"You didn't (verb here) that!"

It is rather offensive when an individual is told that their blood, sweat and tears meant nothing to build a business, house or worthy successful effort. In fact I find it rather hypocritical that Mr. Obama say this to the American people and then later turn right around and claim for himself the success of saving the automobile industry.

Excuse me? Mr. Obama didn't save the automobile industry, even by his own standard! The money spent to save the automobile industry was collect from the People in taxes. The President didn't save the auto industry. We the tax-payers did!

Here is a video segment of Mr. Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.


AP reports, "The American auto industry was on the verge of collapse. And some politicians were willing to let it just die. We said no," Obama told college students last week in Ann Arbor, Mich. "We believe in the workers of this state."

"We"? It was the decision of one person. I want CEO's held responsible financially if they are going to rely on government funding rather than using my collected income tax to support an unsustainable corporation.

Now the AP states that Mr. Obama is wearing this decision as a "badge" in this election cycle. This "we" seems rather shallow and self-serving.

Yeah, I 'm ready for change; back to Liberty away from Socialism and only Forward if we first turn 180 degrees from our current path leading to Communism and humble ourselves before the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe.

WallBuilders - Historical Writings - Should Christians - Or Ministers - Run For Office?

WallBuilders - Historical Writings - Should Christians - Or Ministers - Run For Office?

A fascinating and history document written in rebuttal to the first Constitution of the state of Georgia regarding the prohibition of ministers (or clergy) from involvement in the Georgia state legislature. Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon a very astute and certainly involved member of the crafting sessions of the Declaration of Independence and signer of it, he had a practical and well rounded perspective on the reason that perhaps a clergyman should not be involved, and yet he in this sarcastic reply to Georgia's constitutional resolution, strongly disagrees.

Please read the article in link above.

Antagonism or simply hatred?

Yes the post title includes sarcasm.

Allow me to illustrate my point with some more humor.

There are a lot of words that people use. Sometimes within the context they speak you can hear that they improperly used a word, while at other times one cannot be certain but only suspicious.

Mandy Patinkan who played the part of Inigo Montoya in the movie "The Princess Bride", makes a point of telling the Sicilian "Vizzini" played by Wallace Shawn "You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means."

We improperly use words partly in ignorance and also in part because of a massive push from influential people with great publicity capability to create a kind of public opinion. Now I say "create" carefully, because in the truth of reality, public opinion cannot be "created" with the consent of each individual who as a whole make-up "the people". 

Confused? So am I. Let's break it down to the basics.

In general terms: Mr. X. is the Public Relations officer in an organization whose purpose is to "protect the civil liberties" of Special Interest Group (SIG) "A". SIG "A" holds a belief that their civil liberties include the freedom to manage the finances of people whom they deem financially incompetent. So SIG "A" works to gain the trust of these individuals and persuade them to sign Financial Power of Attorney over to SIG "A" and SIG"A" promises to provide for their "needs" providing certain acceptable requirements are met by the individual (community housing, dining, utilities and sanitary facilities, etc).

Now that SIG "A" has gained some trust and "protected community" residents; SIG "A" decides to change what they see as the "needs" of the "protected community" residents. This is where Mr. X. must earn his pay by putting together a well articulated statement for why SIG "A" has changed the list of "needs" for which they will provide. So Mr. X's statement is going to say in basic terms that "Provisions 'b' and 'c' are not seen as 'needs' because of set of facts 'd'."

Now, if you caught this change from "needs" to "provisions", this is part of what I am addressing. The other part of my addressed issue is the changing meaning of words.

The word "cool" before the 1960's was used only in reference to temperature.

Now as to the post title, "Antagonism" means

"an·tag·o·nism/anˈtagəˌnizəm/Noun: Active hostility or opposition.Inhibition of or interference with the action of a substance or organism by another."

So the sarcasm of the title is this: if someone is being antagonistic does not mean they hate something about the person to whom they are antagonistic. However, it could be argued that to hate someone or something about them would be antagonistic. So you see, it is the way that the title is composed that causes the sarcasm.

This understanding requires an understanding of the meaning of words. Let's learn more about what we hear and especially the meaning of the words we use!

The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Insane, Immoral or Incompetent - Part 2

Our decline as a  people; is not simply the issue that we do not think about the affects of our actions on others. The root to this sinister plant is "we want to". Again: I will say this in a direct and personal way, "I want to".

"Where do wars and fights come from between you and another? Don't they come from your own un-bridled desires?" (Personal paraphrase by the author from the book of James, section 4 verse 1.)

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?"

Not all desires are wrong. Desires that are uncontrolled may not be wrong either, but the fact that they are not controlled is wrong. We can talk about control, but let "control" go to the sides for the moment and finish this discussion of "desires". Like I said, not all desires are wrong:

"Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Psalm 37:3 & 4

According to this passage, "the Lord" gives your heart desires. However, before passing the blame off on God for every desire I have I should consider the rest of the statement: "Delight[ing] ...in the Lord". I cannot find in this passage evidence that Delighting in the Lord could end with God giving me a desire to do damage to myself or others. For instance another quote from the book of James:

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

 So if I give my will over to view pornography, I have made a choice based on my desire to watch it. This is not a desire under control or a desire from God. I will finish out with one last quote from the book of James, 3rd section verses 13 through 18:

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."