Quote of the Day: Jack Cashill (Repeating the Economic Housing Crisis)

     Since F.D.R., the federal government has been on a mission to destroy the family through aid programs that do nothing other than to give people an easy way out of a decision they made.  Tired of living with your husband?  Get divorced and the government will raise your child for you.  Want a $500,000 dollar house and you make $10/hour?  Uncle Sam has got your back!  These FHA insured type loans have been going on since the great depression and yet we never seem to learn that if someone can't afford a house on a piece of paper, then they definitely can't afford it in real life.  Jack Cashill has a great quote on the destruction of the family when he writes the following, "Many of the new homeowners were not nearly ready to own a home.  Single mothers, for instance, received some 20 percent of these mortgages in already vulnerable cities like Philadelphia and Detroit.  Since roughly 1960, the federal government had been on an unwitting campaign to drive fathers from the home.  That was the year that the Aid to Dependent Children Program became the Aid to families with Dependent Children Program became the Aid to Moms with Dependent Children.  A working dad at home did not fit the state definition of family.  In 1964 the Feds sweetened the pot for forsaken moms with food stamps and in 1965 with Medicaid." 

     We, as Americans, need to learn to tighten our belt's and save when times are good and not constantly go on binge spending when we get a raise, or grab a credit card when things go wrong.  I for one have been caught in this vicious cycle, but it is time to stand up and tell the government to stop spending and we will take our lumps for the betterment of our children's futures!

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Helping Those in Need

    One common thing I hear Christians discuss is how and when to give to the needy,  I have heard them claim that you must pray and ask for God's guidance, I don't want them to just go buy alcohol, or my favorite 'God helps those who help themselves'.  But is any of this accurate and inline with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament?  I would venture to say no!

     To start off I want to deal with a very clear verse on the subject, and that is Mathew 25:34-46 which states,

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”  It would seem pretty clear from this passage that the Lord never required anything from those in need in order to be helped.  In fact, it would seem that He is requiring help for everyone in need, regardless of any potential sin their lives.

     Another clear example is in Mathew 6:3, which states, "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, ⁴ so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."  It should be apparent from these two verses that we're to give without even thinking about where the money is going, not because they deserve it, but because God commanded us to!  I fear that many of us suffer from a greedy heart and that we're worried that if we give to everyone who asks then we will run out of money for ourselves, but this is a lack of faith in God.  Do you really think that God doesn't have enough resources to supply you with every need?  Of course He does.  So next time you see the man on the street with the sign, look at them with the heart of God, and give!

 

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Get this book!

Quote of the Day: Billy Graham 'Storm Warning'

Today's quote is something every Christian should take to heart and be wary of.  It comes from Billy Graham's Storm Warning pg. 111-112 and states the following:

    "Look at the condition of marriage within the context of today's Christian homes and churches.  The divorce rate is almost as high among believers as among unbelievers.  Almost every day a new revelation surfaces about another leader in the church whose marriage is in shambles.  All too often, in both the spiritual and in the marital dimension of life, it is simply a matter of letting their first love grow cold (the problem of the Ephesians and the Laodiceans) and of giving in to the values of this age and to its immoral practices (the problem of the Christians in Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis)."

We need to leave the things of Egypt in Egypt, and move on to those things God has for us in this life.  As Graham makes it clear, we must find our first love, Christ!

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Media, Journalist, and the Merenaries They Have Become!

     One of the most humorous things you can do online these days is read a liberal columnist trying to come across as unbiased.  Everyone would admit that the days of fair journalism are over, and that it's more important to play to your base than it is to be honest, but sometimes you have to scratch your head.  Is it quite possible that both sides of the argument are wrong just a little bit of the time?  Probably not, given they way they write and never once recant what they've said.

     On yahoo today there was one such article by Daivd Bauder in which he makes comments such as, "Joe Scarborough must be doing something right to be attacked by both Paul Krugman and Mark Levin in the same month."  What does that even mean?  It's clear that to this so-called 'reporter' it's not truth that matters when someone is attacked, but rather making sure that one falls in the political middle.  That's the whole problem with politicians on both sides of the isle in this day and age.  Either you're far to the right, in order to catering to your base, or you're a centrist, trying to be the man for everyone, or you're far to the left, trying to be relevant to all the cooks out there.  Take a piece of advice, take a stand for what you really believe and stop worrying about where you fall in the political spectrum.

     Scarborough is a prime example of someone who isn't concerned with truth, but instead cares about what appeals to the masses.  In the same article Scarborough is quote as saying, "I get so tired of people asking me whether we should be the moderate party or the conservative party. I just want us to stop being the stupid party." and "That's how I feel," he said. "It's really not so much about ideology as it is about good governance and tone."  So what he's trying to say is that it's more important to be able to catch the American people's attention, than it is to have a solid base of morals and beliefs.  It is also amusing to claim that Scarborough could possibly be a conservative, while at the same time working for the White House's mouth piece MSNBC.  Come on journalist, does your craft really mean so little to you these days?  Are you just a hired mercenary paid to take out the political opposition without any regard to truth or ideology?

     In this day and age I would be much more comfortable with a writer stating 'I am a liberal and here is what I think', or 'I'm a conservative and this is my point of view on the matter'.  Instead we are left up to our own devices to try and disseminate what is truth from lies, and then come up with our own opinion.  I pray that truth reigns someday soon! 

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Something Different: Go Denver Nuggets!

     Well I decided to blog about something a little different today.  The National Basketball Association (NBA to Americans) is winding up its season and it looks like it's going to be a great playoffs.  My hometown team the Denver Nuggets seemed to limping into the playoffs after losing their two top scores, but last night they sent the rest of the league a message, and that was 'WE ARE NOT BACKING DOWN!"

     It was a breath of fresh air to see a team that is young and talented, challenged by adversity, come through and deliver an old-fashioned beat down on the Houston Rockets.  You could feel the energy and excitement in the air as each and every dunk was thrown down with authority.  Everyone played with an intensity and passion sorely lacking on the more 'talented' teams, and it paid off!

     The 'Energizer Bunny' Corey Brewer came off the bench and literally ran around at full steam, like a chicken with his head cut off, making every play possible.  Javelle MaGee took every opportunity to put as many Houston Rockets in personal photos that he could, while his smaller counterpart Kenneth Faried soared through the air as usual.  The crafty 'YMCA' veteran Andre Miller played like nobody was in front of him as the eyes in the back of his head paid big dividends.  All in all that was one of the most enjoyable games I have seen in recent history as the Nuggets routed the Rockets 132-114.  

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

North Korea Claims Nuke's Could Hit Austin, TX: Neville Chamberlain Obama Sits on His Hands

     North Korea is ratcheting up its' threats once again, as it puts Austin, TX on the map of its' possible targets.  What was Neville Chamberlain's...um I mean Barak Obama's response to such provocations?  A strong reaction by the international community, but what does that really mean?  By his words Obama really meant that the United States would maintain the status quot of economic sanctions and harsh rhetoric.  Seems to have worked so far, no not really.  

     Once again the media is fiercely coming to stand by the Administration and its' stance on the rouge nation of North Korea.  They even go so far as to criticize Governor Rick Perry when he stated, “Economically what has happened in Texas over the course of the last decade has made this city an epicenter for a lot of technology, a lot of economic development, and I think the individuals in North Korea understand that Austin, Texas, is a very important city in America, as do corporate CEOs and other people who are moving here in record numbers,” Perry said.  The mainstream media even went as far as taking shots at Perry, claiming that he was using this whole incident to help promote the economic job growth that has occurred in his state.  Why does this seem so irrational to the 'intelligentsia' of the left?  It's quite simple, they act just as Neville Chamberlain did when Hitler would attack, promise he would stop, attack again, and promise again, resulting in the outbreak of World War II.  The left seems to have the inability to acknowledge that there just might be some bad characters out there on the world stage, and some of them might just do what they say.

     The choice of Austin, TX goes a little deeper, and eludes the liberals just a little bit more, and that is the economic growth now going on in Texas makes it a very real target for a potential enemy of the United States!  Why would a nation, with only a hand full of nuclear weapons, at most, waste them on attacking a city such as Reno, NV?  They wouldn't of course, they would go after an economically thriving city that was vital to the growth of the nation.  Recent economic reports state that Texas and California are both poised to create 1,000,000 new jobs over the next four years, and it is no surprise that 3 of the five targets stated by the North Koreans are in these two states.  So what should we do?

     One report claims that Kim Jong Un has moved his rockets to the eastern borders to help improve in their accuracy.  So we know where the rockets are, and we have the capability to take them out, especially when they have not been launched.  So why do we hesitate?  We took preemptive action in Libya to help ouster the dictator there, and helped support the uprisings in Egypt, but why not North Korea?

     Granted the North Korean conflict is more complicated than the previous two, as one of our major allies lay just to the south of the rouge nation, but that cannot stop us from taking the necessary actions.  We cannot wait until a missle is headed into downtown Austin, San Diego, or Los Angeles!  By then 100,000's if not more will die from the utter ignorance of our government, and this can't be allowed.  It's time to stop trying placate madmen and use our Air Force to make a preemptive strike against the missile launching sites, and put this little dictator in his place.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Negotiating with a Madman: North Korean Threats

    North Korea is once again up to its old tricks of threatening anyone within its nuclear reach, but now they have made the claim that their military leaders have the following authority, "The report came hours after North Korea's military warned that it has been authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons. ".  With this stern new warning from one of the United States staunch enemies it is important to review what the North's capabilities really are.

    In the previously mentioned article it is claimed that North Korea has yet to attain the technology necessary to reduce the size of the nuclear warhead enough to enable their rockets to reach the west coast of the United States, but is this a unanimously held belief?  According to www.Nuclearfiles.org, "Estimates of its range are therefore uncertain, but extend from 3,750 km to 6,700 km. If these are accurate, the Taepodong-2 would be capable of targeting most of the continental United States."  This is a frightening assessment of the rouge nations strike capabilities.  So why do we take such potential threats so lightly?

     The United States is not unfamiliar with dictators, or madmen, making threats against it.  In World War II Hitler made it quite clear what his intentions were and we failed to stand up to him in the beginning, and look where that got us.  More recently we knew that Osama Bin Laden was preparing to use airlines in some sort of domestic attack, and once again we failed to react.  Now we have a clear threat from a belligerent nation that is has been run by a family dynasty that has been plagued by madness.  So what are we to do?

     I would contend that we do more than 'try and defuse' the situation by making economic threats.  Several years ago under the Bush Administration the United States made the idiotic decision to send the North $100 million in economic aid, and in return they said they would give up their nuclear arms.  Yeah.  That worked!  Are we as a nation going to wait until two nuclear bombs detonate on our soil before we think they're serious?  I would ask our leaders to take a much more firm stance and send a militaristic message to this young leader with allusions of grandeur.  I'm not talking about declaring all out war, but a strike against its nuclear facilities, such as the one Israel successfully launched against Syria, and this should suffice for now to cripple their capabilities for the near future.  If not, we may face the horrible consequence of inaction.  Unfortunately, for the good of free people, war is at times necessary.  God bless and keep your head up.

 By Jeffrey Brandon Lee 

Financial Markets, Government Deception, and the Coming Economic Collapse

     Many economist today are trumpeting the improving United States economy, but is this miraculous turnaround really occurring, or are we just putting lipstick on the proverbial pig?  Throughout history there is one thing that's for certain, and that is every government does whatever it takes to convince the public that they're doing a good job.  This seems to be exactly what's happening when it comes to the deception of the American public.  We see numbers such as; the 'lowering' unemployment rate, rising stock market, and the bailing out of European economies, but this is just another sad case of switching the focus from the real issues because the majority of Americans are unable to understand the complex economic issues that are plaguing us as a nation.

     Starting with the unemployment numbers, it seems our government is attempting to cook the books as the former Soviet Union used to do during the Cold War.  As I have stated in previous blogs, the unemployment number only consist of people who're actually looking for work, and not those that are chronically unemployed.  What exactly does being 'chronically unemployed' actually mean?  Many average Americans would define this as someone who stops looking for work, or someone who is just plain lazy, but this is not how the government contrives the Unemployment Rate.  When someone files for the 99 weeks of unemployment they're considered unemployed by the numbers, but what happens when they run out of the Unemployment benefits?  If they're still unemployed the government labels them as 'chronically unemployed' and no longer counts them in the statistics.  This is the reason why heading up to the election the unemployment rate began to slip below 8% while the amount of new jobs created were far fewer than the number of newly unemployed.  The real Unemployment rate is estimated to be around 11-19%, which would still have us in a deep recession.  If you just take a look at the financial situation of those around you, you would see the financial situation of those we love is as bad or worse than it was when the recession hit hard in 2008.

     Moving on to the stock market I would like to use the old saying, 'first time shame on you, second time shame on me' to describe it.  How many times will we as Americans realize that when the market hits such high highs, with no applicable economic data to back up its rise, it is just the case of the wealthy and hedge funds moving from one asset to another.  We fell for it during the late Clinton years when we experienced the .com bubble, which was just the case of people moving out of currency and commodities and moving into securities.  Again we fell for it during the Bush years when we experienced the housing boom, along with the extreme rise in crude oil, which was due to trading and holding the oil contracts, and not over consumption.  Now we are under the Barak administration and we are seeing the flight from housing and other 'derivative' investments into commodities such as gold, oil, and the markets again.  And now with the DOW closing in on 15,000, oil up huge, and gold around $1550/ounce, we are poised for another great sell off in these markets.  The one key features of money that the very first bankers, the Medici family of Venice, realized was that there was not money to be made by investments or interest, but rather in the movement of money (the trading of currencies).  In modern economics there is a constant flow from commodities to currencies to stocks to tangible property, and the one who is always left holding the bag is the uninformed investor.  Now I do believe it your own responsibility to stay informed about your own investments, so I have just a small amount of sympathy for those who let the hype get the best of them and they invest in risky unproven investments.

     Europe seems to be the international issue that wealthy investors are using to move the markets in the direction they would like.  We move from one Socialist nation to another to raise the alarm and then predictably there is a resolution and the quick drop is followed by a substantial gain (making billions for the investors that are ahead of the curve).  The sad reality behind all of this is that eventually these socialist societies will fail due to enormous national debts, but by that time the savvy investor will have long ago found their haven in commodities such as gold, silver, and to a certain extent oil.  Many governments around the world are already buying as much gold as possible to help soften the coming economic collapse.  There is more than twice the gold in Fort Know being stored by foreign countries under the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. They know what's coming!

     I hope that this paper helps to educate you as to the 'possible' calamities that the world may be facing in the near future, and with that knowledge I would hope that you would review where your money is placed and make a wise decision about its future.  And next time we have an election coming up, pick a candidate (whether Republican or Democrat or Green Party) that truly wants to cut government spending, because remember we can't keep spending money as we have, because 'money really doesn't grow on trees'!  God Bless.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee         

More Thoughts On Grace: Do We Abuse the Grace of God?

     Grace is a subject that is gaining a lot of momentum among Christians these days and it important that people give it some serious thought before taking their 'absolute' stand on the subject.  Now I want to start off by clarifying one thing, and that is the moment you receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior your eternal destiny is sealed!  What I would like to discuss is how we view sin after we are saved, and that is something a lot of Christians are confused about.  My intention is not to give you the 100% right answer, but rather to give you somethings to think about and to discuss with the Lord in your prayer time.  Remember, He is your source, and not the teachings of man.

     When we turn on the Christian networks today you hear a lot about grace and how our sin can never separate us from the love of God, and I for one think this is the best part of our faith because we ALL fall short of the glory of God.  The disagreement comes up when the penalty for our sins, after we become Christians, is discussed.  There are those out there who claim that even though we continue in our sins, we can still receive all the blessings of God, but does that ring true in your soul?  Shouldn't a genuine love of God produce repentance, which leads to righteousness?  I personally have sinned and seen sin in others, but when do we confront the sin in others?  And when we do confront the sin in others, are we therefor judging them and in sin ourselves?  I have witnessed pastors who say that it is not right for someone to approach a fellow Christian about their sin unless they're a spiritual mentor of the person, but in contrast to this Ephesians 5:7-14 says, "Therefor do not associate with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.  Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.  Take no part in the untruthful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.  But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light."  It would seem fairly clear from this passage that we are to expose others darkness, so that they can live in the light.  I know that when dark areas of my life have been exposed it helped to bring that area to the light of Christ.

     Now Galatians is the book of grace, and in its pages we find the wonders of God's love, but we also find warnings about how we live while we are still on this earth.  In Galatians 6:7-8 it says, "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."  This is a clear warning to believers not to live by the flesh, but to live by the Spirit.  I for one, was led to believe that my sin, after salvation, was not that important by those who stood in 'authority' over me, but as time went by I understood this to be a false teaching.  I was forced to admit to my sins and let the light shine upon them so that they could be exposed, and turned to righteousness.  We do not strive by works to earn our salvation, but we dare not continue in sin, and thereby crucify Christ a second time.  If we truly want the blessings God has for us shouldn't we desire ,through faith, to please Him in all our ways?  And to paraphrase Charles Stanley, would God bless us win we continue in sin, thereby condoning what we're doing?  Assuredly not!  

     Grace is such a delicate thing when we try to grasp it in its entirety.  We are bewildered that God would send His own Son to die for us so that we may live forever with Him.  At times it is so wonderful we feel we have to earn it, and therefor render it meaningless.  And still other times we can make light of the sacrifice, and continue sinning, counting on Christ' blood to cover everything (which it does).  But in doing so, are we truly showing our love for the God who gave everything for us?  We should strive, through the Spirit, to live by the fruits of the Spirit, and to not make a mockery of the Sacrifice Christ paid for us.  Remember not to act out of a need to earn salvation, but out of love, and embrace God's blessings He has for those who love and obey Him!  I hope I gave everyone something to think about when contemplating their life in Christ, and remember pray to God for your guidance as far as your life and His Word.  God Bless.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee   

Environmentalism vs. Economic Hit Men

     I have been reading a few books about economics and environmentalism and how the two interact with each other, and I thought it fitting to speak a little about the subject.  HOODWINKED: An Economic Hit Man Reveals Why the World Financial Markets IMPLODED-and What We Need to DO to Remake Them by John Perkins was one of the most intriguing reads as I started off in my research, but I was soon disappointed as I delved further into his work.  The book starts off almost as a James Bond movie full of secrecy, deceit, and even some questionable sexual encounters, but as the book moves forward the axe the author has to grind becomes all to apparent.  The question remains, when finishing reading a book such as this, why does it seem like every author has to fall to one extreme or the other when it comes to capitalism?
     John Perkins portrays himself as a misguided and completely gullible pawn in the greater game of competing economics theories, and after years of deceiving government, he finally comes to the light that what he is doing is wrong.  He started his career working for a highly secretive firm named MAIN that was  in the business of selling high dollar IMF loans to third world countries in exchange for allowing major corporations to come in and develop infrastructure that he claimed would help the people of these poor nations.  In retrospect he claims that he knew the loans were bad, and that eventually they would bankrupt the country and force the sale of economic assets to foreign corporations.  It is very well worded, and at times even compelling, but when you dig through the rhetoric, it is apparent that he is mistaken in his assessment of the outcome. 
     First, he contends that the companies came in and built the infrastructure and schools only to eventually exploit the natives of these countries, but even if true,  would it not be better for these countries to have these necessities than to have none?  And further more, even the countries that did default on the IMF loans, many are now refusing to payback the loans at all.  Also, would it have been better for these countries to not have had the jobs that were provided by the building of these vital structures? 
     His most laughable argument is in the low wages paid to third world countries by large international corporations.  Perkins argues that these workers are treated so terribly and that they make just pennies a day, but then later on in the book he recommends that people only buy responsibly made products from places such as Canada and Denver, CO.  So the question I have for the former Economic Hit Man is, are the poor third world citizens better off with no job and us buying our products from first world countries, or with the amount of money they're making currently?  I don't disagree with the fact that they should be paid more, but we do not live in some utopian fantasy, and never will!  Take whatever good we can from situations and don't take everything from the poor who would rather work for pennies instead of nothing.
     Another humorous hypocrisy is the love that Mr. Perkins shows for China and its' government, and the absolute hatred he has for the 'mutant capitalism' that America practices.  He goes into great detail about how wonderful China is, and how they're attempting to go green because they planted a few trees by the side of the road.  He also claims that the government in China has promised to go to electric cars, and that when the Chinese government promises something, it keeps its' word.  Great detail is paid to the glorious architecture and extreme economic growth that has sustained China and has made it the world's second leading economy.  He believes their Socialist government should be praised for how it controls its' finances, but in the same breath he slams the United States for its' over consumption and 'trinket' economy.  To be such a 'well known' economist you would think he would understand that without America purchasing all those trinkets from China, their economy would collapse!  And why does he praise a country that is hell bent on imitating American consumption by buying millions and millions of iPads and cellphones?  He fails to acknowledge the northeast corner of China which is referred to as the 'Rust Belt' due to all of the run down factories, and also fails to acknowledge the millions of starving farmers that are being taxed to extremes to where they can't even feed their familes.
     In conclusion, I found the book a very easy read, but highly prejudicial and lacking any economic depth.  If someone enjoys arguments, such as, that since a flowers leaves are wilting, then we should move a highway (which is suggested in this book), than this is a must read.  But for someone who is looking for a common sense answer, and not a communist utopian fantasy, then I suggest a different read.  God Bless!

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

The Morality of War: World War II In Perspective

     The rationale and morality of war has always been something that is hotly debated, and with the 'War on Terrorism' still alive, it is no less so today,  As humans we all here the politicians clamor that we must fight so that justice can be brought to the world, but on the other hand you have a mother at home who sees her son come home in a coffin.  Then there is the wealthy 'landed gentry' who look at war as a means of gaining wealth and power, but are never seen on the front lines.  But if that were the only reason for war it would be quite simple to condemn the action.  Unfortunately, there are many side stories to these same conflicts that generally expose the exploitation and murder of some sector of the population.  The purpose of this paper is to show some of the different reasons for war, and in the end, try to come to some moral conclusion as to the right or wrong of such grim choices.

     World War II will be the war used as the focal point for this article, not only because it was the largest in history, but because there were so many facets to this war that it would be simpleminded to relegate the war as a quest to oust Hitler.  Once a wide view is taken of the war, the reader will be able to better understand why this great conflict was fought by so many countries.

     Germany had been humiliated in World War I and its military leaders were salivating for revenge against the harsh penalties that were imposed on them.  No one more so than the up-and-coming Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler.  Hitler had served on the Ypres Salient in World War I, and was subjected to the brutal trench warfare that drove many men mad.  Combine the alleged contraction of the mentally degenerative disease syphilis, and an unmatched love of the motherland, you have a dictator ready and willing to move the masses.  

     Prior to World War II Germany boasted the largest number of Christians on the European continent.  So how could a country that claimed famed reformers such as Martin Luther be led on such an evil and disastrous course?  Whether it was the hypnotic tone to Hitler's voice, the belief that the German people were genetically superior, or just out of plain fear, we may never know for sure.  One thing we do know is that the military leaders felt the lands of Alsace and Lorraine belonged to the German people and were willing to go to war to prove it.

     Now we have an economy that is the strongest in Europe, a leadership hellbent on regaining German soil and pride, and a public that was enthusiastically in support of a war, that is with the exception of the Jews.  The Jewish people of Germany were among the economic elite and had been well accepted by the native people for many years, but there was a slow burning ember of antisemitism that was gaining fuel that would eventually lead to the death of 6 to 7 million Jews.  As for the military, once they had successfully annexed Alsace and Lorraine and had grabbed Poland and Hungary, it was no small wonder that they would attack their old enemy France.  Hitler unsatisfied with the mounting success of his campaigns chose to take on Britain and Russia as well.  This ambition could only be stopped by a force mightier than that which came against it.

    In step the Allies.  France had been conquered, Russia was on the verge of collapse, and England was not strong enough to face the Third Reich on their own.  The English desperately needed the help of the United States if it was going to be successful in its battle against the Axis powers.  The problem was the American people felt disconnected from the European continent and wanted to stay out of the conflict.  American leadership on the other hand knew the dangers of leaving the entire area under the influence of Adolf Hitler.  While people in the upper levels knew some of what was going on in the concentration camps and Hitler's final solution, the extent of the horror was unknown.  So the President of the United States was faced with the challenge of galvanizing the American public in support of the war effort.  Pearl Harbor was the perfect opportunity to sway the common man's opinion about the war effort.
     Whether the government actually knew about the Japanese attack before it actually happened will not be addressed in this short discussion, but rather what the response was to this action.  American's need to be persuaded of the morality of a war before they will support it (as we failed to establish in the Vietnam War).  Thousands of sailors dying in horrific slaughter was the sad chance to convince them of the importance of intervening.  Now America was committed to the conflict and the balance of the war quickly shifted in favor of the Allies as the enormous American economy got into full swing.  Within less than 5 years the terrible conflict would come to an end.  So the burning question is, was it worth the cost of human life that was expended on the battlefield?
     It is estimated that between 50-70 million people died during the war, with the majority being civilians dying from starvation and 'war related diseases'.  At first glance these are jaw-dropping figures, but what could have happened if the Allies didn't fight back against Hitler and Japan?  The answer to this question is far more frightening than what really happened.
     If we take a look at some of the estimates form the war we see that nearly 6,000,000 Polish and 10,000,000-20,000,000 Chinese died from the aggressors.  Remember, these were countries that were invaded, and if we didn't come to their rescue the losses would've been far greater.  With Hitler and the war leadership in Japan's lust for natural resources, there is no telling when the killing would've stopped.  The two cultures were so brutal that there is little doubt that their occupation of the invaded lands would've led to genocide.  It was reported that when the Japanese soldiers invaded mainland China they made it a sport of throwing Chinese babies into the air and seeing how many they could catch on their bayonet.  Combine this with the already widely known German brutality, and we she the slaughter that was likely to occur.
      War is an ugly, but sadly, necessary action that must be taken up by the morally good.  If when faced with tyranny, people back down and let the aggressors step over the helpless, our world will quickly become one run by dictators and merciless governments.  This is not a utilitarian issue where we add up the total number of lost lives if the war had or had not been fought, although this is very helpful to explain the need for it, but rather a nation rising up to the aid of the weak.  The saddest part to war are those German's, Italian's, and Japanese who never wanted to fight the war in the first place.  If they died, they died as villains, but if they lived they were forced to deal with the atrocities that the were part of.  In closing, I hope that we people of the world will never fail to stand up and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Pope, God's Truth, and the Media's Attempted Hijacking of Christianity

     The election of the new Pope raises some interesting questions and also has brought to light the absurdity of the intelligentsia of the left media.  Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals have been mired in scandal, whether it be banking or child molestation.  While these acts are horrific and terrible, they still represent a small minority of those who lead the Catholic faithful.  Yet with these mistakes comes the barrage from the political, educational, and media elite asking that the church change its' stances.

    With that said, what are the main ways in which the church is being asked to change?  One of the main issues that the Catholic church is facing is its' beliefs about homosexuality.  The left would argue that mankind has 'progressed' enough to where we can accept that homosexuality is no longer a sin, but just a different lifestyle one chooses to live.  Since morals are chosen by the individual, according to their argument, then people should be able to live how they would like, and not only that, but the church should change its' stance on sin.       This is where there's a huge deficiency in their understanding of the Christian faith.  It's not something that changes over time, as people morals deteriorate, or something that can be hijacked by someone who doesn't even share the same faith, but a true believer in the Christian faith believes that the Bible is God's word and that it cannot be changed, and more so, that God does not change.  Therefor, what was sin 2,000 years ago, is still sin today, and the Bible is very clear that for a man to lay with another man as he lays with a woman is an abomination to God.

     The other issues that they seek to change is that of abortion and contraception.  Once again the Catholic church takes the clear Biblical stance that both of these are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible.  So as we watch the news following the conclave, please pray that those making the decision on the next Pope will put God first and not public opinion.  If not, we may face a great period of judgement from God in light of our rebellion and the corruption of His church.  With that said...Have a great day! 

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee