Posts Tagged ‘progressives’
In politics and economics as in everything in life there always seems to be more questions than answers.
Some answers previously shared:
Politically speaking, I have said before in these columns that I no longer consider myself to be a conservative because there is nothing left to conserve. Instead I consider myself a Liberal in the classical sense: in the tradition of Jefferson and Paine a believer in human liberty. The once proud name of Liberal has been coopted and fundamentally transformed by the Socialists who have followed the advice of one of their early leaders, Norman Thomas, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
I say it is time to reclaim the name.
In the economic realm, I am unabashedly a believer in capitalism. The reason for this is that it is the only system ever devised by man that requires freedom as a foundation for it to exist. Every other economic system ever tried is a centrally-planned command system. The king, the dictator, or the politburo decides how many widgets the country needs and that is how many widgets the country gets and everyone works at the widget factory.
As a child of the Cold War who had Marx shoved down his throat by Socialist teachers from grade school through college, I rebelled when one of my History professors told me that economics was the lynchpin of History. It wasn’t until after the fall of the Evil Empire that I was able to appreciate this truth. It is interesting to note that before we adopted the German style of College education in the 1890s Economics, History and Political Science were all one discipline. How can we understand any one of them without the others? One legged stools do not stand very well. Information in a vacuum is still a vacuum.
So what is the question?
How can America continue to exist politically as a Republic with a constitutionally limited government dedicated to personal liberty, economic freedom and individual opportunity if our central government destroys competition?
The support of competition does not make someone an anarchist as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accuses.
The use of competition as an organizing mechanism in society precludes the use of certain types of coercive regulations. However, it does not preclude the use regulations or guidelines. There are important reasons why the negative aspects of this statement have been stressed by the advocates of competition while the positive have been neglected by its opponents.
It is necessary that all parties in the market place must be free to buy and sell at any price which they can agree on. It is also necessary that everyone should be free to produce, sell and buy anything that can be produced or sold. It is also necessary that everyone has equal and free access into the trades.
Any attempt to control or regulate prices or quantities of commodities deprives competition of its ability to bring about the effective coordination of individual efforts because price changes then are no longer able to correctly act as a reliable guide for an individual’s actions.
This is not an iron-clad rule. As long as any restrictions placed on all potential producers affect all producers the same and are not used as an indirect method for controlling prices and quantities. All such restrictions impose extra costs however if they are imposed evenly competition can survive if not thrive. For example, it is generally agreed that regulations to control the use of poisonous substances, to limit working hours, or to require sanitary conditions are both desirable and necessary.
The only question here is: are the social advantages gained by these regulations greater than the economic costs they impose. Neither is the existence of social services incompatible with freedom as long as their organization and operation is not designed to restrict competition.
Thus it is shown that the advocates of competition and economic freedom are not anarchists demanding a Laissez-faire anything goes free-for-all. They admit the need for safety and agree that as long as things are equal things are fair.
The fairness of competition is shown in one of its primary foundational principles: that the owner of private property benefits from all the useful services rendered and is liable for all the damages caused to others by its use. When it becomes impossible to make the enjoyment of certain services dependent on payment or if the damages from its use are deflected then completion is ineffective as a social organizer because the price system has been disrupted.
Thus both restrictions on the use of property and bailouts which transfer the cost of failure from those who made the bad decisions to the taxpayers cause the market to become unhinged from reality and the creature of government direction. We see licenses, permits, and other regulations control who can engage in what economic activity. Look at the stock market. Does it rise or fall because of innovation? Do the efforts of people to create and market new products lead the DOW to new heights? No. The market rises and falls on whether or not the Fed is going to continue pumping fiat money into the system.
The rules of the game have been so distorted by the government that honest and open competition is almost impossible. This is why the underground economy flourishes, because it the only place where free competition still exists. And people will always yearn to be free. No matter how governments try to chain their citizens down with webs of regulations and nets of laws Gulliver will always struggle and strain against the ties that bind until he breaks free.
It is obvious to all that President Obama has succeeded in his goal of fundamentally transforming America. For example, his massive stimulus that paid off campaign debts to unions and donors and his mountains of new regulations on everything from banking to coal to student loans. There is the never-ending FED pump which just keeps pouring more money into an already bloated bubble in an effort to make a socialized crippled economy at least look like it works. And of course there is Obamacare which effectively socializes 1/6 of the entire economy. The combination of these policies breaks the back of competition and sound the death knell of the great experiment in freedom begun in 1776. Drip by drip, inch by inch we have been moved closer to the goal. Now it is the Health Care take-over and the flood of fiat currency that are leading to a terminal case of bankruptcy, a systems collapse, and as our Progressive leaders hope the dawn of a new day.
When the invisible hand has been tied and competition weighted in favor of government chosen winners and losers, when the electoral game has been stacked in favor of a two headed Progressive Republicrat party of unlimited power, pride and ambition, when equal justice under the law applies only to citizens and not to officials, the Question is, “What’s the Answer.”
That answer might be, “How long?”
How long before we the American people demand that our nation founded in revolution against tyranny reject the empire and restore the Republic? We can all see that the emperor has no clothes. We all know the deck has been stacked, the game rigged, and the winners chosen. How long before we demand that we are allowed to live in a nation where we will be judged by the content of our character and not by our membership in a protected or favored group, our political contributions or whether or not we have saluted the party line?
As we watch our beloved nation transformed it might be well to remember what our second President John Adams once said, “a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Then again he also said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Recently a person I know who saw himself as being in the forefront of the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s proudly announced he was going to the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. After his announcement he added the tag line, “I’ll try not to get arrested.”
Let me set the scene. Yes, this person did protest the Vietnam War by burning his draft card and applying and receiving conscientious objector status while going to school not jail. Yes he did turn his back on some traditional America traditions such as Christianity and eating meat. However, he did retain at least two traditions he learned from his family: he has always supported democrats and he is a capitalist.
Of course he would argue vehemently if anyone ever called him a capitalist since he will tell you all day long that he hates capitalists and capitalism. No, he is no capitalist, he is an entrepreneur. According to Dictionary.com “Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”
Let’s see, my acquaintance is comfortably retired, living on a multimillion dollar private estate in a fashionable area. How did he grab the golden ring? He did it by his own hard work and enterprise. He invented and developed several products; he established a manufacturing company which employed others to do the actual manufacturing and sold enough products to make a living while investing for the future. Then he sold the company and lives on the dividends. But he isn’t a capitalist, he hates capitalism.
I know several people like this. They have reaped the benefits of capitalism yet they hate capitalists. Or as Lenin said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Fifty years ago MLK participated in a march on Washington because Blacks in America were suffering from unprecedented unemployment, unspeakable inner city violence, and unconstitutional government surveillance. Fifty years later with the former revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s secure as the power elite, they have finally delivered unprecedented unemployment, unspeakable inner city violence, and unconstitutional government surveillance for everyone without regard to race, creed or color.
The only way someone could get arrested in today’s Washington ruled by Progressives and the very epicenter of Political Correctness is to counter-demonstrate on the other side of the street from the victorious revolutionaries at the MLK triumphal procession.
It amazes me that they cannot see their own inconsistency. They make a pilgrimage to worship a man who said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” and yet they support racial quotas, set asides and preferential treatment just to make things fair.
This proudly quintessential anti-war crowd now supports a regime that waged an illegal war in Libya and whose chosen leader wants to kick the hornet’s nest in Syria. These are needless wars that resulted in the establishment of Al Qaeda franchises in Libya and who knows what we will see from an attack on Syria.
The people who elected the Watergate Congress, the people who hounded Nixon out of office because they believed he had violated the Constitution now sow blindly supports our Imperial President, the purported constitutional scholar when he says, “Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities.” Yet the Constitution places Congress as first among equals and devotes more space to its powers than to any other branch.
As they used to remind us the powers of Congress include the sole and exclusive power to declare war.
When President Bush took us into what so many Democrats called illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he sought a debate and received a vote of authorization from Congress. Our over-the-hill revolutionaries held vigils outside Bush’s Texas home and tried to ignite an antiwar movement. Yet when President Obama attacks Libya without even notifying Congress they said nothing.
Now there is a congressional debate over attacking Syria and that is a good thing. And some are speaking out against a war that doesn’t have anything to do with American national interests. But where are the limousine liberals? Are they still supporting a president who is willing to take us to war to put the red in his line? If they are I pray they remember that red will be the blood of American heroes and what we call so innocently collateral damage.
If you watch the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media tonight you can guess what these perennial revolutionaries will say tomorrow since their personal opinions are plagiarized.
Back during the Vietnam War they were duped into supporting the communists, and now they’re duped into supporting people who want to bring central-planning and eternal surveillance to America.
Is this naivety or hypocrisy? Is this selfless altruism combined with low information? Or is it the self-centered arrogance of people who can be proven wrong time after time yet still believe only they can see the right course.
These aging middle-class capitalists who hate capitalism, these social revolutionaries who live on private estates still see themselves as revolutionaries after they’ve won the revolution. They still worry about getting arrested after their Dear Leaders have taken over control of the police, the IRS, and the NSA. In their 21st Century utopian USSA we find that according to a Department of Defense training material, “people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential ‘extremists’ who are likely to be members of ‘hate groups.’” In Amerika today the 60s radicals are the establishment and the silent majority has become the outsider.
So while I pray for my acquaintance’s safe return from his pilgrimage, I will keep writing about the need to preserve limited government and I’ll try not to get arrested.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
The Benching of Uncle Sam – A GOP Syria vote shouldn’t ratify U.S. decline at home and abroad.
David Axelrod on Saturday gave his opinion on the situation in Syria with a tweet on Twitter: “Congress is now the dog that caught the car.” On Wednesday, the president of the United States retweeted Mr. Axelrod’s 43-character analysis. He said in Stockholm that the credibility at stake in the decision on Syria isn’t his. Instead, it is “America’s,” and “Congress’s credibility,” and the “international community’s credibility.” Mr. Obama looks like the dog who ran away from the car.
The purpose of Mr. Obama’s fantastic statements Wednesday could not be more obvious: He is trying to drive the Republicans into a “no” vote on the Syria resolution. He is shirking presidential responsibility for the U.S.’s role in the world. He doesn’t want that responsibility.
The GOP should not be a party to this abdication. It should vote for a resolution authorizing Mr. Obama to act militarily in Syria. After that bipartisan vote, it will be Barack Obama who caught the presidency.
With the presidency comes the job of commander in chief. He never wanted that job. He wanted to let the U.S.’s global status decline while he dallied at home with windmills, college rankings and health data.
Now he has to step up. An authorization vote on a discrete world crisis will force the inconstant Mr. Obama to focus and think about the world with the seriousness it requires from the president of the United States.
Republicans should support an authorization on Syria for the same reason they are opposing him on ObamaCare: to stop America’s decline. Whether by design or incompetence, Barack Obama’s policies are putting in motion a historic American reversal at home and abroad.
If this were September 2015, it wouldn’t matter. But we are little more than eight months into Mr. Obama’s second four years. A responsible and loyal opposition would recognize that it is not in the interests of the U.S., or the world, to have an irreparably damaged U.S. president this early in his second term.
Americans, including those in Congress, wake up every day to a country that was handed to them by earlier generations of Americans after World War II. The United States had become the world’s pre-eminent nation. Great nations, however, are not like planets passing through the sky in fixed orbits. They can drop.
Republicans understand the dangers of domestic economic decline. That is why they are opposing this president on ObamaCare, spending and the national debt.
Growth in the Obama years has hovered around 2%, way off the century-long average of 3.3% that produced abundance and prosperity for the U.S. Signs of economic revival have begun to appear, but the Obama economic agenda is a structural impediment to the sustained, higher growth rates that produced the American Century.
A less prosperous America is acceptable to Barack Obama and his progressive supporters, who have convinced themselves that the distribution of wealth in the U.S. since its founding has been “unjust.” If public policy can forcibly redistribute U.S. wealth, a lower level of economic growth is acceptable. Relative to America’s achievement, this will be decline.
What is unique about the Obama presidency is that American decline as a world power won’t, as with Europe, be the unhappy result of wealth redistribution. It is part of Mr. Obama’s agenda. In future crises, Mr. Obama said in his 2009 Cairo speech and elsewhere, the U.S. would act only after building “international consensus,” which meant the United Nations or the faded European allies. An Obama aide called this “leading from behind.” That is what the U.S. did in Libya. This partnership-of-equals policy was the basis for the failed Russian reset.
The end of what they call “the American imperium” is a policy goal progressive activists have sought for decades. If Republicans vote to defeat a resolution on using military power against Assad, whose victory may let Iran and Russia achieve hegemony in the Middle East, it will be a vote to take Uncle Sam out of the world power game.
That will give Barack Obama a reason to proceed with the downsizing of America at home and in the world for the rest of his term. The depressed GOP hawks on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted on Wednesday against authorization are merely enabling this outcome.
This will put the U.S. in a very bad place. Those who think their president can begin reversing all this in 2017 are dreaming. A sinking world power is the heaviest lift imaginable. Ask Winston Churchill.
Legitimate questions exist about a Syria resolution—about goals, means and the status of the opposition forces—and they should be addressed. But that’s not the issue being raised here. The American decline put in motion under this presidency is real, not speculative. We are not at the edge of the cliff, but in September 2013 we are at a serious inflection point.
As they vote, the Republicans in Congress should make clear that they understand the historic stakes. The American people, who the last time I looked weren’t interested in throwing in the towel, will appreciate hearing something that sounds like leadership.
Write to email@example.com
A version of this article appeared September 5, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Benching of Uncle Sam.
Ronald Reagan taught us, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
Barack Obama’s mentor as a young man was communist party member Frank Marshall Davis. As a community organizer he was a follower and promoter of the communist fellow-traveler Saul Alinsky’s methods and goals. As a professional in Hyde Park he associated with socialist radicals such as Bill Ayers. As an up-and-coming Chicago Politician he attended the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an outspoken proponent of the socialist Black Liberation Theology. As president he appointed communist Van Jones to be one of his many Czars. Mr. Obama says he is not a socialist. However, simple logic tells us if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck you can be relatively certain it’s a duck.
Mr. Obama has told us that he seeks to be a transformational president like his idol FDR. He was bold enough to tell us just days before the election in 2008 that he would fundamentally transform America. In just one term he has accomplished much along the way to changing us from what we have always been into what the Progressives have always wanted us to be.
How has Barak Obama transformed us? Into what is he transforming us? A look at his impressive *list of firsts as president of these United States points in the direction he is herding us:
- First President to have a Social Security number from a state where he has never lived
- First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
- First President to violate the War Powers Act
- First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
- First President to require that all Americans purchase a product from a third party as a condition of citizenship
- First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and then joke that shovel ready wasn’t quite as shovel ready as he thought
- First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters
- First President to by-pass Congress and implement laws such as the Dream Act and Cap-n-Trade through executive fiat
- First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees
- First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (GM) to resign
- First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space
- First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation
- First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present
- First President to send the families of fallen service members a form letter signed with an auto-pen
- First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it (DOMA)
- First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases
- First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory
- First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
- First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal)
- First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case
- First President to appoint 45 czars to his office
- First President to golf more than 100 times separate times in his first three and a half years in office
- First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records
- First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing to earn it
- First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours
- First President to go on 16 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer
- First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife
- First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense
- First President to publicly read from the Quran & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth
- First President to recite the Muslim call to prayer in perfect Arabic
- First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance
- First President to side with a foreign nation over one of America’s 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona)
Mr. Obama is leading us from being the first among nations to being just another vote in the United Nations. Now there’s a level playing field for you. And now it’s time for another election, some say our most important, some say perhaps our last.
In many ways this election cycle is refreshing. For generations the Progressives have pretended to be something they are not to win elections. They have pretended to be dedicated to the American dream of personal liberty, economic freedom and the belief that America was different from other nations, that as the world’s first and most enduring modern experiment in a republic based on limited government we were exceptional. Although the policies of the Progressives have always been at odds with this assumed identity at least every election cycle they would tip their hat to the America of our fathers and portray themselves as a Thomas Jefferson or an Andrew Jackson.
Therefore, 2012 is shaping up to be the election where the Progressives cast aside their mask and run as who they are: the American version of socialism promising to tax the rich and spread the wealth around, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election on this platform the Progressives will finally have their chance to give Americans the same kind of cradle-to-grave utopia the happy people of Russia, China, North Korea, and Hitler’s Germany have had the fortune to endure. If Mr. Obama wins re-election espousing the true intentions of the Progressives, to change the constitution from a rock solid foundation for freedom into a living document that is a dead letter, he will succeed at his vow to fundamentally transform America.
He will fundamentally transform the dreams of our fathers for a land of liberty and opportunity into the dreams of his father who was a pro-communist social engineer and America will become just another country trying to build heaven on earth by plundering some to benefit others.
As to his utopian beliefs and aspirations President Obama has said, “I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth”
President Reagan also told us, “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it, and hell where they already have it.”
*Lists of Mr. Obama’s firsts are found numerous places. The sources referenced for each first are merely representative of the many available for each.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens
Mr. Obama may not be the only President we have ever elected who has little real world experience, but he may be the first who has none. And hopefully he will be our last.
President Obama’s latest insult to hardworking Americans has drawn massive press, at least in the portion of the Media that isn’t consumed with repeating and debating his false allegations concerning Romney’s business record. It isn’t hard to understand how a Marxist would consider the accomplishments of a capitalist to be criminal. It also isn’t hard to understand how a Marxist would believe that no one can accomplish something on their own; they do believe it takes a village to raise a child after all. What is hard to understand is how America was gullible enough to elect a Marxist president when the evidence of his beliefs, his associates, and his political activities were so easy to see.
What will be utterly beyond comprehension is a majority of our fellow voters drinking the kool-aide a second time when it is obvious from Mr. Obama’s rhetoric that he is selling a blatantly anti-capitalist and anti-American line of constitutional suicide.
With serial apology tours, bowing to foreign leaders, and abandoning our surrogates to help install the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East, it is obvious Mr. Obama is a walking disaster for America’s foreign policy. It is also obvious from the recession he has managed to turn into the Great Recession that his spread around the wealth transfer policies are an unmitigated disaster on the domestic front. His record wouldn’t inspire anyone except a fellow American hating Marxist to vote for him, so his only viable tactic is to make the other guy totally unacceptable. In the coming months watch as the President, his fellow traveler mouth pieces, and the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media turn squeaky clean bland, boring Mitt Romney into a nefarious arch criminal who has built a massive criminal enterprise on the backs of exploited victims.
Even if President Obama really believes personal accomplishments, except his own of course, are merely the trophies of exploitation that doesn’t mean the rest of us should accept this as a legitimate premise for discussion. The Democrat Media may want to spend endless hours asking Mitt to explain why he threw grandma off the cliff after stealing her Social Security check, but that doesn’t mean any sane person should waste time considering it.
A better question might be if capitalists have claimed personal success unfairly while using roads and electric grids built by others why is it fair for Mr. Obama to claim as his own the fame for killing Osama when someone else started the campaign and someone else executed it? Why aren’t the failures of his forays into venture socialism such as Solyndra, the Volt, or anything else his fault? Our Dear Leader is a walking example of socializing the costs while personalizing the profits. If it goes bad it was someone else’s fault, but if it goes right it was all him. He has changed the famous Truman quote to “The Buck Stops with You” and since the teleprompter told him to say it he was able to do it with a straight face. The saddest thing of all is that the dumbed down crowds he wows probably don’t know he changed the quote at all.
All of this is shaping up as a surreal election cycle. We have a Democrat doing everything imaginable to lose. He is abandoning the white middle-class, attacking capitalism, and lavishing insult after insult upon anything and everything Americans have always held dear including our founding principles. We have a Republican who passed the template for Obamacare and can’t generate as much excitement as a Saturday night of rearranging your sock drawer.
America hangs in the balance.
If we re-elect a Marxist on a platform of class warfare and soak the rich, I imagine we will see class warfare and soak everybody. If we elect a middle of the road Massachusetts Republican with a veneer of conservatism who is enamored of the foreign affairs advice of John Bolton, the angriest of the neo-con war hawks I imagine we might get a reprieve on the Marxism as the government grows to sustain more wars for peace.
What’s a patriot to do? Are we teetering on the edge, past the tipping point, or already careening into the Abyss? Do we throw away our vote on someone with no chance to win? Do we choose the lesser of two evils knowing that we will still be choosing evil? Do we do as one of my oldest friends is doing: sell everything and leave the country before all this progressivism hits the fan? Do we store food, bury guns, and wait for the zombie apocalypse?
The answers could be so simple. Domestically we could cut taxes, cut regulations, and let the economy surge. In foreign affairs we could follow the direction laid out by the founders: a friend to all and an enemy to none, withdraw our far flung international police precincts, make our homeland an impregnable fortress and let trade be our currency and peace be our policy.
Instead we face a future of austerity and contraction based upon a bloated government swallowing ever more of the American pie no matter who wins. We face endless interventions and undeclared wars in quagmires defending a status quo that is no longer tilted in our favor. China, the rising dragon of the East, is playing chess as our dithering Progressives moan about chickens coming home to roost, and political correctness prevents us from doing what we should do when we should do it.
These are times when I draw upon the true source and summit of my being and remember that the God of Heaven and Earth has not left us without understanding. We face these problems because we have forsaken Him, and the only way back is through Him. He told us long ago, “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” That isn’t just an observation it is a promise. And unlike our fickle politicians who merely want to tickle our ears, God always keeps His promises.
Therefore as we turn to face the change don’t be discouraged, don’t be depressed, and don’t worry. God has our back if we will give him our faith. For He also told us, “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it shall not come near you.”
Keep the peace. Keep the faith. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens