Thursday, November 1, 2012

Election Time Deception

Bing
"Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is used in our vows before God.  We know that 90% plus of deception is found in that which is missing from a person's words.  90% (plus) of deception does not come from a direct lie (fabrication of reality) but from withheld information.

Our nation is at a cross roads of choice, with one direction that which Europe has gone, and the other direction that which once was used to establish our nation.  I know of no other time in my lifetime where we  were so bitterly divided one from another.

Who is responsible for our safely and well beings?  This is a critical question for all of us to answer as we face our election.

 Is it the individual, or is it the government?
Is it the family, or it is the government?

The government has the authority to impose its decisions via fines and/or imprisonment for those who disagree.

There is much at stake.

Readership here know more about deception than the population.  For this, Casey Anthony is not a good example, nor is Billie Dunn, or Scott Peterson.  These three cases did not have experts lining up on both sides, debating guilt or innocence.

There were no known experts defending these three to be found anywhere.  Outside of small fan clubs, where even Charles Manson is revered, there were no debates on truth or deception.  It was black and white, up and down, in and out, without a "who done it?" mystery tag.

Readership knows what a reliable denial looks like.  Almost deceptively simple, the press ignores the basic principle and writes out its headlines, "Politician Denies Scandal" when, in fact, more times than not, no denial was ever issued.  Readership knows.

Political season is almost complete.  I will be glad when it is over, one way or another, as I hope tempers will recede, at least for now.  There are many things I have tired from, but political ads is high on my list.

The networks who report news have a moral obligation to be fair, and allow for the news to be heard, whether or not it agrees with the network heads' political views.

The internet has given us a wealth of information that is historically unprecedented, at least, since the printing press became widely used.  The internet is a "second printing press" of information.

For us, we have transcripts everywhere, and many trials can be seen, allowing for the freedom of information to continue; with discernment's tools applied.

Discernment.

This is what Statement Analysis is all about.

Discerning whether or not your car salesman is lying to you, or if he is truthful.

Discerning whether or not the politician promising to take care of your children is picking your pocket to pay for whatever it is he thinks his bureaucracy can and should do.

It is when networks either withhold news, or put it into such a low percentage that deception is indicated.

On September 11, 2012, Americans were victims in a terrorist attack.

Our President's administration told us that this was only a protest gone wrong, rather than an attack.  The administration's announcement was embraced by the country until the internet allowed for conflicting information to be released. Now, we know differently and are still learning more.

The Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack; not a protest.

Deception by our leaders is indicated.

                          But what of the networks' coverage?  Is this deception?

The timing could not be worse for the President. Less than 2 months before election, on the same day in which America was attacked by muslim terrorists in the name of their god, years before, the deception began.

I am sick of all things muslim.  I am sick of being told to be tolerant of a religion that subjugates women, has pathological hatred of Jews, and wishes to take away our long fought for freedoms, via the means of violence.  We have been forced fed muslim tolerance, beginning with George W. Bush's deception of a "hijacked peaceful religion" culminating into an intense, pro muslim period of time in the last 4 years under Barak Obama.

I don't need to tolerate an intolerant religion. I know its teachings and I know what it has done in the lands it has taken root.  When I am asked to be tolerant towards a religion that abuses its own daughters, I am insulted and angered. When our own laws are used against us, something must give. When muslims sought to build a mosque at the site of the World Trade Centers, they showed us what the 'moderates' think of the murder of innocent civilians on 9/11.  The knocking out of our two front teeth in the form of the Twin Towers wasn't enough.  Now the salt would be applied to the wounds of Americans, while muslims around the world celebrate the 'site of conquest' over America.

 I do not tolerate an administration that had the need to blame a video that none of us had even heard of for a planned attack.

The "stand down" orders sicken me.  I have not written about them because of how deeply disturbing it was to see the Navy Seals' father on television.  His anguish is all too much for words right now.

Who supplied the weapons?  Who gave the "stand down" order?  What became of those who disobeyed, and risked their lives, as heroes, instead of cowards, to help fellow Americans?

There is much more to come out.  Let us hope it comes out before Election Day in America, so that Americans can make an informed decision, instead of party alliance only.

Bureaucracy is self destructive.  Food is something we all need to survive.  The twain do not meet.

Greece stands as a shining example, 20 years ahead of us, of what a bureaucracy does:  it feeds only itself until it runs out of food.

I don't know a single person who would not open his cupboard and help feed his neighbor, yet when the government gets involved, jobs are created that produce nothing.

For every $10 spent in food, $9 of it goes to the distributor, the supervisor, the secretary, the quality assurance, the bookkeeper, and so on.  The joke about the government taking over the Sahara and running out of sand is universal.  It is the nature of government, which is why our forefathers pressed hard upon us to limit its scope, power, and responsibilities to bare necessities.  The food program can be substituted for any program the government goes into in which it has no business being into.   The politician who put this program into existence is long removed from office yet the wastefulness goes on and on.  It is not a real statistic, but it can be applied to almost anything.  A bureaucracy is designed to keep itself in existence, and will, thus, promote those who pose the least threat.  When a business is run for profit, whoever produces the most is promoted simply because profit is the goal.  This has a natural tendency to, over time, overrule prejudice and injustice, on its own.

                                                          Freedom.

Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, but, with freedom comes responsibility.  Responsibility means not blaming someone else.

It is my fault if my son does not apply himself and do his homework, not his teacher's.  He should not be rewarded with "free money" for his laziness.
It is my fault if my son is not taught to respect women, not the victim's fault.  He cannot use a religion to justify domestic violence:  he should be imprisoned.
It is my fault if my son does not obey the laws of the land, not the police officer's fault.  One who cannot live by laws is dangerous and belongs in a cage, so that others may be safe from them.
It is my fault if I am stupid enough to give my young child soda for breakfast.  It is not the fault of the store, and it is not the business of a politician to tell me what I can and cannot buy.

Society should not now bear the health care costs of my folly.  If I choose to destroy my health, you should not be forced, via taxes, to pay for it.

In fact, historically, it was never the government's business.  Now the idiot father who wants to give soda for breakfast to his young children has to buy 2 small cups instead of 1 large cup.  It accomplished nothing and is just another tiny encroachment into our personal and private lives by a government, that is, a system of transient workers, to tell us how to live.  They are elected, make their laws, and then move on.  We are left bereft of freedoms.

Where I live, I have to ask the government's position to have a dog, cut my neighbor's hair, or have a yard sale.  Imagine explaining this to the brave Americans who resisted British tyranny not too terribly long ago?

I can't.

If a man has the talent to turn himself into a multi millionaire, it is his gifts and talent which may be then harnessed for the good of others; where many may get jobs which produce, not "make work" jobs that will, eventually, bring default.  Read the resumes.  Who creates?  Who lives off the creation of others?

Every single thing a politician promises people must, one day, be paid for.

Everything has a price.  The "free lunch" is paid for by someone, and if it is on a credit card, eventually, it has to be paid.  If it is not paid due to bankruptcy, the credit card company will start to layoff workers, which will lower the tax revenue for the programs, which will mean that taxes will have to, yet again, increase, in order to pay for more...and on it goes.

I am reading the life of Joseph Stalin at night.  He knew the ignorance of the masses, and knew how "bumper sticker" mentality, or "sloganism" worked better than logical arguments. For the multitude, "if it don't fit, you must acquit" works better than the labor of reason and the employment of logic.  The masses are ignorant and can grasp a slogan better than follow an argument.

Politicians often appeal to the lowest common denominator:  the undiscerning, the lazy, and those who live off the labors of others.  This not only builds a base of support, but it appeals to the guilty minded, who feel they must apologize for being successful in life.

                                                          The self loathing.

I like to believe that readership here is not part of the crowd.

I have children and soon I will have grandchildren.

The ancient teaching from Solomon was that a good man would lay up something for his children's children.  Today, we have bumper stickers like, "I am spending my grand children's inheritance" as if this was something to brag over.

For those who believe that there is no cause to lay up for tomorrow because it is their government's responsibility, the best remedy is to read history.  The "government" is made up of men and women of very limited vision.  Their short-sightedness means quick re-elections and postponing the painful paying of the bills for another day.

We have pushed off that day for a long time now, but it is true, nonetheless, that the bill will one day become due.

Even as France now ridicules the rich, of whom they feed themselves off of, so it is that the trend to denigrate success is now poisoning American minds.  From grade school "re-distributing the good grades" right up to college campus social ostracizing of certain groups who reject the "Animal House" frat life in exchange for study groups, this institutionalized envy is now found everywhere.

The only ones who seem to make a buck off of it are lawyers:  the very ones we elect to govern us.

Use discernment on Election Day.

Regarding ABC News and Benghazi reporting:


Wednesday, ABC "World News" gave a dismissive 20 seconds of lip service to a blockbuster report that revealed State Department emails showing that the White House knew on September 11 that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist attack. The emails documented that within two hours of the attack, the State Department had told the Obama administration that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for this terrorist attack.


This is news because White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14: “We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack.

Always take note of anything and everything delivered in the negative:  of what they do not have, did not say, or did not think.  

Always. 


The emails show they did, in fact, have information suggesting a planned terrorist attack, yet President Obama and his spokesmen for days lied to the American people, falsely claiming it was a “spontaneous” attack spurred by a “video.”

The email story broke Tuesday night on the "CBS Evening News." Since then, the Media Research Center reviewed all of ABC News' programs, and the network has almost completely refused to report this new evidence, giving it a scant 25 seconds on “Good Morning America” and 20 seconds on “World News” Wednesday night.  “Good Morning America” skipped the story entirely on Thursday morning, but did commit nearly 2 minutes to the capture of a monkey in Florida. “World News” did not mention the emails on Thursday night.

Yes, ABC News has covered the attacks in Benghazi but it is giving scant attention to the latest development concerning the release of emails.

ABC is aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s cover-up of their deceitful response to the Benghazi terrorist attack. There is no bigger story than Obama’s Benghazi lie, and ABC, a so-called "news network," has absolutely no excuse for hiding the truth from the American people.

The questions are simple: what did President Obama know? And when did he know it? These emails prove that either Obama knew it was a terrorist attack and lied about it for weeks, or his administration is historically incompetent. Either way, it’s major news and demands more than mere seconds of total coverage from one of the three major broadcast networks.

ABC has been shielding Obama from the Benghazi fallout for weeks in order to help him win re-election, but the American people see right through it. Their corruption is as obvious as it is unforgivable.

28 comments:

Mouse74 said...

Why hide that it was a terrorist attack? As an Obama supporter, this has me puzzled. Is it Obama, or his administration? Why lie? Great example of where I don't really want to know the answer :( but it keeps nagging at me.

Why hide that the twin towers were taken down by explosives and not the plane crashes? Our government is more than just the President. I have never felt like the President has much control, he's just the face, the voice. I don't know....I'm regressing. I just feel sad everytime the topic of politics comes up. It's a never ending tic tac toe game, never a winner.

Media will always play devil's advocate. That's why I like to come here for my news :)

Anonymous said...

I am with you Peter. But mostly I am sick of Americans not using their brains and not questioning the lies and the motives. It won't be long before we are a socialist country. Americans better wake up and realize that.

dadgum said...

Why use our brains when we are encouraged to "vote like your lady parts depend on it". The government has nothing to do with y 'lady parts', they are mine alone to care for.

We are encouraged to vote for someone "..beautiful..who loves me, cares about me..who will ensure free healthcare and birth control.." Never mind ethics, morality, experience, and past results.

Now we are treated to Michael Moore and MoveOn.org, and his profanity spewing senior citizens, one woman is 97 years old. My husband ignores all of it, until in the ad, actors say they will 'burn this m--fer down'..if we allow the election to be in Romney's favor by voter fraud from the Republicans.

What we want to hear are facts, and the truth. Both seem hard to come by.

Jules23 said...

Here is an article about this on CNN from this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/01/opinion/bennett-benghazi-obama/index.html

On Friday, President Obama was asked directly by Denver's KUSA-TV's Kyle Clarke whether our forces were denied backup during the attack. The president dodged the first question. Clark followed up, "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"
"Well, we are finding out exactly what happened," the president responded. "I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."
This is different from what the president said in his Rose Garden speech on September 12, when he mentioned nothing about securing personnel the evening of the attack, or what he said to "The View" or Univision in the weeks after the attack.

Seamus O Riley said...

There are those who are supporters of President Obama who strongly disagree with others, including me, yet we remain, together, committed to reason and logic.

It is something that makes the blog special.

I am reminded of how many fans of Lance Armstrong have said, "deception indicated" in spite of personal feelings.

Peter

rob said...

I have always been amazed that the primary fault many people have with Romney, is that he is wealthy. He has realized the American dream. The only way I will realize it, is if I win the lotto. Which will be hard, because I seldom buy tickets.
But is it because I can't? No. it is because I'm not the type to step out on a limb, to risk what I have aquired in a lifetime of working. But I don't begrudge it of others. Great for them . the American dream is still alive, for the ones who will reach for it. But so many today won't even reach. It's easier to sit home a draw a pitily govt check, have money for 2 or 3 days, then wait 27 more days for the next one. What a sad life. It is the closest thing to slavery that I have ever seen.
This is my opinion only, and I have no desire to force it on others.

shmi said...

I don't need to tolerate an intolerant religion.

Sums it all up perfectly!

Hobnob said...

This is one reason i am glad we don't have american style elections here.

Over there you have elections every 4 years for presdient and in between elections for the senate and congress plus sundry others.
it works out that every year there is either an election or a camapign.

How does your president ever accomplish anything i often wonder.

He gets elected yaaaay then has to pay all his debts accrued during his campaign, return favors and generally feather his nest.

Year 1 is the honeymon year, promises made are looked at again and if you are lucky put into motion.
Half the country is going yaaay we won yah boo sux to be you and waiting with happy hearts and open hands for the gifts promised. Anything that goes wrong is quickly forgiven and blamed on the previous governmemt.
The other half are sulking and quick to point out every mistake, broken promise and sundry snafoos.
If the incumbent is reelected then it is still blamed on the previous (other party) governemt however long ago it was, it is also blamed on europe, the middle east, the world economy, the universe or the wife having a bad hair day. It is never the presidents fault and any who say otherwise are publicly lambasted and fired.

Year 2 the honeymoon is over and the public expects promises to have been kept or at least started. The president is expected to work hard and any mistakes are so easily forgiven. This is the only year when a president actually does anything useful.
Camapigning is done for the party for any elections due this year. Campaigning is primary, governing is secondary. the party comes first and the elected houses must be filled with his own party.

Year 3 the president if eligable now starts planning his next campaign for reelection. He admits he isn't perfect (unless his name is obama) he starts making long term promises which will come into effect when he is reelected.
He starts putting out feelers for a VP if the current one is a liability and for donations from big supporters so as to fill his campaign chest.
If he can't be reelected (he is 2 term already)he starts putting out feelers for his successor and also for gainful and well paid employment after he leaves office. His eye is on his own future and lining his own pocket rather than running the country.
Important decisions are put off so the next guy can deal with it. Anything requiring effort is ignored as is anything that might make him look bad. Blame is easily and often cast when things aren't done.NIMBYism is rife, especially if he thinks the opposition is going to get in.

.

Hobnob said...

Year 4 is sod actual governing and being a proper president.
it is a year of campaigning, seeking donations for his campaign chest openly, demeaning his opposition, scorning,deriding,mocking and outright lying about the opposition party as they select their candidate and then claws out for the winning candidate.
If seeking a 2nd term long term promises are made. broken promises are explained away and blamed on everyone else except himself and his party. The dog farted which is why we didn't send in help for ...
Anyone who disagrees with the partyline, is outspoken or points out discrepencies or even worse the truth is immediately and publicy lynched. Nothing must come between the president and a 2nd term. If it is a new candidate the same thing applies, the outgoing president will do everything as above to protect the 'incoming' (same party) president.
If all esle fails think of something that will unite the country and if needs be delay the elections ( then blames the world at large for making them cling to power)
If reelected repeat as above. If unelected blame the world at large and think about standing again in 4 years if eligable or getting wifey to stand)

In the uk elections were every 5 years or sooner and campaigning is for 4 weeks prior to an election. the current governemt has now made the term of office 5 years so we know when the next elections will be called. This also prevents parties from calling a snap election when something favorable happens to ensure relection.
every 2 years half the country has local and county council elections. camapigns are again limited to 4 weeks and as in all elections there is a max limit on what can be spent with full accounting required for every penny spent. People have been disqualified after getting elected for over spending by even a few pounds.

Maybe in the states the same rule could apply. You get x amount of dollars to spend on your campaign, overspend and you are automatically disqualified. It would prevent what we see here as the candidate with the most money buying the presidency.

Can you imagine how much could be accomplished if camapigns were only 4 weeks long?
they would either have to go on their past record and say look how good we did or they would have to go to the other extreme and slam how bad the other guy did. 4 weeks of frantic campaigning and then it's all over till next time.
Most folk know who they will vote for, they have always voted for x party, their family have always voted for x so they will too, they have never voted and never will as the government always get in.
Th only ones who pay any real atention to the political ads and campaigning are the undecideds and the independants, they don't know who to vote for so tell my why they should vote for you not why they shouldn't vote for the other guy.

I stood for election many times increasing my party's vote by 300% I didn't get in nor did i expect to since where i live is a staunch 1 party town, we do get an MP of the other main party due to the rural areas which counteract the town (if you are a union member you are guaranteed election)

Lemon said...

Bravo, Mr. Hyatt.

Sus said...

Rob, For me it's not that Romney's rich, but that he's rich and intolerant of others plight in life. He exemplifies Jesus's teaching on the rich man having more trouble than others getting to heaven.

We have become a nation where competition, each for his own is the norm. People guard their riches like it's the most important thing...thus "How dare they spend MY tax money on health care for someone else." Or, "Why should I pay for someone to sit?" My personal favorite, "They bought junk food with their food stamps!"

People are buying guns in record numbers...to protect themselves and their precious riches. Yet statistics show that gun is more likely to kill their own family member.

I chose to remember we are all connected and we must love and help each other. I don't feel Romney "gets" this concept. When I feel someone is only out for theirself, they have lost my vote.

Jen said...

Thank you Peter for calling out the major networks & their blind devotion to Obama. I know many have brought up on this blog the current lack of investigative journalism and it is problematic on many levels. Journalists & investigative reporters used to persue truth and 'bombshell' information to report to the public, now we are spoon fed press releases from the whitehouse as if it's fact. Imagine this kind of complacent reporting during the Whitewater or Lewinsky scandals...would anyone have pushed to expose the truth.

It's really sickening when I think back on the MONTHS of constant coverage on President Clinton's lie, and the fallout that followed...and he lied about oral sex! Compare that to President Obama's lie regarding an attack that cost Americans their lives and it gets a few seconds worth of coverage. The blue dress will be remembered forever, but the emails exposing our Presidents outright lie about whether or not he knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack is glazed over so quickly that you could miss it taking a potty break. Something is very wrong with that!

rob said...

Sus, the way I see it, charity should be voluntary, not mandatory. If I have extra money, and I want to give it away, good for me and the recipiant. But, if I have money, because I work,& YOU decide I'm going to give it to someone who doesn't work, then I got a problem with it.
I read this quote, don't know who said it-"you cannot legistate the poor into freedom, by legislating the wealthy out of freedom"
The Bible says 'if a man will not work, neither shall he eat"
I don't think charity is a problem in this country, people are always eager to give, and sometimes get taken advantage because of it.

Anonymous said...

There are many who perform charitable acts daily, without sounding a trumpet when ever they do so. Most of these folks will spend a lifetime caring for others on some level, without anyone aknowledging their acts.

If we don't have the money to give, because we have promised to support something in particular, we give in kind. Housing homeless in our home, organizing and administrating a shelter in Southern California, feeding the poor, homeless, and sick daily (I taught my kids to make several extra lunches every morning..handing them out as we made our way to school), feeding the homeless in a nearby park daily meals. They came to our back door.

We gave shelter and necessities to pregnant mothers, children in need, ill children who needed extra care. We cared for children while their mothers worked.

There are many like us. No one tells us what to do, and religion does not require these acts. We do it because God has shown us Grace, and we share that Grace with others. I don't care what religion they are or are not, or what language they speak. They are in need.

Some give large amounts of their income to be used charitably..others figure paying taxes is charity enough. Some (won't say who) consider themselves enough of a gift to humanity, that running for office takes the place of service of any kind. Rushing off to a fund raiser when he should have been lowering flags to half staff was message enough for me.

Apple said...

This is a very well written article.

Anonymous said...

I feel the same way. Great post. Thank you, Peter.

Charity must be voluntary for it to be charity. Love must be voluntary for it to be love. Caring must be voluntary for it to be caring.

Free will is a gift from above. Without free will there can be gift of oneself or one's possesions to another.

So if you take from one against their will and give to another, you are stealing.

People should not covet what others have.

I don't know how anyone can say Mitt Romney does not care about others when his whole life has been dedicated to serving others, (unless they are only listening to the mainstream media). I see Barak Obama serving no one but himself. He says what the fools want to hear. He fans the flames of their covetousness. He gets votes. He speaks glibly to people who are not very deep.

But to really care about people is to have their best interests at heart. To tell them there is such a thing as a free lunch is a lie, and not in their best interests.

Hobnob said...

You mean there are no free lunches? no free donuts?
Next you will be telling me the moon isn't made out of edam and the stars aren't mini marshmallows waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

MaryK said...

I voted for Romney/Ryan on Sunday (early voting here in Florida). We have not heard the last of this Libya Cover-up. I am sure the Clintons are consulting lawyers as no way will Hilary take the fall for Obama. Please also remember, writing in or voting third party is a vote for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Sus said...
Rob, For me it's not that Romney's rich, but that he's rich and intolerant of others plight in life.

According to this statement, you don't like Romney because he is rich, and also because he is intolerant of others' plight in life.

You said, "People are buying guns in record numbers...to protect themselves and their precious riches." You mention precious riches again, which is sensitive to you. You don't like wealthy people. How sad, because it is the wealthy that build hospitals. If you don't believe me, just check your local one and see why each building is named after a rich patron. -- the government didn't build it.

What makes you dislike the rich? Obviously here, SA indicates that what is said in the negative is important, and you have stated that in fact, it upsets you that Romney is rich.

What statements can you share with us that Romney has said where the intolerance of others is revealed?

Sus, there is no valid reason why the poor choices of other people need to be the burden of those who chose wisely.

dadgum said...

Wow! I finally got a response to my letters and emails to the White House. I really have some questions about the direction of healthcare, and there are votes in the balance.

Oh wait..

It was a robot. Never mind. Says we need to wait and see how the future unfolds. There's a surprise.

Sue said...

although we are on political sides far away this is a good article and I must carefully consider the future of the country more than just how I have voted the last few elections. thank you.

caring mother said...

Romney is rich because he is smart. Why do we hate the successful in our country? This is what we have been reading in other countries in Europe: hatefulness towards those who work hard and are successful. My son paid his own way through college, and has tons of loans through med school. He now makes a lot but has earned every penny. He has his best friend from high school who did not go to college on his own choice, drank away his fun time while ridiculing my son for staying home and studying. He goes from job to job barely over minimum wage. He hates Romney and thinks he is going to get a free house from the president Obama. There is no talking to him. He is bitter and thinks everyone owes him.

Anonymous said...

Cute dog.

dadgum said...

6:11..
You made me laugh. Thank you!

Sus said...

I think it's great you are all saying how charitable we Americans are. BUT I am saying sometimes the need is too great and government assistance is needed. Ask Romney AGAIN what he plans to do with FEMA if elected.

Yes anon, I made the point that the more money and possessions one has, the harder it is to give them up. I'm not the first to say it and won't be the last. I freely admit I have a problem with so few owning so much while people in this world starve and die from preventable disease.

Which brings me to my last point: some commenters on this blog believe wealth or lack of it is a matter of intelligence or laziness. Sometimes it is, but most often it is a matter of the culture you were born into and the opportunities afforded you. That is the new American reality.

Anonymous said...

Sus - I don`t understand what you are saying. You admit you have a prob `with so few owning so much while people in this world starve and die...` and you say, `the more money and possessions one has, the harder it is to give them up`
so is your point that morally it is abhorrent to be wealthy? And that the poor are more moral because they are poor? If so, why wouldn`t you want everyone to be poor instead of the wealthy sharing their riches, so all could be moral. According to your logic, mightn`t that wealth corrupt the moral poor?

Also, who would decide when redistributing the wealth, where enough is enough? How would you keep people with just the right amount of money and stuff so they stayed moral and yet did not become clingy to their `precious` things?

In other words, you say their wealth is bad, and yet you would desire some of it? Wealth in the hands of the moral poor is no longer evil?

I am not buying it.


Also, if you think Mitt Romney doesn`t care about people, do you think Obama does after he left Americans on their own to die in Benghazi? Why isn`t he outraged by this attack on our people? I haven`t seen any outrage at all except over whether some Islamists were offended by a red herring video.

Everything Jesus asks us to do is an invitation - that is we can say no. He designed us that way. If he had thought it better that we should have been robots he would have made us that way. But he wanted us to experience love, and we can`t do that without free choice. We should help others. But we don`t have to. Love allows someone to say no and doesn`t force them. That`s how much He loves us. He doesn`t force us. And as for Mitt Romney exemplifying the rich man that can only get into heaven through the eye of a needle - only God can judge that. We can judge others behavior and should do so with discernment, but as to who gets into heaven, that is up to God, not us.

The struggle for virtue remains a stuggle for all of us - whether the wealthy struggle not to become uncaring or greedy or whether the poor struggle to remain honest and without covetousness. No one can take away a man`s virtue without his permission. I think that is the final last word as to our self determination from God and the reason for our free will and how he measures us - not by our circumstances, but how we behave according to our circumstances.

rob said...

Other countries hate the USA because we are properous. Yet they still do everything within their power to come here. In America, we hate the people who are most properous.
A person sitting on the couch at home, drawing a check, hates the person going to work everyday to pay into the system so he can draw the check.
My 80 yr old father and I had a conversation about illegal immigrants. He said if they want to come here they should do it legally. I agreed, but told him that is easier said then done. I also told him, that if he or I were born in Mexico, and couldn't support our family, we would do anything possible to come here, get a job, bring our family, whether we were legal or not. After thinking about it, he said, you are right.
He is from the old school, but he has always supported his family, even if he had to work more than one job to do it. He taught me well, and I appreciate him for it.

colinpow said...

Romney defending his 47% comment (interesting word choice in capital letters):

"I BELIEVE the point I was made is that the president starts off with a large number of the voters, 47, 48, 49 percent, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THESE are people who are in his camp and they will vote for him ALMOST no matter what," he said.