David Westerfield

Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.

Category: Politics Page 12 of 19


Government Bail Out Legislation Gaining Ground

By

On June 24, 2008

In Business, Culture, Economics, Politics

(Original): http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080624/D91GKJ4G1.html
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/econ … %20hurdle/

“When in doubt, the government will bail you out.” That seems to be a motto that is increasing in our society. And now it seems to have moved into our national government’s thinking as well. $300 Billion have now been approved by the Senate to bail people out of houses they couldn’t afford to start with. From the wise financial decisions of house-hungry consumers who enviously want to live in uptown Wherever, coupled with the deceitful financial practices of lenders approving loans they know the customer cannot afford based upon a simple formula (called the debt-to-income ratio), this mess has now resulted.

Yes, I feel sorry (in the merciful sense) for anyone who loses their house because they cannot afford the payment, even because of (possibly) bad decisions they made in getting to that point, though of course there are many exceptions. This is just not a good deal and as a sinful person looking at other people suffering, I feel sorry for them, and wish them the best. But should we be forced to pay for others’ bad decisions with our own tax dollars in the form of a $300 Billion bail out package? How is this not socialism, the redistribution of American income to bail out people who, for the most part, made bad financial decisions? This is a very unhealthy pattern of thinking that is seemingly more and more prevalent in our society, and now has reached the upper echelon’s of the government.

Consumers greedily pursue something through whatever means (in this case adjustable rate mortgages, which apparently they don’t even understand how they work before signing the papers, clearly), they get it, then can’t afford it, and then expect all of us, through the redistribution of wealth, to bail them out. Well, thanks to our fine politicians and their wise foresight, the consumers got their wish: $300 Billion. It still has a veto threat by Bush which is good. So it’s not sure. But just the fact that it has passed the Senate is telling about our leaders’ thinking on the matter.

Senator Chris Dodd is quoted in this article as saying that this legislation will “allow us to begin to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of foreclosures in this country.” And in all honesty, right now, in the short term, it will probably solve some issues pertaining to the foreclosures. Maybe. Maybe not. But making this kind of legislation on a consistent basis is creating a way of dealing with (might I say, self-inflicted) disastrous situations that is very unsettling to our democracy, not merely the economy, though of course that is of great concern as well.

If the government is paying for your goods and services increasingly (now they are talking about nationalizing oil fields to be able to control the ebb and flow of the markets’ supply and demand), does it not follow the government can then demand of you, the citizen, certain things it could not have otherwise? I mean if they are paying your way, don’t you owe them something in return?

Socialism just doesn’t work in the long-run and impoverishes nations. I’m not sure exactly why it’s trendy and cool to be for socialism, because the very same people are also for humanitarian efforts, yet socialism defeats those very humanitarian efforts. It is almost like there’s a severe intellectual disconnect for some people with the theory of socialism and the resulting facts that have come out of it as an ideology.

How many case-in-point examples do we need in the world, both at the present time and from history, that it is a failed economic theory? North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? The former USSR? Vietnam? Belarus? Myanmar? Burma? Do we really want to implement policies that have not worked so well historically in other countries? I’m just not understanding all of this. But once again, for believers in Christ, our hope is not in this world but in the one Christ has established and secured for us by His blood. That is a hope that will not shift with the winds of change in this country.

The Two-Pronged Attack to Solving our Energy Problems

By

On June 23, 2008

In Business, Economics, Environment, Politics

Many from conservative and liberal camps are proposing two different ideas for our current energy conundrum: we either need to (from the conservative camp primarily) increase our domestic drilling and current output, or we need to (from the liberal camp primarily) create new sources of renewable energy so that we can become less dependent upon foreign oil, decrease “greenhouse gases,” and overall lower pollution (which I’m all for getting rid of nasty fumes, by the way).

It seems each group, respectively, pits one idea against the other as if they are opposed to each other. But why can’t we do both at the same time? One resolution solves the current short-term problem of domestic demand and oil speculators driving up the price of the commodity (based on the possibility of instability in the Middle East) and the other is the long-term solution to getting away from oil altogether, which I am for.

Different political groups dig in their heels against an opposing group just for the sake of the group, not for the sake of what logically makes sense to solve our problems. It’s that precise thinking that needs to change in this country. Yes, I have hang-ups with most liberal policies and cannot stand with them on most things. But there are some things that do logically make sense that we all need to be doing that conservatives and liberals both (as groups) seem to deny.

Yes, John McCain is a “conservative” advocate for the environment and defies the norm. I mean I sure wouldn’t consider him a true conservative because of some of his out of place policies. But regardless, he does at least seem to see both of these points very clearly: increase output now in the short term and begin implementing renewable energy infrastructure into the market for the future and security of this nation.

The Twisted Thought Process of the West

By

On June 6, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Theology

(Original): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/poli … 0Abortion/

This is a clear, in-depth look at someone’s thinking concerning abortion, though by no means is this a blanket picture for all who have had one. It’s amazing to me that societies in the world who we, in our narcissistic, “cultured,” sophisticated, technologically savvy, Western mindset deem as coming from the old world of thinking (traditional societies), would themselves condemn this sort of behavior as barbaric and morally reprehensible (which it is). I’m not negating the fact that the situation itself is unbelievably emotionally difficult to deal with. I cannot imagine. This negates none of that. But here is the mother’s response as to why she would have one of her own children slaughtered in the womb: “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible [and I agree, but then she says] but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.”

“She couldn’t cope with it.” That’s the part I want to focus on. And remember, I am not making light the fact that she has lost children. That is an unbelievable pain that I cannot fathom, especially in light of my son, Grayson. That would tear me apart. Regardless, her focus is not on the child and its well-being (possibly saving it through surgery or what ever and relying on an all-powerful God to provide their deepest needs regardless of the outcome), but the mother’s feelings are supreme, rationalizing the killing of her child. Her feelings are her god, dictating the slaughter of her own child. The slaughter of her own child. Just let that sink in. How is this any different than the child sacrifices to Baal in the Old Testament? The only difference is the “religion” is taken out of it and it’s a secular deed done in the service of the parents because of their inwardly bent focus and exaltation of themselves and their ultimate feelings, instead of self-sacrificially focusing on the well-being of the child who they themselves brought into this world and should take responsibility for.

Miraculously, the baby survived and she felt it kicking again after the abortion. But what was her initial response? Joy? Relief that her awful deed had not been accomplished because of the morally depraved nature of her sin? No. Anger! She was ticked the hospital had failed in the act of killing her child. No remorse, no repentance. It’s like paying a hit man to kill a person that may be a big inconvenience to you and they failed in their endeavor. How is this any different than that, really? Does anyone not see how unbelievably backward this is? It just makes my stomach turn to see our society heartily approve these acts, as if we’re morally upright and correct in doing so. It is the logic of Romans 1 in full bloom. “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32).

Then I like the doctors’ response in the article, that this couples’ situation is quite common (meaning the Lord is merciful in sparing people from killing their own children). “‘Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the baby … The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the baby [well yeah, maybe it shouldn’t be done to start with?]. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups.'” In other words, after an abortion during these time-frames, go back for a follow-up “abortion” just to make sure you have really killed it off, because it may have been injured from the first attempt and still be alive, but severely wounded. Unbelievable.

The thinking on this is just so twisted, yet for many in our society, it’s just the way it is, a received, presuppositional doctrine of sorts. The manner in which the doctor speaks makes it sound as if the life being killed is so meaningless, even at that early stage of development, that you just need to make sure “the problem” is taken care of then before it grows and becomes an even larger problem. It’s just painted with nice, politically correct language, so as to make it seem like it’s a good, healthy practice. It’s defiled, depraved and reprehensible.

And it is no wonder Christianity is fading in the West: people’s hearts are becoming so hard because of the approval of sins like this, their consciences are being seared. How can they hear the message of redemption while giving hearty approval to things on this level of depravity? Now of course I believe that the Holy Spirit can overcome even the hardest of hearts and create that which is not there. But there can come a point even with the Lord where He just might frighteningly say, “Have it your way,” and give our society over to it’s lustful, selfish, greedy, soul-damning sins.

As a result, we would become unraveled morally, politically, socially, in every way if that happened. All the Lord has to do is lift His hand of restraint and we would fall headlong toward the worst forms of a depravity. It is His sheer mercy and grace we are allowed to stand at all even at this moment for the message we say to His face through committing acts like this.

Praise God that in His mercy He spared this couple from the emotional, moral, and psychological turmoil and scars of slaughtering one of their own children, even a child with a possible life-threatening disease. And I am glad she is delighted with her child now. But at the end of the article, it says, “Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.” Unbelievable. “Well, I guess we can give him another chance,” basically. It seems even then, despite the Lord’s favor and mercy on them, they still don’t get it. There’s still room in the their thinking and thus their future for another child to come which has a similar disease, and they would have the same thing done.

Child-slaughter, infanticide, abortion, it’s all the same in the eyes of the Lord. Where does this stop? At what point do we say something is just flat out wrong, and upon what basis do we say it’s wrong? How much longer before the line gets pushed further and further back, to where we approve of baby-killings, toddler killings, mentally-retarded child killings, all in the name of love for the individual?

Well, actually, some of those things are happening now. Without a moral bedrock, a timeless foundation upon which to stand (the Scriptures), there is no telling how far a culture will stray from the ways of the Lord. It’s only a matter of time before things unravel, unless the Lord mercifully intervenes. May we call out to Him for the cleansing and healing of our land.

This is primarily why I cannot vote for a Democrat, because they give hearty legal and moral approval, granting wide access to these acts. If a group approves of something this morally depraved, how can I trust them to make other decisions for the good of the country when their moral compass is this twisted and off kilter? And despite the fact I am thrilled race relations have now reached the point in this country to where we can have an African American run for President (praise God!), I cannot vote for Obama, because he himself approves of one of the worst forms of abortion: Live Birth Abortions. Just check out this past entry: http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.p … 112-005217

What Would it Take? The Global Warming Fiasco

By

On April 7, 2008

In Culture, Environment, Politics, Theology

http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/ … e-bra.html

What exactly would it take for you to be personally convinced that man-made global warming is a giant lie for the most part? Now to be totally fair, many scientists (even the one’s against the global-warming marketing agenda) actually agree that man-made influences have a factor to play in the warming of the Earth, but that the percentage is too insignificant to account for in the climatological models. Furthermore, the founder of the Weather Channel himself came out a while back saying those who believe man’s CO2 output is what is changing the atmosphere have absolutely no understanding of how the climate works.

Anyway, would you be convinced that the fear-mongering of those like Gore is totally without warrant if expert climatologists from MIT, Princeton (NOAA), and the National Hurricane Conference all said the data proposed by warming activists was bogus? I hope you would. And that is exactly what has happened. According to William Gray at the National Hurricane Conference this year, we are brainwashing our kids at a young age within the education system to believe our world is on the brink of utter “natural disaster” destruction (from hurricanes and floods in particular). This is misinformation at best. Think about the impact this has on a young mind’s perspective of the world. They are being taught that unless they act in drastic ways, the weather will get worse, floods will get worse and everything will fall apart in the natural order.

Yet these major scientists cited in this article are very clear that if the Earth warms, hurricanes will not increase but decrease in severity. Then they go on to say that what really influences hurricanes is the temperature fluctuations in the ocean. Hmm … so who do you believe? Al Gore, who says those (like these elite expert climatologists and myself) that deny man-made global warming are the same as those who say the Earth is flat? Or some hardcore scientists who know what the junk they’re talking about? I just don’t know how much clearer this could be. I would like to see Gore’s tax records … don’t you think it’s mildly possible he (and CNN, NBC (and its parent, GE), now the Weather Channel, and many many other organizations) are all doing this for a giant sack of mullah? Much in the same way they hypocritically accuse big oil? I mean let’s just be fair. Gore and his cronies are just as guilty of profiteering off of environmentalism as any oil exec, don’t you think?

The reason this is even an issue for me is not just because of the clear scientific data out there. And it’s really not even ultimately about guys like Gore making a ton of cash off of it (though of course that chaps me a bit). It has more to do with the fact that political policies are being implemented to steer this country toward a more secular view of the world in attempting to fix a phantom problem known as man-made global warming. That affects all of us, and ultimately it affects Christian witness to the Gospel. What if we are making policies and guidelines that are chasing after a giant lie, but that in doing so we are moving toward a more “utopian,” godless way of viewing the world and way of living? Is that remotely possible? Have we not seen in the 20th century what happens when godless, atheistic rulers take over entire cultures? Yeah, and they thought it would never happen there either …

Obama Defends His Christian Religion

By

On March 2, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Theology

Obama defends his Christian religion – News.yahoo.com

Nominal Christianity, that is, Christianity without Jesus as the single greatest of all people above all others for all time; Christianity that sees Jesus as just a man, and not as the God-man who effectually purchased sinners with His blood on the cross, is no Christianity at all. Christianity without Christ at its center, not as just a good teacher or moral founder, but as God Himself come in the flesh, is a utterly dead religion. And it is clear Obama’s form of Christianity is dead because of his stance on something so abominable. I find it contradictory that he claims Christianity as his religion of choice, seeing as how Christianity itself affirms with Proverbs 6:17 that God hates hands that shed innocent blood, mainly because Obama himself has approved of legislation in Illinois in favor of live-birth abortions, which I have spoken of before. He may not himself perform the abortions, but that does not negate his culpability in approving of this horrendous, evil, blatant form of infanticide that the West has ever seen at the legal level.

His passive approval (or even his active approval really) of this act defies the clear implications in Scripture that a heart supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit will do things that please the Lord (albeit imperfectly), not things that He disdains with all His heart. There is no repentance for Obama concerning abortion (and in particular that form of it), but instead, he continues to fan the flames of something that is eating that heart out of the moral fabric of our society. I find it sad and frightening at some level, that so many high school and college students are buying into this guy wholeheartedly, just because he is such a charismatic, well-spoken individual, speaking the word “change” a thousand times.

Modified at 12:37 pm on 3/3/2008:

Smeared O Has ‘Cross’ Words – Original
Smeared O Has ‘Cross’ Words – Archived

“I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”

And this means you are a devout Christian, by living up to a list of moral “do’s” and “don’ts” as your basis for acceptance before God? Seems to me he confuses the Christian worldview understanding of what makes a person right before God with that of Islam. This here, again, demonstrates his misunderstanding of the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity, namely, the Gospel itself. He sees religion, and particularly Christianity, as a works-based religion, along with all the other religions in the world. Okay, so you’re not a Christian. That does not bother me in the least bit that as a non-Christian he is running for office. He has the freedom in this country to do that. But at least be honest about your faith.

The Christian message is the opposite of the world’s other various religions (just pick one). They pretty much all say, “Do this, do that, and you will be accepted by God for eternity in heaven.” But the Gospel, the fundamental heart of the Christian faith says, “We are unable to perform anything right that would please God enough for the degree to which we have offended Him. Therefore, Christ, God Himself, has entered into history as a man to perform that which we would never be able to accomplish by ourselves: moral perfection before the eyes of the Father on behalf of any who would trust Him for their salvation.” In other words, “Through Christ we are accepted, not on the basis of our good works and deeds, but on the basis of His good works and deeds for us, in our place, that we could never measure up to.”

Obama’s statement shows that before God, he has a laundry list of things he sees himself as having done right as payment for any wrongs committed against God’s honor and glory. However, none of his best deeds would ever be able to fish him out of the trouble all of us are in without Christ, because the one offended is infinitely glorious and the honor offended is infinite. You cannot buy off God basically. But Christ fulfilled the law of God out of love for those who trust Him. That is the Christian message. So please, Obama, do not abuse “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” as a means for political gain. That just turns me off even more from you.

Tornadoes rip through South, killing 47

By

On February 6, 2008

In Audio, Culture, News, Politics, Theology

Tornadoes rip through South, killing 47

How tragic. So would Pat Robertson say the same thing about these Southern states that he said about New Orleans and New York? That the judgment of God is falling on these places in the form of massive tragedies because of their blasphemies and idolatries, like that of Sodom and Gomorrah? I think not. Instead you hear nothing. Hmmm, maybe he can’t predict exactly how God desires to show His wrath or His mercy? Has he never read the book of Job?

Pat Robertson seems to not fundamentally understand the fact that as a sinner, in relation to God’s holiness, he is no worse off than the most shady character in a back alley. This is why, right here, a solid understanding of man’s total depravity is very essential to getting the Gospel right: he assumes he’s pleasing God, and that with those who do not, a Katrina will hit them, either on a personal level or larger community level. The message he presents to the world is not Gospel but religion. Praise God our salvation does not depend on the “man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16 NASB)

This is an interview with John Piper on NPR after the Indonesian Tsunami in late 2004 where the interviewer asks questions pertaining to why God would allow this, and is also definitely pertinent to the tragedy in these Southern states as well:

http://www.desiringgod.org/download.php … edited.mp3

“Anonymous” Posts New Video Explaining Who They Are

By

On January 28, 2008

In Politics, Security, Technology, Terrorism, Video

Apparently, February 10 is their day of action … so they say at least … I’m starting to wonder now if this is a giant marketing campaign for some company?

Abolition of Abortions in America

By

On January 23, 2008

In Culture, Politics

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr … hird_Wave/

The pro-choice, liberal camp would position itself as helpers of the poor and afflicted, yet %90 of abortion clinics are in low-income, minority-based urban areas and “Black and Hispanic women suffer 56% of all abortions while representing only 25% of the female population,” according to this article. Abortion clinics are specifically targeting urban neighborhoods basically. And it would in no way surprise me if the overarching design is to reduce overpopulation in these areas. The people who support and run these abortion clinics are ruining the lives of minorities in particular; emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Is this not a subtle (or rather blatant) form of racism?

This is a really good article on praying for the third wave of anti-abortion activists, really the only hope for abolishing abortions altogether: Black and Hispanic believers who desire to see the end of abortion, by working from the inside out of their own communities. The first wave of anti-abortion activists were predominantly Catholic, the second Evangelical, and now the hope is that the third wave will rise from within urban communities themselves. If the left really loved the poor, why would they be in favor of murdering their children? In fact, it sounds fairly racist. Makes no sense to me … and Obama voted for legislation in favor of what are called “live birth abortions,” where a child is born mongloid, for instance, and is in need of immediate care or it will die within 45 minutes of being born. So the mom decides she doesn’t want it because of its disorder, and then the nurses take the baby, put it in a room by itself, and they just let the baby die. What an abominable, sick practice. And people want this guy making giant, life-altering decisions for the country when supporting such a wicked form of blatant infanticide? His moral compass is jacked beyond all recognition to be able to support something like this. Makes me weep just thinking about that awful practice.

People are calling for change with Obama, but what kind of change, for better or worse, morally speaking? Where does it stop? We are on a slippery slope. Should I have the “right” to personally abort the life of someone else who may have inconvenienced my life in an unexpected way? “But they took away my rights!” It is the same argument. But with abortion, instead of a grown adult, it is a live, human baby! What about the baby’s rights? And how much more pernicious is this act than someone murdering another person? Just consider it …

This is Why I Cannot Support Obama

By

On January 12, 2008

In Audio, Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Theology

(Original): http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/Aud … 3a32f1bb81
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/poli … k%20Obama/

Listen to the audio above, just five minutes long … And I have to ask myself, what kind of internal, fundamental morality and worldview is this man and those who support him coming from? It is anti-Christ, purely secular, atheistic in nature. And he approves of one of the most deviant, evil forms of abortion there is – Live Birth Abortions. How I pray believers would feel the weight of this issue in relation to the proclamation of Christ and the Gospel. It is not just one issue among the cornucopia of issues out there to mull through during this election. It is the primary issue, more than the economy, more than healthcare, and immigration. Why? Because to give approval to such an awful act is to risk the hardening hand of God coming to this culture to the point where the Gospel no longer has the power to save because the depravity is in too deep, much in the same way God has hardened Israel for a time for rejecting their Messiah (Romans 9-11). It’s not that God can’t save (because we know the Lord is without limits to His power), but that He would choose not to save and allow us to remain in our sin and be lost for eternity. Frightening. That’s the short answer though. I cannot with a good conscience support anyone who is pro-choice, yet Obama is even more radical than most. Abortion is just an unbelievably horrific, morally detestable, wicked, barbaric act that eclipses the goodness, holiness, and glory of Christ ultimately.

The Darkness of Abortion and the Light of Truth – John Piper (MP3)
Exposing the Dark Work of Abortion – John Piper (MP3)

Climate Change Caused by CO2? Think Again …

By

On January 5, 2008

In Culture, Environment, News, Politics, Science, Weather

There are so many other factors involved in the fluctuations of the climate than is reported by the “Going Green” CO2 profit-marketing movement … why don’t we listen to actual climatologists for once instead of Gore who knows nothing of the astrophysics affecting the climate? http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

Page 12 of 19

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén