Black Man Thinkin' - It's time for a Brotha to speak Truth...to all who can stand to hear it!

Much Ado About Guns?

Tags: 1968 Gun Control Act, adam lanza, Gun Control, ice-t, james holmes, loughner, newtown, obama executive orders, sandy hook gabby giffords

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: February 2, 2013

They’re ba-ack! Anti-gun activists, axes in hand, looking to fell the Second Amendment tree, spurred on by the recent spate of mass shootings, including:

Mother Jones compiled a list of US mass shootings, going back to 1982. They found 62 occurrences, which killed 513 and injured 494, 1,007 victims total…in 30 years.

However, gun control supporters could argue the “problem” has worsened…since Obama became president. Since 2009, 15 shootings killed 139 and wounded another 129; more than one-quarter of the deaths of the last 3 decades have occurred in just the last four years.

Still, the “problem,” for which some want new federal legislation, kills 35 people….per year…in a nation of more than 310 million. While the low numbers comfort no one who lost a loved one, they do call into question the true urgency of the matter.

Interestingly, 513, the number of US mass shooting fatalities in the last 3 decades matches the number of Chicago homicides in 2012; guns killed 441 of the victims. This carnage occurred, despite Illinois gun laws which forbid concealed or open carry, and prohibit the transport of loaded firearms. No one seeks to explain how gun laws which allowed Chicago to kill, in one year, as many people as died nationally from mass shootings in 30 years, would reduce deaths nationwide. However, this is liberal politics; logic is not a prerequisite.

Using the time-honored “compassion” chant of “we must do something,” liberals have bum-rushed the national legislature, trotting out a sympathetic mass shooting victim (conveniently, a gun-owner) to testify before the Senate, saying “we must do something”, without saying what “something” should be. Chicago Mayor (and former Obama chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel wants banks to boycott gun manufacturers, as though that removes any of the more than 300 million guns already made from anyone’s hands.

Obama dutifully made his proposals, announcing them with elementary-school-aged gun control advisers present, and an expanded “we must do something” mantra: “…if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try…”

The president then signed 23 Executive Orders that, had they been in place on 14 December 2012, would have spared no one in Newtown, Connecticut….or Aurora, Colorado before that….or Tucson, Arizona before that.

Perhaps gun control advocates are unaware that they want as law has been the law since the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act made it illegal, more than 4 decades ago, to sell weapons or ammunition to anyone the seller knows or has reason to believe:

Despite the law, Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson occurred. If that could not prevent the tragedies, then what would, aside from dismantling the 2nd Amendment itself? Despite all assurances to the contrary, logic dictates that to be the aim of gun control advocates. In the meantime, more workable issues receive short shrift:

• Adam Lanza’s mother sought to commit him to a mental facility, but the ACLU has fought hard to make sure that committing a person against their will is a long and difficult process.

• The man who shot Gabby Giffords was a known loon, but it is not “politically correct” to remove a nut job from among us, so 6 people are dead and a U.S. Congressperson nearly became a vegetable.

• James Holmes had 3 folks shrinking his head before he opened fire in Colorado, but they apparently told no one, and Mr. Holmes may have used federal grant money from the National Institutes of Health to buy his weapons and ammo.

I’ve heard no call to ease the process of institutionalizing the mentally unstable; to look at how mental health professionals evaluate warning signs, and decide which ones to report and which ones to ignore; to keep federal grants from financing weapons purchases.

All emphasis is upon reducing the rights of those who do no wrong, and have nothing wrong with them, from exercising a constitutional right, and a right put in place precisely to protect people from a government that would seek to infringe upon that right. Consequently, the government wants to change the subject when it comes to the 2nd Amendment’s purpose.

When Andrew Cuomo screams, “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, and Obama says gun control advocates should be sensitive to hunting traditions, they restate and mis-state the entire debate.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or firing at targets. It is about resisting government tyranny. Heck, even Ice-T knows that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMfWqLhFGU[/youtube]

How can a rapper have clarity on the issue, yet the smartest man ever to be president seems confused?

Obama’s not confused. He has an agenda – to increase government power at the expense of individual liberty. He knows an armed citizenry will not bow to government, even if outgunned by law enforcement or the military (has the Arab Spring taught us nothing?). And Americans do not back down from “unwinnable” conflicts. However, a people unable to defend themselves are much more pliable.

This is not about guns, never has been. It is about whether we remain a government of, by, and for the people, or become a people of, by, and for the government. And, while Obama deflects with gun control and immigration, the economy that escaped recession before any of his policies took hold is contracting under Obamanomics.

Obama’s attack on the economy will last much longer than any mass shooting and is poised to make victims of us all.

The Fiscal Cliff: What the Obama is Going On Here?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: european austerity, fiscal cliff, higher taxes, Medicare, obama, social security, spending cuts

Comments: 2 Comments

Published on: December 9, 2012

For those who wondered, I am not depressed by last month’s election results. Since October, I have worked on changing careers. Staring deeply into technical documents and prepping for certification exams has left little time for blogging. My apologies but…I’m ba-ack…..

Both sides in the so-called “fiscal cliff” (the combination of looming tax increases and spending cuts) debate have voiced their public positions. Here is a summary of Obama’s:

The Obama administration is “absolutely” willing to go off the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans refuse to increase taxes on the nation’s top earners.

• Obama’s current spending cuts proposal looks eerily similar to his budget plan, which failed to garner a single vote in either the GOP-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate. Obama’s plan is so flawed that Senate Democrats kept it from coming to a vote on December 5.

• Obama wants authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, effectively transferring to the Executive Branch of the federal government a power constitutionally given to the Legislative Branch, or Congress, even though in 2006, then Senator Obama called increasing the nation’s debt “a leadership failure”.

Here is a summary of the GOP position:

• Reduce government spending, including raising the age for Medicare eligibility, and reducing annual Social Security increases.

• It does not seem that the White House proposal for unilateral presidential authority to increase the debt limit will receive serious consideration.

Critics of the GOP plan note that the Bush era tax cuts gave money to upper income earners and, in part, led to the 2008 recession. However, those rates, implemented in 2003, after the 2000 – 2001 Clinton recession and the September 2001 terror attacks were, by 2005, generating more income tax revenue than in any year of the Clinton administration. Since lower rates generated higher revenues, the argument that low tax rates either hurt the economy or deprive the Treasury is a difficult one to make.

The press, for their part, appears more focused on identifying Republicans with a willingness to “break ranks” and raise taxes than reporting the objective consequences of either position. They could look to Europe, where the higher taxes, lower spending approach is en vogue. The results are not encouraging:

Additionally, the street demonstrations, protesting budget cuts, continue.

• Great Britain was harder hit by the Great Recession than the US. After 6 T, after 6 quarters of decline, he British economy began to grow again in late 2009 at an annual rate of more than 2.5%. Then the government enacted an Emergency Budget in June, 2010, which contained a ratio of more than $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. GDP growth retreated to less than 1% annually. And, as with Greece, there are the protests.

• Spain is taking the same approach with, predictably, the same results.

Bottom line, the “fiscal cliff” approach of raising taxes and cutting spending, to get government finances in order and to boost the economy has failed in Europe. According to CBS News, “Across Europe, six countries are in recession and economists predict the entire region could be heading for recession by the end of the year.”

Then why would the president be absolutely committed to going off the cliff if Congress refuses to raise tax rates? Well, he did say he wanted to “fundamentally change this nation.” Perhaps he is now revealing into what.

History teaches that economies are more likely to grow when taxation decreases and not increases, and now is a time when America could use more economic growth. The trustees of both Medicare and Social Security continue to sound the alarm that those programs are in deep financial trouble and need reformation to stay viable. And the Founders made it clear that one man should not control the nation’s purse strings. Yet, on each of these points, Obama seeks a path that demonstrably runs counter to American success or future prosperity. Further, he is not given to cogent explanations of how his approach would change the country’s current financial or economic plight.

Nevertheless, the president who claims to care for the middle class, would rather plunge them, and everyone else, into economic adversity that would bring more pain, debt, and poverty, rather than allow 2% of the nation’s income earners keep their current tax rates – just like everyone else. The revenue projected from what Obama desires, over a decade, is less than one year’s annual deficit. More than 4 times what the president seeks from the top 2% would be raised if all tax rates were allowed to rise (if the economy was so good under the Clinton rates, then why only bring them back for some of the nation?). If the nearly half of income tax filers who pay nothing contributed only $1,000/year, that would raise more revenue than the president seeks. So why the insistence?

The Defense cuts could cause more problems for an already troubled job market. No action on Social Security or Medicare could leave one or both of those programs unable to help seniors, Yet, Obama presses on, insisting he is right, but without saying what would happen should he get his way.

The president is an “all or nothing” negotiator, when anyone can get him to the table. His approach: “I won re-election, so now you must do whatever I want.” This ignores that every Republican in the GOP-controlled House also won an election on November 6, that there are more elected Republicans than Democrats in D.C., and that it is unlikely that voters sent Republicans there to bow to Obama. If only this were simply political drama, and not potential economic madness.

What the Obama is going on here?

The Debate: Blacks Didn’t See It Coming – Don’t Believe It Happened

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: 1st presidential debate, blacks surprised by obama in first presidential debate, first presidential debate, obama, Obama Weakness, presidential debate, Romney, why did obama lose presidential debate

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: October 9, 2012

debate

I recall being doubly flabbergasted watching my Facebook News Feed during the debate. The first flabbergasting item was the pitiful nature of the president’s performance in the first debate with Mitt Romney. Obama got pimp-slapped – told he does not understand business (which he doesn’t) and compared to a child who tells his parent the same tall tale over and over, in hopes it will be eventually believed. Obama showed no spark, seemed disinterested, and said nothing different from 4 years ago about what he wanted for the country. It was not pretty; even those who do not support the president found it painful to watch.

However, the second flabbergasting item, even more than the first, was how many black people could not quite get the idea that Obama was actually losing the debate while it was ongoing, and did not believe he had lost once the bloodletting ended. The expectation had clearly been that Obama, being the better orator, would more than hold his own against an opponent he had consistently described as a tax cheat, a felon, a murderer, and uncaring, sometimes with Gov Romney’s help.

Despite Romney’s negatives, both real and manufactured, Romney dominated Obama in the October 3rd presidential debate in Denver. A CNN post-debate poll had 67% of those watching declaring Romney the winner, with only 25% believing Obama won the debate.

That result is extraordinary, given that at least one poll said voters, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin expected Obama to prevail in all the debates. However, even more extraordinary is the level of black surprise at Obama’s debate showing, despite the many signs pointing to what did occur.

What signs?

Begin with these remarks in the days leading up to the debate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-FWP-40Vs[/youtube]

While it seemed the president was self-deprecating to keep expectations reasonable, how closely did his assessment before the debate, match each man’s performance during the debates?

Then there is the aversion this president has to difficult discussions. Obama walked out of tense debt ceiling talks last summer. He walked away from his promise to craft comprehensive reform during his first year in office, though his party held strong majorities in both house of Congress. He walked away from a potential budget agreement with House Speaker Boehner (each blames the other). He walked away the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, even though he put together the commission that made them.

Obama avoids the press. He avoids world leaders. He avoids political rivals. It is hard to recall many times that the president engaged in any defense of his views in any more hostile environment than the View:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFowtgmGa6g[/youtube]

Obama acquitted himself well against a daytime talk show host. However, there was also the Univision interview…. that did not go quite as well:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCZQUWlcTA[/youtube]

The Univision interview also included this gem:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlkD4pN3G4o[/youtube]

Had Obama countered Romney as strongly as he did Elisabeth Hasselbeck, there might have been a different result in Denver. However, however, had that line about being unable to change Washington from the inside come up in Denver, then the election might have ended that night.

Barack Hussein Obama does not do well without a script, or a teleprompter, a fact not lost on his supporters in Wisconsin. It is his preference to speak unchallenged and uninterrupted, something that warms the hearts of blacks and liberals. However, that is something unknown to presidential politics.

It is a willingness to endure constant intellectual challenge, to stand in against verbal and ideological opposition that helps great leaders transform their ideas from pretty speeches to working ideas that benefit a country. It is also the thing that ensures that a leader’s ideas evolve with the challenges that he, and his country, faces. Unfortunately, this president has avoided those challenges. Consequently, what President Obama says today is not different from what candidate Obama said four years ago.

That Barack Obama struggles when challenged is well-known to all but his most die-hard supporters – the majority of black people. But our apparent love of his speaking style, and admiration for his historic election have blinded us to two, now obvious truths: 1) Barack Obama needs a script to sound or be good; and 2) he is out of ideas for improving the affairs of this country.

This is how a majority of black people seemed to think the first debate night go:

Unfortunately, the 90-minute ordeal looked more like this:

Obama supporters say Romney was rude and would not let Obama speak. But the truth is the president spoke for three more minutes than his challenger. Former Vice President Al Gore blamed altitude sickness. There are no words that can do justice to the MSNBC reaction to the debate.

Nevertheless, what happened on October 3rd was a long time coming. It should not have surprised anyone, but it shocked many liberals and progressives, and most blacks. We never saw it coming, many of us still either do not believe or will not accept that it occurred.

However, if we want to make sure that our views our respected by whoever wins next month, then black people need to step away from personalities, step up to the issues, and figure out who represents our interests and values before the next Obama-Romney debate, because the worst time to figure out that you’ve backed the wrong horse is win the race is over.

I Will Not Sacrifice What Costs Me Nothing

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: No Tags

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 30, 2012

What, in your view, is a sacrifice? Is it a tithe, or an offering? Is it a shout or a testimony? Is it the giving of time or talent? I have seen all these things in the church; I have done all these in my church. I can attest that any of these things can be a sacrifice; I am also a witness that none of them necessarily are sacrifices. The issue is the cost to the one who “sacrifices.”

Regarding sacrifices, the question is not “What did you give?” but rather “What did you give up?” Recall this:

Mark 12:41-44 KJV And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. (42) And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. (43) And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: (44) For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Above, the one who gave the least was the only one who made a sacrifice.

As as aside, I point out that some treat sacrificial offerings to God as a payment that affords them a free sin pass. Some believe that a sacrifice can divert God’s attention while they ponder doing what they know would offend Him. Others, believe God is appeased with a sacrifice, consistent to what appears in the Old Testament

However, each of those views is at least somewhat flawed. There is no sacrifice a man can offer and “bank” against sins he has yet to commit; there is no “pre-payment” for sin. Also, God cannot be bribed into looking the other way while a man sin; there is no “sin pass”. Finally, while the blood sacrifices of Temple worship could cover sin, it only did so for those whose sin was not intentional.

Without the right attitude toward sin, a material sacrifice is nothing more than giving stuff away. It is imperative that no man forget, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalms 51:17 KJV)

A sacrifice should be uncomfortable to give, acknowledging the discomfort any transgression of His word causes God. However, no one should imagine that a sacrifice, in and of itself, no matter how painful it is to give, will make matters right with God. If a man allows his sin, and his sacrifices for them, to become routine, then he will likely hear what God told Israel:

Isaiah 1:11-14 KJV To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. (12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? (13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. (14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

When God questions the purpose of gifts given to Him, something has gone wrong. When God calls the religious activities of His people iniquity, there is clearly a problem. Simply put, God sees the sacrifice as not having a high enough cost to the one offering it. Of course, I can already here the preemptive protests: “Well, at my church, the Spirit is so high when we worship, we can tell that God is pleased!” “Our praise is so strong that you can feel the Lord’s presence – you know He dwells in the midst of praise!”

To that, I say: the Lord’s presence does not always show the Lord’s pleasure. Sometimes, the Lord appears, not because He is pleased, but because He wants an explanation or, worse, because He is angry. It is as important WHY the Lord appears as it is THAT He appears. Just ask Moses’ sister:

Numbers 12:4-10 KJV And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. (5) And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. (6) And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. (7) My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. (8) With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (9) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. (10) And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

But I digress – back to the topic.

When a man offers anything to the Lord, it is the Lord’s decision whether the offering is an acceptable sacrifice:

1 Samuel 15:22-23 KJV And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (23) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

God desires the sacrifices He prescribes, not simply what people are willing to offer. Obedience, an acceptable and prescribed sacrifice, has a high cost – a man’s will is precious to him. To heed God’s word is also an expensive sacrifice, costing a man his unfettered ability to rule himself. Not only are these sacrifices very expensive, they are also more personal items than a ram, goat, bull, or a check. When these are given to God, God is receiving a part of the person, not just something that was in their possession.

But there is another issue here. Saul wanted to sacrifice to God things he should never have had – the belongings of the Amalekites. The strange thing to me is, since God had already commanded that those things be destroyed, that Saul would believe God would accept them as sacrifices.

What seems valuable to you is not always valuable to God, and He may not accept it if offered. God wants YOUR good things as sacrifices, not what you’ve stumbled upon that belonged to someone else. I think of the person who finds money on the street and, instead of trying to return it to the rightful owner, seeks instead to put it in an offering envelope or, worse yet, seeks to give all or part of it as a tithe. This should never be:

2 Samuel 24:22-24 KJV And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood. (23) All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The LORD thy God accept thee. (24) And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

The spoils of a war God fought for you, found money, spare time, clothes that no longer fit or were never worn or have fallen out of favor – none of these qualify as sacrifices. What did they cost you? How will you be adversely affected if you give them away?

What must happen, should anyone wish to offer a sacrifice to God, is what they give must impact their lives, not allow it to continue in the same way as it would were nothing given. In the Old Testament, with Israel being a nation of farmers and herders (and there were no John Deere tractors rollin’ through Israel), giving up a healthy, unblemished animal to God was a sacrifice. Instead of getting income, work, or even food from that animal, the owner instead simply watched it go up in smoke. If the sacrifice was to address some transgression, that sin now had a tangible cost.

Sacrificing to God remains an important part of maintaining faith in Him. However, in an increasingly disposable society, finding acceptable material sacrifices is increasingly difficult to do. Still, sacrifices must have a cost to the one offering them; shouts on Sunday, spare time, spare time, or spare change is not always enough. I do not advocate anyone quit their job or give up their car to make a sacrifice worthy of God; if the spirit is not broken and the heart not contrite, then it would be meaningless anyway.

However, when God has moved upon you to sacrifice, it needs to sting down here so you might, Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. (Colossians 3:2 KJV) It needs to be uncomfortable, so that being apart from Christ is too harsh a state in which to remain. It needs to be expensive, so a man can say, without hesitation, that he has placed a greater value on eternal life than the one he lives on the earth. Finally, it needs to be of those things that are truly his, so that the cost of the sacrifice is paid by the one who needs God’s grace, and is acceptable to the One Who is rich in mercy.

How Angry Must You Be To Miss A Miracle?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: emotional control, focus upon God's will, missed miracle, resisting

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 29, 2012

I daresay this has happened to almost everyone: something God does causes a change in someone or something, and a man doesn’t see that change as God’s handiwork, especially if it goes against a purpose that man has set. Since many of God’s people believe, when they set their mind to something, that they are about their Father’s business, they conclude that opposes their efforts is the work of the devil.

The responses range from “Loose here, Satan” to other, less “spiritual” words or deeds. It is not until after they have allowed emotion, often anger, to run its course, that they see God’s hand:

Numbers 22:15-33 KJV And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they. (16) And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me: (17) For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people. (18) And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more. (19) Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD will say unto me more. (20) And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. (21) And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. (22) And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. (23) And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. (24) But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. (25) And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again. (26) And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. (27) And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. (28) And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? (29) And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. (30) And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. (31) Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. (32) And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (33) And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

Now, I’ll go out on a limb regarding two things here: 1) Balaam had never struck his donkey before; and 2) the donkey and Balaam did not have conversations “on the regular.” Of course, I could be wrong but, for the purposes of discussion, let’s go with that.

Balaam was so incensed at the donkey’s behavior that when she began to speak to him, he threatened her. For the donkey’s part, her conversation was respectful and reasonable, given that the angel of the Lord stood before her with a drawn sword, and someone out of God’s will sat on her back.

But why does not Balaam immediately ask how it is that his donkey speaks? He was, after all, a prophet of God. Moreover, how is it that someone to whom God speaks does not see angel of the Lord, with sword drawn, the first, second or even the third time?

Balaam’s focus was on doing what God had already forbade, and that robbed him of godly perception. (If that sounds familiar, please do not raise your hand.) A reasonable question would be, “When did God forbid Balaam to do anything?” The answer would be found shortly before the above passage, in verse 12, And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed. (Numbers 22:12 KJV)

Now, if Man A is asked to do something by Man B, and God denies Man A permission to do it, then is it reasonable to believe, when Man A later receives the same request from Man B, that God has somehow changed His mind? Is it not written, For I am the Lord, I change not… (Malachi 3:6)? Balaam himself would later state, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent… (Numbers 23:19) So, how did Balaam get it in his mind that he should go to Balak and do something about which God had already said, “no”?

Perhaps it was the same way Israel determined that a divorce law was good and necessary thing: And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept. (Mark 10:5 KJV). A man’s desire to do as he pleases, regardless of his motivation, and without regard to God’s counsel, can cause God to relent, but it will never cause Him to repent. God may stand aside when a man is bent on doing something wrong, but He will not stand down; He will not change his mind about what the man does, nor will he change or withhold consequence:

Numbers 22:31-35 KJV Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. (32) And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (33) And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. (34) And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. (35) And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

Now, please hear this: Even if God permits a man to go where he wants, that is not to be taken as permission to do as he wants. God was prepared to kill Balaam. But notice the persistent nature of Balaam’s desire, even as he acknowledges he was wrong before God: “IF it displease thee, …”

C’mon, Balaam! Do you really think the angel of the Lord was there, sword drawn, scaring your donkey, and calling your way “perverse” because God was PLEASED? Really?

This is common human behavior. Someone will start doing something they wish that truly offends someone else, and they know it will. Nevertheless, they begin. When they are called on it, they make it as though the problem is that the other party is offended, not that they did anything wrong, and offer to stop. It is bad enough when people do this to each other. Balaam, however, pulled the stunt with God.

Which reveals the second miracle that Balaam missed but, this time, not due to anger – that God’s grace and mercy kept him alive. Not only that, but He also allowed Balaam to continue on the journey. However, if Balaam’s way was perverse before God, then why would God allow the journey to continue?

Because it was not Balaam’s going which was the perversity; it was his motive for going. Balaam went to “make that money, man”, and to do so by speaking as prophecy something God had not said. Peter confirmed this regarding Balaam, Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:15 KJV) That was the perversion, and God had to remind the prophet to Whom his mouth belonged. Was the method dramatic? Perhaps, but that only shows how much God values His word and the souls of His prophets.

But how much do God’s people value God’s word and presence? Is it enough to keep them from ever doing something that offends God? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. Perhaps a better questions is this: “What does it take to get a man back in God’s way after he has stepped out of God’s will?”
Whenever a child of God gets sideways with the Father, some poorly conceived reasoning may be involved, but some out of control emotion is always involved, 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. (James 1:14-15 KJV)

Still, how can he be stopped, and made to see God’s good hand before he deals himself a bad hand? This is what it took for Balaam, But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. (2 Peter 2:16 KJV).

Is that what it might take for you? Maybe your car has to start speaking to you…in tongues…before your emotional lock on doing what God does not want done is picked. Perhaps your health, or that of a loved one, has to be touched before you abandon an emotional mindset and take on a more spiritual mindset. Perhaps you need to be struck blind as was Saul of Tarsus; it was the only way to get him to start pursuing the Lord and stop pursuing the Lord’s people.

It is my hope that no one ever requires such. It is my hope that no emotion would come upon any man so strongly that he would miss a miracle sent to warn him, or need a miracle to restore him to God’s good graces.

Fewer Black Leaders = More Black Leadership?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout business and support, ... 'bout Politics

Tags: black leaders, black leaders compromised, CABC, CP Plasma Center, Freeman Young Consulting LLC, Furquan Stafford, gay marriage, Helena Titus, homosexual marriage, Jennifer Freeman, PowerGirl Ministries, Sebrena Kelly

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 28, 2012

Do you remember this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrHwmiUMH0[/youtube]

I recall the above, and white governors fighting to keep blacks out of universities, church and house bombings, the King assassination… What kept all I saw and heard from destroying the belief that I could accomplish anything? Good parents, and the influence of black church leaders.

In my youth, church officials were the most powerful and influential black political leaders, whether they held elected office or not. Blacks WENT TO CHURCH then, even more than now, including those who would not know Jesus if He slapped them upside the head. The black church dealt with families. It caused businesses to thrive or die. It directed the vote. It impacted nearly every aspect of black life.

Consequently, most black leaders were found in the church. Even many of today’s black leaders got their start in the church – there’s nothing wrong with that. But things are different now from when I was younger.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s broke the back of segregation in the United States, and made many segregation practices illegal. Blacks could compete in areas previously closed to them. As more opportunities appeared, capable blacks did what other capable people do in a competition: they won when they were better than the competition.

As integration progressed, the church was no longer their only source of validation for blacks. The church maintained its influence, but the road to black success and respectability no longer had to run through the pews or the pastor’s study.

This gave rise to other leaders, not “birthed” in the church. “Min.” or “Rev.” did not appear before their names, nor the letters “D.D.” or “Th.D” after them. The Old Guard of black leadership, primarily male clergy, began to give way to others with different leadership pedigrees.

And so, blacks, and their leaders, took another step in the progression followed by Italian, Irish, Russian, and other ethnic immigrant communities, though those groups did not come to America via the slave trade. Those progression steps include:

• Massing – As their numbers increase, the gathered people form self-contained “mini-societies” that include familiar practices and traditions, and encompass aspects of the larger society,

• Bridging – The mini-societies support strong bonds, for the group and individuals, with the larger society. Some traditions and leadership constructs are challenged or changed, and

• Releasing – Group members feel less need for comfort and support from the group. Many prefer living and working in the larger society and are more likely to have their views shaped by influences apart from the group.

Most European immigrant groups usually reach that last step in the progression. It may be because their physical characteristics are less distinct one from another; they are all considered “white”. Blacks and others of color tend to linger on “Bridging”. But now may be an opportunity for blacks to take that last step.

A widening values disconnect challenges black leadership constructs today. Traditional black values are basically unchanged since at least the 19th century, including: respect for God and the church; the importance of family and children; and respect for hard work and those who do it.

Black leaders still champion those values. However, the vast majority also identify themselves as Democrats. As that party’s values move further away from traditional black values, many leaders, especially those with a church affiliation, are under pressure to “choose this day whom ye will serve” – whether the values that sustained black people through slavery, then Reconstruction and Jim Crow, or those that reflect modern liberalism.

That biblical foundation for traditional black values further complicates matters for black church leaders who are Democrats; some scriptural teachings conflict with party platform positions. For example, while the conflict between no “respect of persons” and affirmative action is negotiated, conflicts about abortion remain. More recently, homosexual marriage pitted traditional black values against Democrat party values.

In response, the Old Guard is divided. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and others fully support homosexual marriage; Jackson has said he would officiate an homosexual marriage. On the other side, Coalition of African American Pastors’ founder and president, Rev. William Owens, denounced the president’s support for homosexual marriage and the more than 3,000-member organization wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying Martin Luther King, Jr., would have opposed it. Still others try an awkward balance of supporting Obama while opposing homosexual marriage.

This turmoil among the Old Guard leadership is an opportunity for blacks to reach that last progression step of “Releasing” by finding and supporting a less-compromised leadership structure – or no structure at all – that will facilitate their connection to the larger society.

Perhaps it is time for blacks to choose what they consistently believe, not accept guidance from leaders whose positions are increasingly inconsistent.

This is not a call for blacks to abandon the black clergy or the church. It is, however, a call for individual blacks to form and hold to their own beliefs instead of being counted on to believe certain things simply because they are…well…black.

There are consistent black leaders, with and without church affiliation. Consider Furquan R. Stafford, Sr., Chairman & CEO of C.P. Plasma Center, Inc., who occasionally shares information on this blog; he is a Democrat. Or Sebrena Kelly, President and Founder of Caribbean & American Global Business Connections, who affiliates herself with the People’s Party.

Or Jennifer Freeman, the “Conservative Liberal” Founder and CEO of Freeman Young Consulting LLC; or Minister Helena M. Titus, a Democrat who founded PowerGirl Ministries.

These are not necessarily well-known leaders, but they are examples of people with clear views, not given to compromising their values, and desire to help others.

Blacks are a substantial people, with a core set of values that mirror the best of America. They also hold a variety of views which are not well-represented by Old Guard leaders who risk groin injury by trying to keep one foot on Holy Ground, and the other on the Democrat Party platform, as those two viewpoints move further apart.

While some of those leaders struggle, it creates an opening for an even greater number of new leaders. Leaders who are less compromised and more focused on seeing results than on being seen. Perhaps, this is their chance to be heard and to be effective. Sometimes, less (Old Guard) is more (black leadership).

Can We Get Any More Ridiculous Than The Obama and Romney Tapes?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: deficit, economy, jobs, Medicare, obama redistribution, romney 47%, social security

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 20, 2012

In a campaign that lingers far too long, while discussing far too little about major issues, we have hit a new low, though I doubt this will be the lowest point. We have Barack Obama voicing his support for the socialist standard of wealth redistribution back in 1998:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4[/youtube]

Hard to understand why this is news. There was “Joe the Plumber” during the 2008 campaign:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM[/youtube]

Redistribution, spread the wealth around, tax the top 2% – no matter what shade of lipstick one puts on this pig, it oinks socialism. For his part, Mitt Romney is on video saying this at a fundraiser earlier this year:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqHERTcytI[/youtube]

So, one candidate, the incumbent, tacitly admits to being a socialist while the other candidate believes 47% of the electorate will not vote for him because they prefer the “free” benefits provided by an increasingly socialistic government. Each man’s view and vision of America is starkly different from his opponent. The Obama and Romney tapes do nothing more than express those differences in sound bite and video bite form. However, the reaction to the tapes – more emotional than political, and more political than substantive – is much ado about nothing new.

Interestingly, the reaction to the Romney 47% statement is more pronounced than the reaction to Obama’s socialism. One reason, of course, is that very few people are ignorant of the president’s ideology. Another reason is the remarkably poor wording of Gov. Romney’s statements, provided he was not seeking to offend. However, the more important reason for the unequal reaction likely has more to do with how Obama and his supporters want to frame the campaign than it has to do with what is on these tapes.

There is a significant ongoing effort by the Obama campaign, with help from pollsters and some in the press, to keep the focus of the campaign on ANYTHING other than the Obama record on the economy and jobs. Regarding the polls, it is now known that pollsters skew their results in Obama’s favor. They query greater numbers of people who are more likely to support the president than they do of people more likely to support Romney. NBC has admitted as much on air:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCB_tXSf0A[/youtube]

Some members of the press actually believed Romney’s quick reaction to the attack on the US Embassy in Libya was bigger news than the attack itself:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUvi0hYBaM[/youtube]

Others are quick to seize on any economic headline that trumpets potential recovery, even when the larger picture remains bleak. As major news organizations seized on a small decrease in initial jobless claims prior to the presidents DNC nomination acceptance speech, they did not report that the US economy needs to create 150,000 jobs monthly just to keep pace with the growing labor pool. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has not done that since February of this year.

So, while the ranks of the un- and underemployed have grown in each of the last 6 months, the press reports instead that things are improving. The number one issue in this presidential campaign, as it was in the last one, is jobs and the economy – and the press will not report accurately on the subject. Instead, the current focus is on what Obama said 14 years ago, and what Romney said in a closed gathering of donors.

There is even less attention paid to the budget deficit, which has topped $1 Trillion again this year, according to the CBO. Medicare could go broke four years from now, but the media presses neither candidate for a plan. Social Security is staring at unfunded liabilities of more than $20 Trillion (as is Medicare), but the press is asking no question about what either campaign believes is the answer for helping these programs continue. Neither are they asking how the administration’s current cuts in the payroll tax, which funds both Social Security and Medicare, are impacting the short and long term outlook for either program.

It’s hard to find either candidate answering questions about these topics, or immigration, or energy policy, or any other topic that affects the future of the country. Instead, the current focus is on what Obama said 14 years ago, and what Romney said in a closed gathering of donors.

And the election is less than 50 days away.

For me, this is simple. The Obama campaign, with help from pollsters and the press, do not want to talk about the issues. They realize that as long as the campaign is a pure popularity contest, Obama should run away with it. However, if Obama has to defend his record: on the economy, on entitlements, on budgets and the deficit, and now – with the torture and death of the US Ambassador to Libya – foreign policy, it is difficult to see how Obama avoids tar and feathers.

Nevertheless, America has pressing problems that demand a serious debate among those who seek to lead her. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the incumbent wants to debate those issues. It does not seem that the press wants to orchestrate such a debate. And we are running out of time.

Funny, but no one can find time to talk about the country’s future. But somehow, we have enough time to talk about what each candidate has said in the past.

Having Obtained Help of God

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Faith

Tags: God is my Helper, Man for God, purpose of troubles

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 16, 2012

As I post this, I recognize there are people doing their best against other people and circumstances whose best seem a little better than theirs. That is not just discouraging; it can be debilitating.

There is nothing more humbling than the realization that your best is simply not good enough – not good enough to obtain what you want. Perhaps not even good enough to hold on to what you have. It is even more sobering when what once “got the job done” now can’t even apply for the job.

This is not just about the person who lost a good-paying job to the current economy and all their skills, experiences, and references can’t even secure an interview. There is also the young person who, if they showed up on the first day of any class, then an “A” was guaranteed…but now high school is over and a butt-kicking awaits them in every class. There may be a young mother who figured she had the hang parenting and was eager to have the next child…and now multiple children in diapers and pull-ups has her sleepless and eating strained peas because she’s too tired to cook.

Whether these, or some other, circumstance leaves someone overwhelmed, a word that comes to mind is John 15:4-6.

It does not matter how someone, who once did great things, comes to find themselves doing next to nothing apart from God – whether the rug was pulled out from under them, or they ran so fast that they could not stay on the rug. What matters is, when their best became ineffective, when they found that they could do nothing, whether they realized they were no longer abiding in Christ.

At issue is often a human perspective on progress versus a spiritual journey of progress. A common understanding is this: people grow, mature, and gain and develop skills. As a result, they get more things, hold more influence, and have an increasing cycle of gain, material and otherwise. Indeed, that is the pattern by which many people, in or out of the body of Christ come to lead productive and prosperous lives. However, for anyone believing that is the way things should always occur, I offer a name: Job.

Some may say the rug was pulled out from under Job. I disagree, after considering Job 1:20-22. The rug was pulled out from under Job’s belongings, not the man himself. Job clung to his rug – the name of the Lord.

Which is my point in part: abiding in Christ requires a man hold on to Christ. Had Job abandoned faith because his belongings abandoned him, no help would have come from the throne. Job would have experienced what Matthew later observed when Christ held back good deeds, And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:58 KJV)

Abiding in Christ requires tenacity. The branch that loses, for whatever reason, its connection to the vine does not survive. Similarly, the man who does not cling to Christ will find himself separated from the only help that can truly benefit him. With that thought in mind, consider Romans 8:35-39 carefully.

My first thought is to note all that seeks to separate a man from Christ’s love. A man’s troubles seek to come between a man and the love of God by creating fear, debasement, or pain. They do not relent, nor do they change purpose. Problems do not come to strengthen any man; they come to destroy him. Whether they succeed depends on the divine help a man obtains to withstand the attack. God is eager and willing to help any who call on Him. However, obtaining God’s help is no passive activity:

Psalms 34:4-6 KJV I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. (5) They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed. (6) This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.

The “waiting whipping boy” will not get help from the Lord. Instead of cowering under the blows of his circumstance, he must venture out and seek God. The “silent sufferer” will not get help from God; when a man is not certain he is hearing from God, he must make sure God hears from him – CRY OUT. God’s man is not some great stone that quietly resists adversity. Rather, The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. (Psalms 34:17 KJV)

Moreover, he will need to seek and cry again, for Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (Psalms 34:19 KJV) The Lord continues to deliver, because the “hits” will “keep on comin’.”

This brings me to Paul’s thorn in 2 Corinthians 12:8-9.

God’s help, even God’s deliverance, does not necessarily end of the struggle. Rather, it is the beginning of His power, countering what troubles His child. As troubles mount, the power resting on a person increases.

We remember with difficulty that, despite how it looked, Christ’s time on the cross was no moment of despair, but one of power. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV) Power met Christ on the cross, to counter and overcome His trouble. Can any more trouble can mount, upon any man, than to be nailed to a tree and left to die for another’s sin? …But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (Romans 5:20) God did not remove the sins from Christ; He helped His Son bear them so they would be abolished upon His death. In the same way, God will not remove trouble from His people; He will help them bear up under troubles until they, like Christ, come home.

This is what to do with help obtained from God: Acts 26:19-22. Continue on the path God has set, no matter the obstacles, no matter the opposition. God’s help overcomes obstacles that a man might continue in the way God chooses for him. It does not come so that a man or woman might turn to the right or left to avoid either this trouble or even the next one. Consider what Paul was able to do with the help obtained of God:

2 Corinthians 11:24-28 KJV (24) Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. (25) Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; (26) In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; (27) In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (28) Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

Whether Paul survived these troubles was less important than the fact that God, by these troubles, heaped the power of Christ upon Paul, and let it rest there, because Paul would not turn from what God had told him to do.

The question often becomes whether a man wants God’s power upon His life, or whether he wants a comfortable life, with or without God’s power. This matters because the power of God is no show horse, abiding upon a man or woman simply to display God’s greatness. God’s power, and the help obtained by it, is a workhorse, transforming those upon whom it rests from people who take comfort in the world into people who take comfort in God.

Having obtained help of God, I continue…despite everything that seeks for me to stop. I continue, moving beyond many things over which I have neither power nor control. I continue, having not seen Christ, but increasing my love for Him. I continue, persuaded that in the Father’s house with many mansions, one waits for me.

I continue, because I have many problems, about which I cry out. Fortunately for me, there is so much God, of Whom I obtain so much help. So also is there help for you.

May God Bless and Help You All.

Furquan R Stafford, Sr. on Crunk For Christ Radio, 4 September 2012

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout business and support

Tags: blood plasma, CP Plasma Center, Crunk For Christ, Furquan Stafford

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 12, 2012

Furquan continues to get things done and to get his message out! Tune in to the latest on his efforts in business and for his community!

If you haven’t been to the website for his business, CP Plasma Center, then now would be a good time for
a first visit…or a revisit.

Peace

How did “Yes We Can” become “No One Ever Could”?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: "No one could have fixed this economy, Bill Clinton DNC Speech, George W Bush, John F Kennedy, obama, Reagan, tax cuts

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: September 12, 2012

On Election Night, 2008, a new president-elect called the nation to the ready:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiskE1Jsr6A[/youtube]

On the canvas of Ann Nixon Cooper’s 106-year life, Barack Obama painted more than a century of American victories: over wartime enemies, over slavery and oppressive segregation, over financial catastrophe, over travel to a world away. Each eloquently recalled conquest of American resolve brought tears to American eyes, not just in Chicago’s Grant Park, but across the country, and increasingly louder repeats of the campaign slogan: Yes We Can. Each mention built confidence that the nation’s challenges on that night were no greater than those already overcome. The recession would end, jobs would abound, prosperity would increase because America, like the God in whom she trusts, was able: Yes We Can.

By 2012, however, many of 2008’s economic challenges remained; some were worse. The recession ended, but prosperity did not reappear. More than a year after the “stimulus” bill, which the administration said would cap unemployment at 8%, President Obama told the nation 9.6% unemployment wasn’t so bad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6utL1Gl6VQU[/youtube]

Labor participation rates decreased; the percentage of Americans working or looking for work hit a 3-decade low. In February 2009, 141.7 million Americans held jobs (see page 2); by August 2012, the number was 142.1 million (see page 4), an increase of less than a half million workers, despite the Obama campaign website’s claim of 4.6 million jobs created in the last 30 months. While CNN and others dispute the Obama claims, the president told the nation, in June 2012 regarding job creation, that “the private sector is doing fine.”

More startling than the Obama economic record was the explanation for it given at the 2012 Democratic National Convention:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-eknQ5nlM[/youtube]

When the current president’s “lawyer” in this case is a former president who once offered to a federal grand jury,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU[/youtube]

because of another statement he made,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc[/youtube]

the question is just how hard is one’s leg being pulled? And Clinton’s credibility issues include things other than what led to his impeachment.

Wagging the same crooked index finger that assured the nation he did not have sex with Monica Lewwinsky, Clinton excoriated the GOP and said the “Arithmetic” he brought to Washington, D.C. led to 4 consecutive balanced budgets under his administration.

Really?

Clinton, like Obama, had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate at the start of his first term. Clinton, like Obama, saw his party suffer harsh defeat in his first midterm election. The 1994 GOP “Contract with America” gave Republicans their first House majority since 1954 and a Senate majority; the GOP maintained both throughout the Clinton administration. Once the GOP held the nation’s purse strings, the Clinton budgets came into balance.

Bill Clinton’s “Arithmetic” did not balance the budget. The American electorate provided adult supervision, in the form of the Republican Party, to balance Clinton’s budgets, and produce surpluses “as far as the eye could see”.

During that long DNC speech, Clinton neglected to mention that, along with budget surpluses, he also left a recession. Clinton’s GOP successor handled that, and the economic turmoil caused by the September 11, 2001, terror attacks…by cutting taxes. Barack Obama mocked the GOP’s use of tax cuts to combat economic ills:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S60pGZzB7A4[/youtube]

Yet George W. Bush did take two tax cuts (2001, 2003). When morning arrived, income tax revenues increased; by 2005, Bush’s lower rates generated more annual revenue than the best years of Clinton’s higher rates:

US Income taxes 1997 - 2008

Additionally, employment increased; note job growth from 2004 through 2007:

US Employment 2000 - 2008

Democrats say tax cuts do not work and no president could have handled the 2007 – 2009 recession in one term. But one president, plus 2 tax cuts, IN ONE TERM, overcame a recession and the worst terrorist attacks on record to grow federal revenues and national employment. No economic “stimulus” or “jobs” bill, just the same old “aspirin” Obama wants to avoid. Had the subprime mortgage bubble, which would have destroyed ANY economy, not burst, the US economy might still be humming.

And Bush was not alone. The Kennedy Administration responded to the 1960 – 61 recession by cutting taxes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]

JFK, a Democrat, expected lower taxes to spur growth in his decade as the Bush cuts did last decade. The 1960’s saw the nation flush with enough cash to send a man to the moon, start the Great Society anti-poverty programs, and increase its war effort in South Viet Nam. One president, one tax cut, ONE TERM – a decade of federal largesse.

Ronald Regan took two tax cuts (1981, 1986), responding to the Carter “malaise” and the recessions of 1980 and 1981 – 82. The US economy began the longest post-World War II expansion up to that time, and Reagan presided over reversals of double-digit inflation, unemployment and federal interest rates in ONE TERM.

It is difficult to fathom President Clinton’s argument that no one president could have turned around the bad economy in a single term when at least three presidents did just that. One of them was a Democrat. The Republicans faced circumstances more challenging than Obama: high interest rates and high inflation complicated matters for Reagan; the loss of New York’s World Trade Center not only exacerbated the recession Bush inherited, but dampened the national mood. Still, all three presidents, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43, successfully addressed recessions in ONE TERM…and used income tax cuts to do so.

Bill Clinton, who raised taxes in 1993, may not grasp that concept. Obama has threatened “targeted” tax hikes since before his election, so he may not “get it’, either.

Perhaps what Clinton should have said is, “No one president, who ascribes to the same ideology that I and President Obama share, could have fixed this economy in one term.”

But here’s a question: How can a president, whose ideology blinds him to sound economic policy, fix in a second term what isn’t corrected in the first, given that his ideology remains the same?

«page 7 of 9»

ARTICLE ARCHIVES