Pulling Out of the Paris Climate Agreement and Socialism

I saw this article from the NY Times today, and as I studied it, I knew there was something wrong with this picture. Just couldn't pinpoint exactly what it was.

Now that I have thought about this throughout the day, I know what it is that makes it look like our current president made a mistake in his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord.

I don't think there is a connection between pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and the decision to help create jobs for steel workers. But I think Socialistically minded people will try to make it look like there is a connection and that Trump made a bad decision because somehow, in their minds, this will affect the economy as it will limit those who have jobs working with the environment, supposedly. Trump's decision to support the steel workers will work against those who make a living by working with technology and the environment.

One of the things Socialists hate is competition. If you have a business mind, and if you want a healthy economy, you will see why competition is a good thing. Sure, there are abuses in competition, just like in any other good thing. Just because people who have egos utilize something doesn't make that thing wrong.

Competition helps the economy. People are free to build their businesses and work hard to produce good products or services. That is a good thing. But to a Socialist minded person, that is a bad thing.

Socialism takes the individuality out of people. Instead of people being able to worship God and respond to God in the way he or she is designed to be, Socialism considers the object of focus for all success to be the government. All money allocated to people should come from the government. That way, it will be fair to all. No one will have more than another. Everyone has to be equal under Socialism.

The article from the NY Times was interesting. If I understand it correctly, the author of the article seems to think that because there has been so much development in Pittsburgh, they no longer need to support the steel industry. They are out of that stage and onto bigger and better things. And President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris agreement was not something they think was a good decision.

There really are people who like to work with steel. There are still miners and people of old whose careers have gone by the wayside because of technology. But they are still there. And President Trump is fully supporting them.

I am not against developing good technologies or creating green environments. I would think the president would also be supportive of those as well. Just because there are new technological developments doesn't mean that there aren't those who still use what was used in the past.

But what puzzles me most about this article is the tie-in with the exit from the Paris climate accord. I am personally glad that the president pulled out of this. There are many bad ramifications that we would experience if we were to have stayed in this.

But when I read the source of where this article was published, it helped answer the mystery. The NY Times is a Socialistically minded resource. Anyone who is Socialistically minded would be angry that the president pulled out from the Paris Climate Agreement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/a-revitalized-pittsburgh-suggests-the-president-used-a-rusty-metaphor.html

You have to remember, that much of the world thinks like Liberal Left-wingers. They hate America because of its prosperity. They hate the fact that people in America can make a lot of money. Socialism demands that everyone is equal. And the United States is the wealthiest nation of all. They hate us.

The world is blaming America for the climate change. They would say that America is too populated and needs to do what China has done in having small families. We must not be responsible enough, for if we were, then we wouldn't have the problem of global warming. People actually buy into this way of thinking.

The whole climate change issue is really a non-issue. But it is another tool to use America as a scapegoat for this. America is responsible and America needs to change. This is why it would have been bad for America to stay in this agreement.

Can you see the idolatry here? Socialism points to the government as the savior for us from all of our problems. Since America is the wealthiest country in America, our government, in their eyes, should do their part to 'solve' this climate change issue. This would involve taking billions of dollars to try to create a way to fix the climate change problem. It would also support Planned Parenthood in that we need to depopulate our land. It would not encourage those who work in steel mills or mines. It would be a dead-end street because we would see the government as everything we need, but the government cannot deliver as promised. God is God. The government is not.

Here is an article that helps explain why pulling out of the Paris agreement was right.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/01/trump-pulls-out-paris-climate-deal-and-does-something-right-and-brave.html

"Competition is one of the dirtiest words you could ever say to a Leftist.." Rush Limbaugh

How Socialism Penalizes Hard Workers And Rewards Those In Poverty

Socialism is such a big topic that it could never be covered in one or two articles. What I would like to do is to present Socialism in small bites, so the reader can begin to grasp the ideology of everything going on around us today, in this country, specifically.

I want to start with the aspect of this ideology that talks about the social structure, mainly the different income brackets and how Socialism seeks to resolve the issue of poverty vs. the way God would have us see it.

Even an article like that could end up being pages, so let's narrow it down further. Let's talk about those in the poverty level, and those who are at the top.

According to the ideology of Socialism, those who are successful and make money, the so called 'Upper Class' are not in the place of being rich because they worked hard. Socialism does not put a value on hard work. It sees the wealthy as people who 'stole' to get what they have.

They didn't physically steal things and become materialistic. You see, according to those who think like Obama does, supposedly, the founders of our country 'stole' from the Indians, Mexicans, and the slaves. Obama and his ilk think that we should be 'paying' back, instead of working hard at our jobs to be successful. In fact, wasn't it Obama who originated the phrase, 'You didn't build that' referring to people's businesses that they built?

Those who think like Obama believe that our nation was founded on conquest. Long before America became a country, Spanish Conquistadors periodically came to this land to find gold. They were nasty people, for the most part. But they never actually conquered this nation.

America really began with the Pilgrims. They came over here and settled. They worked hard and build their community. They even worked with the Indians and made friends with them.

Other groups came over to America. Some were God-fearing people who trusted in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Others came and went, depending upon how much gold they found.

A group finally came together and in 1776, a new nation was started. It was not founded by conquering anyone or any group of people here.

Before long, we had immigrants coming over here. Many were from Europe, but there were also other nations represented here. They came over because there was a beginning, thriving civilization here, where they could work hard together and build this nation.

Although I do not know if our Forefathers of this nation were actually born again believers in Jesus Christ, we do know that they were God fearing people. Many of them valued God's word and you can find many Scriptural passages in their writings.

So, they built this nation, and here we are today. We are the most prosperous nation around. But Socialism doesn't like this idea. Socialism thinks that all people should be equal. That also includes all nations. One nation should not be more prosperous than another.

Where does that leave America then? When Obama was president, he was not supportive of the military. Nor was he sympathetic to those who went to war. Why? Because Socialism thinks that everyone should be equal. We shouldn't be defending our nation the way we have been. We need to let other nations have our wealth, and if we have a strong military to protect us, we will continue to be protecting our wealth.

Socialism seeks to undermine the achiever. The person who works hard to make a living and is successful should be penalized. The way they are penalized is by being forced to give to those at the bottom of the pole, those in poverty. Much of this is done through taxation.

This video is short and to the point. Socialism would not agree with this video. But this is how a healthy society will work


The church should be doing everything possible to minister to the poor. If the church in America is healthy, then the church will be helping the poor.

Socialism thinks that helping the poor is done by giving handouts to those in poverty. But it is really jobs that are needed, not handouts. Handouts only keep people in poverty.

You can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. You can teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime. I don't know who said this, but it makes sense.

Socialism seeks to give people fish for a day. And the next day. And the day after that. The fish will never run out because the rich people will be taxed to death to provide all the fish needed to feed the poor, on a continual basis.

But, what if a poor person can actually do work? How much better would that be? This would restore dignity back to the poor person. Realistically speaking, poverty can be alleviated by giving people work to do. But under a Socialistic regime, hard work and achievement are not valued. And those who are successful in their jobs are penalized.

Does this make sense? Is this what we want? Progressive Liberals are going to universities everywhere teaching their philosophy to young people today.

Is it any wonder that so many young adults complain that 'life isn't fair'?

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 ESV

Unlocked Doors At Night And Fenceless Yards

Why do people build fences? What are some reasons fences would be built?

We build fences to keep our children in the yard, as well as our pets. If they leave the yard, they could be in danger (depending upon the age of the child).

Fences also keep other people from entering one's yard. Those who jump over fences are trespassing. The boundaries of the yard are off limits to them.

Of course, fences don't totally keep people out of the yard. But why is it not good for some people to enter the yard?

There are child predators that would love to come into the yard and take children away from their homes. Many of these children are shipped to another country and are sold under the black market. Most of them will probably never see their families again. Some of them will be killed. Others will be used in the child pornography business.

Children feel safe where there are boundaries. An experiment was done in a school yard. Children who were allowed to go out for recess in a school that had no fence around it, stayed close to the building. But after a fence was put around the school building, when the children went out for recess, they were more comfortable with going out into the school yard, and didn't feel the need to stick close to the building anymore.

What is it about us that makes us think that putting up a wall to keep other people out of our country, especially those who are drug dealers, is an act of bigotry? Other countries have boundaries around them to keep foreigners out. They understand that those visiting their countries might not have good intentions.

Why would we think that people want to do our country good, in light of what happened in Genesis 3? When Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit, everything changed. People were born with selfish hearts. Even now, down the road many years, people are just as selfish as they were back then.

Do we lock our doors at night? Suppose someone comes to the door at 1 am, and you answer it. What are some things that could happen? This actually did happen to us one time. We answered the door and the woman, who had a child with her, needed money. We found out by asking around that this woman was on drugs, looking for money to pay for her drug habit. But there are horror stories of what happens to people during the night when they were sleeping.

What if we let people trespass the boundaries around our country, and then give them preferential treatment over those who are hard working citizens of this country? Is it fair and just to change our boundaries so that others can trespass against us? How long are we going to believe the lie that says that we 'stole' from other people and we must give everything back (which is done by treating illegal aliens as privileged American citizens, and taking away the rights of the American citizen)?

What is so hard about seeing the problem with this?

The 'Underclass' Is The Key In Making Socialism Work"

They (the Left) need to have a perpetual underclass (Rush Limbaugh). From what I understand, the underclass is what supports the Elite. Plus, the underclass has to continue. There is no answer to their poverty under socialism.

This is one reason why the Left is not very aggressive on keeping out illegal immigrants. They become a large part of this 'underclass'.

What keeps this underclass alive? Who are the people that make up this underclass?

What people need is work. God put within each person the desire to work and to use their skills to serve others in the community and to make a living to provide for their families. Where there is poverty, there is either no work or jobs available, or, certain people cannot work, for various reasons. This is why welfare is so big. It provides for people who have lost their jobs, but it also keeps some people from looking for jobs.

The problem with the Left is that they give out handouts to the underclass. This way, those who make up the underclass are sure to vote for them when they run for office. The underclass supports the Elite, and the Elite will continue to give out handouts.

The irony in socialism is shown here. Socialism expects everyone to be equal. It's not fair, they say, if someone has a nice, big, new beautiful car, while another person has to take a bike to work at a fast food restaurant. Everyone should have equal pay. No one should have too much money. If a person is rich, he will have his money taken from him and given to the underclass, so that everyone will be equal.

Socialism or Communism claims they don't believe that there should be classes of people, because everyone is equal. But, the product of socialism ends up doing just that. It creates this underclass, which will be subject to the government, and will support the government, actually making the government rich. People who make up the underclass will never be rich. They will always be poor. But the Elite in the government will continue to become richer. So, the classes of people that they claim they don't want, will be very evident. This is a great hypocrisy on their part. There is no fairness in this. It is unjust.

Here is what Rush Limbaugh says about Socialism, as he tries to explain Socialism to a Millennial:

"Now, the thing about socialism is that in practice, as you live it, it is a hideous and demeaning form of government. It is presented as a panacea. It’s presented as utopia. It is presented as complete equality, fairness, and sameness. It assumes that individuals are not capable of being fair to each other. It assumes that individuals are not willing to share equally. It assumes that individuals are not capable of making the right decisions to live their lives according to the desires of the state.

It presumes that you are incapable of being charitable. It assumes the worst characteristics of people. It is presented as a way of equalizing and leveling everything, and it’s presented — by the people who espouse it — as equality and fairness and prosperity for all, where nobody has anything more than anybody else, and nobody has any less than anybody else, and everybody is basically the same and treated the same."

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/05/12/explaining-socialism-to-a-new-millennial-listener/

"The Democrats need a permanent underclass that is not going to
improve, that is not going to become middle class or upper class."
Rush Limbaugh

Rights Or Privileges?

Apparently, Miss U.S.A. has Hollywood in an uproar right now. When asked what she thought about the new healthcare bill, she responded by saying that healthcare is a 'privilege', not a right.

"Miss USA says health care is a ‘privilege,’ not a right, sparking debate during pageant"

This, is the crux of the whole problem between the Left and the Right, between Liberals and Conservatives, in my opinion.

I want to be careful to not stereotype people, but, I think a lot of younger people today were shortchanged in their childhood by parents who were duped into thinking that their children should not have life as hard as they did, so, they took the hard work out of their lives and made it easy for the children and also for the parents.

In the early 1960s, Dr. Benjamin Spock came out with his book on childcare. My mom had the book, and was upset because according to what she read, Dr. Spock did not believe spanking children was necessary. Fifty some years later, we see some of the results of that kind of parenting that was taught back then.

We have people today, and it is not just Millennials, who have this 'entitlement' mentality. Could this be why so many young adults who are taught in our colleges, are upset because things didn't work out the way they wanted after the election? Could it be that these young adults never learned how to work through challenging situations that we go through in life?

Some of the evidences of this 'entitlement' mentality are seen in the ideology of the Liberal Left. They want everyone equal, so, it is not fair that some are rich, while others are poor. Their ideas to cure that problem are to heavily tax the rich in order to give to poor people. Instead of helping the poor to become responsible, the tax money is used for handouts. People get used to handouts, then it becomes an expectation. Pretty soon, they think they have a 'right' to get things.

This is a confusing lesson for children to learn. If parents give in to their children's desires continually, and don't discipline when the child needs it, this thinking is the natural result of what happens when parents have this wrong philosophy. The child begins to expect others to give into him when he grows up. When they don't give in to his wants and desires, then the child, now adult, becomes manipulative. He will blame others for his problems. But the real problem is that he never learned how to become a responsible adult. Others took that away from him and now he feels 'entitled' to receive things from others.

So, today, we have a society who is complaining because Miss U.S.A says that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. 

Here is the question she was asked:
“Do you think affordable health care for all U.S. citizens is a right or a privilege, and why?”

To which she gave a very wise answer to.

“I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege,” she said. “As a government employee, I am granted health care. And I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have jobs. So therefore, we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we’re given the opportunities to have health care as well as jobs to all the American citizens worldwide.”

This young woman gets it. She understands how life works. She sees that people have to take responsibility by working jobs. She also sees that we need to cultivate this environment so we can have healthcare and jobs. She made a lot of enemies this day. 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/05/15/miss-usa-says-health-care-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-sparking-debate-during-pageant/

Why 'Special Rights' Given To Groups Is Potentially Dangerous

There are many injustices today in our land. People are getting away with breaking the law. Slander ruins people's reputations. Now we have activists in our country who are fighting for 'special rights' for what they would call 'minority groups' or 'special interest' groups.

What are these rights and why are they potentially dangerous?

Please understand that I don't believe that every homosexual or transgender is actively fighting for these rights in our country. This is not primarily against them. The problem comes from activist groups such as the ACLU and others which are similar in their agendas.

Also, corporations such as Target, are taking a stand to support these 'groups'. These groups are not racial groups, but they are groups made up of people who are either homosexual, transgender, or feminist. But again, it is not individual homosexuals or transgenders who are these activists, even though many of them are gay. It is the activist groups that I am focusing on.

Why are they potentially dangerous? Because ultimately, they can take away the freedoms of the average person, especially the person who holds Biblical convictions.

Here is an example of how it happens: A lesbian mayor in Texas required every pastor in her area to turn in their sermon notes and those who preached what the Bible says about homosexuality would be penalized. Thank God she wasn't able to be successful in her desire.

A transgender, who serves in the military, wants a sex change operation. Who pays for it? The operation will be paid for by our taxes. (This hasn't happened yet, but it is coming).

Women (and men) who believe they have a 'right' to their own body (this idea certainly does not come from the Bible) believe they 'need' an abortion. They go to Planned Parenthood for advice. Planned Parenthood agrees that the woman needs an abortion. But she has no money. Who pays for it? The money to pay for it will, in part, come from our taxes. So, you and I are paying, even in a small part, for something that we don't believe in doing.

Did you know that in some states, a counselor is not allowed to share what the Bible says about homosexuality even with someone who comes for counseling to be free from homosexuality? The counselor will be penalized, by law, for sharing what the Bible says.

There is pressure on churches to force them to allow homosexuals to be able to be members of their churches. This is really hypocritical. If the church stands for the whole counsel of God as taught in Scriptures, then a homosexual should look for a church where he would fit in. If there is none, then he will have to find somewhere else to go or change his belief system. But to make a church change their belief system to accommodate homosexuality, then that would be taking away the freedom of the people who want to believe what the Bible says. Do you see how this is trying to work itself out in our country?

(I wonder what would happen if a homosexual activist visited a mosque and insisted that those who run the mosque change their minds about what they believe in, in order to accommodate the homosexual?)

Finally, a woman who is a florist in Washington State lost her business because she couldn't provide flowers with a personal touch to them for a Gay wedding. Somehow, the ACLU, as well as Washington State, found out what happened and jumped on her case. There was a court hearing on it trying to decide if 'expression' would be a consideration. Would she have to use 'expression' in her act of providing flowers for the wedding? She made it clear that the homosexual pair could buy flowers already premade for their wedding, but she could not personally provide the flower arrangements for the wedding because of her convictions. I think she lost the case though.

This is why this whole thing is so dangerous. The 'bigots' are the ones who have convictions of what the Bible says about life issues (according to these activists). When someone holds opposing views, then we are to submit to those views or else we are called bigots.

Again, this is not an article about homosexuals vs. straights. This is totally a situation where the Liberal Left is using these specialized groups to promote their cause. The goal, I believe, is to ultimately take away the freedom of religious belief for each person. I don't necessarily believe that everyone in the ACLU is Gay or Transgender. I believe the ACLU is creating a straw man, setting up people against each other, to ultimately remove the standards as laid out in the word of God. This is what we need to be praying about.

Did you know that homosexuals and transgenders actually make up only a small percentage of our population?*

May God help us to stand up for the truth, and to defend the freedoms that our country has right now, before they are lost.

Satan will do anything to eradicate the word of God in America, and to take away our freedom to believe and live out what the Bible says. He knows that the word of God is a weapon against his tactics. That's all the more reason we need to know it, and permeate our land with the Scriptures (seed sowing).

*https://heatst.com/life/what-percentage-of-people-are-gay/

Is Capitalism Unfair?

Capitalism vs. Socialism. What's the big deal and why is this important?

I would hear talk about the positive points of capitalism. I personally, like capitalism. I like the idea of using one's skills or talents to make a living. I like the idea of building a business. That is how our country started. That is one big reason why our country has been so prosperous in the past.

A lot of people think socialism is a good idea. But why?

Here are my thoughts on this today; Socialism is liked by so many, and mainly those on the far left, simply because they believe it promotes equality.

Liberals hate capitalism. The reason why they hate capitalism is because when people own their own businesses, and especially those businesses that are in the same field, there is competition.

Business-minded people say that competition is good. It helps the economy to grow. But socialist-minded people think this is unfair. It creates inequality, according to them.

If two people have a competing business, let's say, and one does better than the other, Liberals will say that the one who does better will bully the weaker business around. Whenever one has something that the other doesn't have, that is inequality, and according to some, it isn't fair.

God designed men and women to have unique skills to work with. Today, particularly in America, we can develop our talents and skills, and create jobs for ourselves and, at the same time, we can create jobs for others.

Each human being is uniquely designed by God, and given abilities to work while we are on this planet. Socialism wants to take the talents and skills away and wants to make everyone equal. That way, doctors and lawyers will not receive more pay than bus drivers and garbage men, teachers, and artists.

Everyone will have their fair share of pay. But not everyone will be doing what they were wired to do.

Under socialism, people will lose their drive to be creative. People will not have the ability to use the abilities and skills they were created to us to make this world a better place. We use our skills to serve in our communities. But we also make a living using those same skills.

I like the question Dinesh D'Souza asks in one of his movies. He pointed out a well liked musician, who made a lot of money over the weekend at a concert that was held. This musician was very popular and made a grand amount of money. Some would complain and say this isn't fair. Why should this musician make that kind of money? There are many hard working people who never even make that kind of money, in their whole lifetimes.

Who supported this musician that he made so much money, Dinesh asks? The answer is, 'you did'. We supported him. Those who went to the concert paid the money to see this musician. The musician supplied the demand for what the people wanted. The people paid the money for what was being supplied. Makes sense?

So, back to the original thought. Liberals think this is unfair. Supply and demand is not what they want. Everyone must contribute, but everyone gets paid the same.

Ultimately, everyone will be working for the government, in a socialistic setting. The government gives us what we need. Eventually, we live to serve the government, and, of course, we will be supporting those at the very top. They will be the ones who have all the money. They will be the ones who call the shots. They will be the ones we will serve and give our lives for. Sounds like a form of idolatry to me.

Conclusion:
*Liberals don't like capitalism because capitalism supposedly creates inequality because people get different amounts of money for what they do.
*Everyone should get the same amount of pay (equality).
*Those who are rich become bullies (so they think).
*It is unfair (from a socialistic standpoint) that businesses compete with each other and that some businesses do better than others.
*Competition is good for an economy. It is an incentive for us to do our best to serve our customers while providing for ourselves and our families.
*It is hypocritical for Liberals to think that everyone getting the same amount of pay is fair. The ones driving this philosophy are the far-left leaders at the top, and they will be billionaires  while the rest of us end up poor (look at North Korea, for example).

If we can't have a socialistic or communistic society, then it will be deemed necessary, by the authorities, to tax the rich in order for the government to redistribute the wealth, so the poor will have money and everyone will be equal. 

Here are the words to the song 'Imagine' written by Yoko Ono, and John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one.....http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/8671/

This is written from the mindset of someone who thinks like a communist. Would this be a profitable way to live, and would we enjoy just living like robots or maybe even clones of everyone else? I have to wonder if John Lennon set the example for this in his life before he was killed?