blessed, ends with "Blessed are the people of whom this is true; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord." Cross-reference that with Psalm 81:13-14 "If my people would only listen to me, if Israel would only follow my ways, how quickly I would subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes!"

Now, I don't know about you, but a nation blessed by the Almighty God sounds like a good deal to me. But how should a nation blessed by God act? I don't claim to know the complete answer to that question, but I think there are some things in the Bible that are made pretty plain, and that's what I'm here to talk about

What follows is a compilation of Scriptures, with my interpretation of what they should mean to those who make our policies. (All Scriptures are from the NIV 1984 translation)

Verses:

2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.

1 Timothy 5:16

If any woman who is a widow has believers in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

Implications:

Do not reward those who do not work. There are those in a society who are legitimately unable to work; and for those, we have families first, and secondly the church. Nowhere is the government on that list. For families to be able to take care of each other, we first have to have stable families. Currently, in America, that is not the case. So, from these two verses, I think it is safe to reach these conclusions:

1. Eliminate unemployment benefits

2. The government should stay out of the way of the church as the church helps those in need.

3. The government should not work to disrupt the family. (This has extraordinarily far-reaching impact in arenas such as homosexual "marriage", abortion and social security. Namely, that they should be eliminated)

Verse:

Romans 13:4

For he is God's servant to do you good; but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath sent to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do evil

Implications:

In the very first post, we talked about assassinations, and how the state has the right to kill. Swords are killing weapons, that's their purpose. The state has been given the power to punish wrongdoers, both foreign and domestic, with the sword; and they ought to do it quickly. From this we can conclude

1. Capital punishment is legitimate, and once it is decided upon, it ought to happen quickly

2. There is a time for just war, and when that times, act forcefully and decisively; so that others are not encouraged to imitate the wrongdoers, and so bring more trouble

Verses

Romans 13:6

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing

Leviticus 17:32

The entire tithe of the herd and flock--every tenth animal that passes under the shepherds rod--will be holy to the LORD

Implications

Taxes are legitimate. But if God only demands ten percent of our income, then what right do his servants, the governors, have to demand more than that?

American Love: The Male Side to The City Rose's "Modest is Hottest"

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTENT IS AN HONEST MALE COMMENTARY ON THE TITLE TOPIC.

I look forward to the day when Valentine's Day becomes a day that I meticulously plan out a month in advance, and spend money and time on getting it right. However, that day is not yet; and so for me, today falls in the category of "irrelevant". Thus, I feel I have the right to comment on this celebration of American love

Dating is now the norm for the post-, and indeed, even pre-pubescent American. Our society would look at me and go "You're abnormal, you're 17 and have never dated". Conversely, I would look at our society and say "You're abnormal. I'm 17 and not married yet, and you think that's normal." Seriously, name me a historical period (besides the last 100 years in the West) in which it was not abnormal for a 17-year old to not be married.

Normally I would ask how we got here; but the answer to that question would literally take hundreds of pages; but I will say this: It was not accidental.

Now, I subtitled this "The Male Side to The City Rose's "Modest is Hottest". Don't worry, I'm getting to that, I promise.

Before I make this next statement, ladies, I just want to be clear: I am not insulting you,

I am not demeaning your intelligence. It is just a reality:

Females have no concept of what goes on inside the male mind. There is just no category in your mind for the battles that go on inside of ours. This is so true that if I had my way, every girl in the world would have read Every Young Man's Battle

Frankly ladies, you're beautiful to look at. That's why Christian men must constantly fight the battles that most of you are blissfully unaware of. (I say most because I know that there are those women who are not unaware, and who use their awareness to their advantage.)

With this in mind, I can now get to the point, namely, why The City Rose was correct. Girls, you have absolutely no idea how attractive modesty is. It separates you from the rest of our society, and that is attractive. When a girl consistently dresses modestly; that says to a guy that she is a woman of morals and standards. That will get the attention of even the lowest-character guys, and that's a promise

The flip side of that is this: Immodesty is highly attractive, and it will get a girl the attention she wants...from the wrong kind of guy. When a girl dresses immodestly, the higher-character guys will notice, and they will mark her off his mental list of potential mates. Count on it.

All this to say: Guys, in the end, your struggles are your responsibility; no matter how the ladies choose to dress. Girls, it is much appreciated when you make that easier. Not saying you can't dress attractively; because that is, well, unattractive. But, when you walk the line of dressing both attractively and modestly...

That's hot.

Israelis

Yes I'm ba-a-a-ack, ba-a-a-ack...

Yes, I am, but to talk Israel, not sing Australia.

Why does a good chunk of the world hate the Israelis? And why should the US be allied with them?

Reason 1: They're stone-cold killers.

Let me be clear: Israelis scare me. They should scare you too, and if you don't know why, go read Vegeance by George Jonas. (Or, *sigh* you can watch the movie based off of it, Steven Spielberg's Munich.)

The country of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, as a refuge state for the Jewish people. It included about 8,000 sq. miles of the British Mandate for Palestine, including Jerusalem.

On May 15, 1948, Israel was invaded. By four countries. After a year of fighting, a mutual cease-fire was declared. They had not won, but they had kept the peace.

In the Munich Olympics, 1972, very early one morning, a terrorist group called Black September attacked the Israeli dormitories. A 275-lb wrestling judge heard the terrorists outside and tried to hold the door shut with his shoulder. Against 4 Palestinians.

The wrestler stood strong; the Palestinians got inside because the door bent around him. The terrorists knocked him out and shot another wrestler in the face.

He dropped to the floor, and got back up. They shot him several times in the stomach with an AK-47, which can literally tear people in half. He grabbed a kitchen knife, broke a terrorist's jaw, punched another, and slashed a third with the knife before a pullet in the forehead put him down.

Black September killed 11 athletes that day. Golda Meir, the prime minister of Israel, made a list of people behind the attack. Two years later, 8 out of the eleven on that list were dead.

June 5, 1967. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel.

June 5, 1967. Israel bombs the airstrips of all four of those countries.

June 10, 1967, Israel took 5 different territories from those four countries and ended the war.

I could go on; but I've made my point. Israelis are scary people, and thus, NOT people I want fighting against me.

2. They're God's people

They are, they always have been. It's clear, from their military history of the last sixty years, that they should have been wiped out multiple times. But they haven't been. Why? In my opinion, it's because God has declared Abraham's children as His chosen people. And my friend, if you want to oppose the Israelis and go toe-to-toe with God, that is fine with me. But count me out.

3. They do our dirty work

Israelis fight for survival. They always have, and always will. Whenever an American president makes a decision, he worries about the media, the political fallout, etc. The Israelis don't. There is no one they won't kill, nothing they won't do, to survive. And if we continue to assist them, then when our interests coincide with their interests, but it would be politically inconvenient for us to take action, then we don't have to; because they'll do it for us.

4. The alternative

The alternative (aside from declaring: "Y'all shoot it out, we don't care who wins!" The alternative is to side with the Palestinians. This list includes: Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein. Muhammar Qaddafi, Anwar Al-Maliki, etc. I would personally much rather be aligned with the Israelis, no matter how much they scare me, than with that bunch.