Extreme Ownership Leads to Honor

What happens when multiple people are to blame, but you, the leader take ownership for failure?

Respect National Customs

General Charles Napier was the British commander-in-chief of colonial India. Hindu priests came to Napier to repeat their objection to the British prohibition of "sati," the practice of widows throwing themselves onto their husbands' funeral pyres (sometimes pushed). The Hindu priests stated that the British had no appreciation for the venerable customs of India.

Napier replied:

"Be it so. The burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

While our soldiers are ordered to stand down while men rape little boys in Afghanistan and look away when horrible, cultural customs are practiced, let's acknowledge the truth: Multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equally good, is a LIE! But nevertheless, if it is so, then why should we stand down? Let us practice our culture, if it is equally good, alongside the cultures with which we must interact.

As the America soldier said, Back where I come from, we beat the snot out of men who rape little boys.

It's Time to Stop Appropriating White Male Culture

End the hypocrisy--stop appropriating white, male culture...

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to have "liberty?" This video addresses those questions and more...

What Does the Consitution Say About Land Ownership?

KrisAnne Hall attorney and former prosecutor, lay`s it out there and nails it!
Posted by Steve Worthington on Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The Bible's Power to Reveal God's Goodness

Interview with the little girl from the iconic Vietnam War photo...

Jihad vs. Crusades

Capitalism Is Needed!

"For most of mankind...nature has been, and remains, scarcity, disease and natural — note the adjective — disasters. Our flourishing requires affordable, abundant energy for the production of everything from food to pharmaceuticals.

"Poverty has probably decreased more in the past two centuries than in the preceding three millennia because of industrialization powered by fossil fuels. Only economic growth has ever produced broad amelioration of poverty, and since growth began in the late 18th century, it has depended on such fuels.

photo credit: blogs.scientificamerican.com

"Matt Ridley, author of “The Rational Optimist,” notes that coal supplanting wood fuel reversed deforestation, and that “fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food.”...capitalist commerce...is the reason the portion of the planet’s population living in “absolute poverty” ($1.25 a day) declined from 53 percent to 17 percent in three decades after 1981. Even in low-income countries, writes economist Indur Goklany, life expectancy increased from between 25 to 30 years in 1900 to 62 years today. Sixty-three percent of fibers are synthetic and derived from fossil fuels; of the rest, 79 percent come from cotton, which requires synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. “Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels,” he says, “are responsible for at least 60 percent of today’s global food supply.” Without fossil fuels, he says, global cropland would have to increase at least 150 percent — equal to the combined land areas of South America and the European Union — to meet current food demands," George Will.

Extended quote taken from this article: "Pope Francis Fact-free Flamboyance"

The Truth About Western Colonialism

 Click on quote below for article:
"Language is the first casualty of wars over foreign policy. To paraphrase Thucydides, during ideological conflict, words have to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which is now given them.

"One word that has been central to our foreign policy for over a century is “colonialism.” Rather than describing a historical phenomenon––with all the complexity, mixture of good and evil, and conflicting motives found on every page of history––“colonialism” is now an ideological artifact that functions as a crude epithet. As a result, our foreign policy decisions are deformed by self-loathing and guilt eagerly exploited by our adversaries."

Men Without Chests

Click on quote below for article:

"In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis called these sheep in sheep’s clothing “men without chests” because their perception of reality lacks objective moral reason.  Consequently, they really have no heart, if the heart is the seat of a righteous will, and thus they are ruled by whim, incapable of courage."

A Brief History of the Relationship Between Iran and the United States...

Click here for concise, clear and accurate history

of the relationship between Iran

and the United States

It's Up to You!

Everyone's worried about the USA--doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you are on, you're worried. Well, at least I think Democrats are worried. It looks like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton might split the party. The Republicans are in disarray--as seems to be common these days. But Christians have the power to turn the nation around; Christians have always had the power to turn the nation around. How about we Christians turn the nation around...

Younited States of America by Andy Stanley

Regarding the US Supreme Court's Decision to Make Same-Sex Marriage the Law of the Land

When a society decides to change something that has been the very heart of what has made whatever goodness it possesses even exist...when a society decides to fundamentally transform the primary building block its culture, a building block that has been at the center of every human culture since the beginning of human life on the planet that society invites destruction. A society that thinks it is a good idea to knock out of place its own foundation is full of pure, unadulterated hubris and childish arrogance, not unlike a teenager telling his elders he doesn't know beans about life. And this won't end as well as most teenagers' rebellions against their parents. 

No society in the history of the world, not even the ancient Greeks, has ever thought same-sex marriage was a good idea. To change a thing like this that is so foundational to the very core of what it means to be a family, a people, and a nation, individually and collectively in relationship with others and with God with so little thought and examination of the consequences is to invite horrendous disaster.

This issue should have been carefully and thoughtfully studied, the examination should have been more strenuous than the process the FDA uses to approve new drugs. This decision has been based on nothing more than the mood of the age, the pressure of certain groups on public opinion and the indoctrination of a people to adopt a mindset based on nothing more than an advertizing campaign. There has been no examination of the potential for destruction. The consequences of getting this wrong will have bad repercussions through generations. Getting this wrong has the potential to shred American society to the point where it collapses. 

That's what happens when you dismantle the building block of a culture.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: It Is Starkly, Nakedly False That Sex Change Is Possible

"The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers," Paul McHugh.

Can't say it any better than he did. Click HERE for the full article.
 

Liberals are Smarter than Conservatives

Satoshi Kanazawa posted an article in The Scientific Fundamentalist which was republished in Psychology Today about why Liberals are smarter than Conservatives. Want to know why? It's because Liberals want the federal government to give needy people money, that's why. If you're scratching your head, you're probably a Conservative

The author argues that altruism is a characteristic of smartness and therefore, since Liberals support the federal government giving people money, they're altruistic. First of all, that's not altruism, that's being on board for someone else (government) taking the responsibility for helping the needy and hoping that rich people get soaked and the individual Liberal voter will escape with little or nothing required of him leaving said average voter to pat himself on the back for being so caring toward his fellow man.

These days definitions of things aren't what they used to be. Bigotry used to mean not allowing other people to have their own point of view. But these days, if you have a point of view Liberals don't agree with, you're not allowed to have it, because you're a bigot. Yes, I'm scratching my head too. You're only a bigot when you have a point of view a Progressive or Liberal doesn't like, when they have points of view you don't like, they're not bigots, you're still the bigot. Scratching my head doesn't help me get around that, so I stopped.

Altruism has been rehabilitated to mean, "The desire for the state or federal government to tax people who have money so that some of it can be given to the needy, no personal involvement or thought involved." In my thinking, that's not altruism. Altruism costs the individual something that matters to him, adding a few dollars to one's tax bill doesn't cost the average voter anything--it doesn't even cost him the time to think about whether his tax dollars are being used wisely. Heck, many average voters don't even pay taxes!

Using phony altruism as the scale to determine intelligence is a pretty flimsy way to set one's self up as the smarty on the block! It's kind of like saying that because a group of five guys have won a few million dollars in a League of Legends Tournament, they're the best athletes in the world.  (League of Legends is an online game you can play for free where you control an avatar that co-operates with other players' avatars. Your team of avatars goes around shooting things with the goal of taking the enemy's base.) Good League of Legends players have teamwork, strategy and fast reflexes. I'm pretty sure those qualities are on the list for best athlete--that is unless you're a weight lifter (I'm assuming that teamwork and fast reflexes might not be weightlifter's strong suit), an individual swimmer or runner (no teamwork required) or any number of other sports that don't require any number of skills which other sports require. It's probably safe to say that people who compete in sports played by physically interacting with some kind of environmental element like water or snow or weights probably won't think a top League of Legend player, who sits on his backside punching computer keys and operating a mouse, is an athlete.

If Satoshi Kanazawa had posted an article reporting how League of Legend players are the best athletes in the world, other athletes would suspect she's an electronic gamer who loves League of Legends--kind of like, how I, a Conservative, suspect that Kanazawa is a Liberal who loves the total disconnect and lack of real effort and thought involved in the process of supporting some of her tax dollars (hopefully most of those tax dollars coming from the so called "rich") be spent to help the needy and wants to believe that makes her and her ilk smarties.

The Liberal back patting never ends.

Satoshi Kanazawa: Why Liberals are More Intelligent than Conservatives

For more analysis on Liberal back patting check out:

Reason Magazine: Are Conservatives Dumber?

Update: Since the initial publication of this article I have learned that using the term "guys" to refer to a group of human beings, whether that group is all male or not (especially if it's not) is a micro-aggression. I am female and have never felt the use of the male pronoun "he" as the generic pronoun to be a vile or evil practice, but learned in the 80's that it was. I still don't find it offensive. I also like words like "stewardess" and "actress" and so on. These days I insist on using "he" as the generic pronoun and "stewardess" as well as other banned words because it annoys people. Now, my ability to annoy people has been expanded, through no effort on my part, to include words that I regularly use, words like "guys." You guys who are annoyed that I insist on using "he" as the generic pronoun are probably going apoplectic over "guys." Well, that's fine. Knock yourself out. You've never cared about what has annoyed or offended me either, so we're even.

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 1

In this three part video series Dr. Lance Wallnau discusses why the church isn't making more impact in transforming cities, states and nations and what Christians need to do to change that. One of his primary points is that not everybody can be in ministry. God needs people in every walk and field influencing for the better and taking ground in those areas for His Kingdom.

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 2

Part two of Lance Wallnau's exposition of how to apply God's calling in your life:

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 3

Part 3 of Lance Wallnau's exposition on "Understanding Sphere Penetration and Occupation Strategies":

Becoming an Agent for Change by Lance Wallnau

Believers are called to "Go into the world and preach the Gospel to all creation." But, except for missionaries going to distant nations, the church wants to hide in its sanctuary and have creation come to them. In the video below Dr. Lance Wallnau addresses this issue.

Four Big Bangs...

A former atheist was challenged to read some Christian books and disprove their theses...