The Gospel Truth

Forrest Gump at the White House

August 22, 2011
4 Comments

It was a risible moment during the movie, Forrest Gump, when he told President Johnson that he won his medal because they shot him in the butt-ocks.

One of the great lines from the movie was Stupid is as stupid does!

Since Forrest was basically a simple child in an adult’s body it had almost an embedded Biblical wisdom to it.

Given the state of the economy and our president’s inepitude with financial affairs, it might be time for Forrest to go back to Washington and give them the wisdom of his thoughts.

Should make another visit

Ever since she could talk and I think that was just a few minutes after her birth, my eight-years old granddaughter was not allowed to say the word, stupid because her parents told her it was a bad word.

Yet she freely uses the word Obama which is a bad word in her grandparents’ home.

Pundit James Carville got a lot of mileage out of his phrase, It’s the economy stupid!

Some might say that it summed up the reasons that George H. W. Bush failed to retain his public office in 1992.

I am really surprised that more people have not resurrected Carville’s slogan for this upcoming election.

Image Detail

Recognized 41's weakness

Economy and stupid have been hermetically paired these past three years with the Obama administration.

Clueless is another word that comes to mind.

Everywhere you read, someone is talking about the economy and like the weather, no one is doing anything about it, thanks to the obstructionist in the White House.

I wonder if someday my granddaughter will see the connection between her old offensive word and the current occupant of the White House.

While on the subject of of stupid billionaire Warren Buffet worries that he has not paid enough in taxes, giving comfort and ammunition to the Obama forces who lust for more money, like a vampire lusts for more blood.

Perhaps that explains the ubiquity of movies and TV about vampires and other blood-suckers.

expecting a bite

Future bureaucrats in training

Buffet paid only 17% of his unstated income in taxes.  He thinks that he should pay a lot more.

Then he should start by paying himself a huge salary from his tax-sheltered foundation like most working Americans.

The truth is Buffet already has enough money for the rest of his life.

He wants government to stop others from becoming as wealthy as he is.

It is always apples and oranges with Obama.  They cite the deficits as a reason why they need to raise taxes on millionaires…most of whom only make $200,000 a year.  Can’t Americans do math?

Harvard said women couldn’t but then that was before Larry Summers went to work for Obama.

Image Detail

Women and math don't compute

What Obama is saying is that he would use that additional revenue to address the deficit.

By creating a larger deficit?

If anybody really believes this man is capable of reducing anything, I have some prime oceanfront property here in Southeast, Missouri I can sell you.

Thanks to Uncle Sam who flooded it last spring.

He will pour it all down the special interest sinkhole that he has already wasted $5,000,000,000,000.

Implicit in his senile pandering to Obama is his belief that he owes his $58 billion wealth to Big Government for his wealth.

Unless Buffet is a crony capitalist like the executives at GE, he has forgotten how it has been his own uncanny knack of picking winning stocks that allowed him to amass such a fortune.

Were government to someday confiscate his entire fortune, it wouldn’t do any real good to address the economics problems of this country.

Image Detail

Should pay himself a salary

Pope Benedict XVI has also weighed in on economics, before a Spanish audience in hoping to ease strained ties with the Socialist government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Madrid.

I don’t even like the leader of my Church having anything to do with any kind of Socialism, let alone give the appearance of appeasement.

And appeasement is what it sounded like when the pontiff urged business leaders to use ethics to work for mankind and not just be concerned with profits.

The pontiff failed to understand that economics is indifferent to humanitarian causes, except when they try to buy public good will through philanthropy.

It is an imperfect system but it is far better than any of the alternatives, especially the Socialist government he was trying to salve.

Businesses are created, first of all to make money for the risk-takers who invest their time and their money in new ventures that employ millions of people.

Where would the world be without free enterprise?

In the Gulag?

Humanitarian projects have been historically the work of churches and philanthropists.

The moment government got into the charity business they abused it to the extent that they used humanitarian interests to extort trillions from businesses around the world.

It is primarily socialist governments, like the one in Madrid that are responsible for the excessive poverty in the world and for running the global economy near the brink of total collapse.

Just once I would love to hear a leader of my church talk or even preach about the responsibilities of government toward property owners and the successful.

Have governments been good stewards of the largesse they confiscate from their subjects?

And what do the rich get in return?

They have to build gated communities to protect their families and their properties from the brigands and marauders that liberal societies have encouraged to prey on them.

Unfortunately it is always the lower classes that suffer the most…but this is because of big government and not the denizens of  gated communities.

I would just love to hear a priest preach about violations of the Seven Commandment, which for Catholics is Thou Shalt Not Steal.

Benedict XVI

What about the 7th Commandment?

No, so many of prelates are blinded by false notions of social justice, which emanates from Karl, not Jesus.

This reminded me of a clerical admission in grade school about papal infallibility that said that the pope was not infallible in science …or economics but only in faith and morals.

This sounds as if he is trying mix both.

The real trouble is that most people hate economics.

This gives charlatans like Obama almost a free rein.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, they hate it because so much economic theory violates common sense.

Nothing so far Obama has done has boosted this reputation.

One of their biggest canards is the fallacy that by extending unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs, is a good way to stimulate the economy.

They are earning any money, so by government giving money they didn’t have, they will spend it.

Brilliant logic if money great on trees.

I’ll have to ask the Fed about that.  

While it is a perfect Keynesian theoretical answer, it is practical nonsense.

According to the WSJ‘s Stephen Moore the White House is telling us that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work.

And this will really stimulate us out of an approaching double-dip recession.

Milton Friedman said that the more you subsidize something, the more of it you will get.

Image Detail

Want more unemployment--subsidize it

If I, who  had just a pair of what FDR used to call Gentleman C’s in Economics at Holy Cross understand it, how stupid does that make the rest of the country who doesn’t?


10 Liberal Fallacies: Part I

July 30, 2010
Leave a Comment

Lately I have been writing about grandchildren and other personal issues while of interest do not really lend themselves to idea-oriented confrontations.

I hadn’t had any real intellectual confrontations lately.

Earlier this month I logged on to The Erstwhile Conservative.

I had ventured there earlier in the year and had gotten into a battle royal with the blogger.

I thought it would help to keep sharp.  I used to love the verbal battles I got into with my left-wing callers on WGNU.

I think they made me a much better informed host because if I could not defend what I believe I had better find out better arguments to meet my personal test of reason.

Well my recent inter-changes with Duane Graham left me empty and unsatisfied.

Last time I ventured to his site, the exchanges were heady and had some real content.

Now his responses seem no deeper than a crayon book, issued by the Obama White House. Check him for yourselves:  See all comments on this post here.

Unfortunately it did not take long for his responses to make a rapid descent into invective and verbal assault.

I had thought he was capable of some independent thought but his best arguments seemed to center on Obama’s strategy for keeping his boot this coming election.

Go to fullsize image

Which one told no lies?

I took that as his form of intellectual capitulation.  If the ideas don’t work, sling the mud.

Duane’s first line of defense was:

1) Bush did it.

Expect to hear this a lot in the ensuing months.  Every thing that has not worked out for the Obama regime from solving unemployment, the oil spill, an economy that lingers on the brink etc.— have all been the policies of George W. Bush.

What they fail to state is that the annual deficit in 2007 was $200 billion–I will never defend the profligate spending of Bush and his Republican Congress.

That was the year Reid and Pelosi assumed the mantle of spending and promptly lead us deeper into a recession.

I want to laugh out loud every time, the president speaks in his most solemn tones about the Bush deficits he inherited, failing to mention the two trillion in debt he has added in just 18 months.

The Republicans were mere pickpockets compared to this regime.

2) Tax cuts for the wealthy.

I have to quell my rage when I hear this constant refrain, not unlike the witches in Macbeth.  I feel like Big Daddy in The Cat on a Hot Tin Roof when he yells at his son…Mendacity, mendacity…!

The truth is everyone got a tax cut in 2003.

The wealthy saved more because they paid more taxes than anyone else.  It was there money anyway!

The top 5% of tax payers account for about 50% of all taxes collected in this country.

These tax cuts sparked an economic recovery that rebounded, first from the popping of the Clinton internet investment bubble, followed by the crash after 9/11.

Just wait until Obama’s tax increases on all people sends us into another recession.

Hmmm, I thought ONLY the wealthy got tax cuts in the first place.  Methinks our president speaks out of both sides of his face.

Don’t trust his overtures to the middle class with his vain promises of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, except the wealthy.

On a similar note, these tax cuts did not cost the billions every Democrat whines about—they more than paid for themselves with hundreds of billions in extra tax revenue from all segments of the economy.

Check out the tax cuts from Kennedy, Reagan, and George  W. Bush.  These cuts brought in billions of extra revenues to the Treasury’s coffers.

They all proved that a rising tide lifts everyone’s boat.

The huge deficits in the two latter cases occurred because of the excessive spending policies of the Democrats.

Contrast this with Obama’s strategy to lower the tides–everyone, especially the middle class will sink to the bottom. Hello Davey Jones!

3) The Stimulus Package worked.

Oh, did it?  Obama projected that unemployment would not go above 8%.  It stands at 9.6 % and that does not include millions of part-time workers and those who merely quit looking for work.  The real rate is probably 15-16%.

And jobs saved?  These were mostly government jobs and they will end when the money runs out.

The government does not create any jobs— just work.

The WPA in the 1930’s had such unproductive jobs as having one man dig a hole and another fill it up.  That just moved dirt. It did not create anything.

Obama’s policies have the same productive content as FDR’s.  Government cannot run any business.  Just look at the Postal System, which has been drowning in red ink since the dawning of the Johnson’s budget-busting years.

4) Man’s Carbon footprint must be reduced.

This is another myth the left  thrives on.

Many had thought this issue was laid to rest with the release of a series of damning e-mail last November from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU)

At its core according to the WSJ, the scandal was as much about integrity of the scientific process as it was about quality of the science.

Leading climatologists were caught advising each other to delete compromising emails, stonewall freedom of information requests and game the peer review process to exclude contributions from skeptical colleagues.

The so-called Climategate emails also revealed a habit among climatologists to trim their scientific sails to the political wind.

This underscores the fact that scientists have sold out their honor and integrity and contributed enormously to the politicization of science.

The lack of honesty and integrity is why global warming has been replaced by climate change, which is even more vague and, more likely a cyclical part of the natural world.

A recent attempt to recapture the high ground was report from the an Independent Climate Change EMail Review, written by a former University of Glasgow Vice Chancellor, Muir Russell that according to the WSJ amounted to a 160-page evasion of the real issues involved.

This report was commissioned and funded by East Anglia.

5) A woman’s right to choose.

This is no right.  Where is a man’s right to choose? Government limits are choices everyday.  They now want to tell us what we can eat and can’t eat.  Why because they will be paying for it with our money and money that doesn’t even exist.

Choice is just a nice-sounding slogan, filled with the sound and fury of millions of dead.

They think that the highest form of existential freedom is making choices.

Many of our choices have a moral content, especially when another human being is involved–no matter how small the unborn child—there is a human being present with of his/her DNA intact.

The morality of any choice is determined by what is chosen.  By that I mean the consequences choices have on other humans.

The Nazis chose to terminate millions of Jews and other undesirables.

Millions of women have made a choice to terminate their pregnancies, creating a new and in some ways, a more horrific kind of Holocaust.  The only true termination of a pregnancy is birth.

And never forget, abortion was invented by men for the benefit of men.  That and the profit motive is what drives legalized abortion. Just ask Hugh Hefner who gave us a fantasy world of sterile bunnies.

View Image

Hefner and one of his sterile bunnies.


An American Chameleon:Obama and His Sense of Identity

April 13, 2010
4 Comments

I have a standard line that I use frequently to get a rise out of people.  I tell the unsuspecting friend that some one stole my identity.

After an initial reaction of shock and horror, I add: Yeah but the guy called a week later and said he was giving it back because it was too hard being me!

No matter what one may say or think about President Barack Obama, I think he can rest assured that nobody and I mean–nobody will ever steal his identity.

I mean we have been through this a lot recently.

What do we really know about the most transparent president in history, as he likes to pretend?

Here are some questions about him.  See is you can honestly answer them.

1) Where was he born? You say Hawaii? Are you certain?  Have you ever seen a birth certificate?

Of course most of us have never seen any president’s birth certificate but this president has spent over a million dollars of someone’s money trying to avoid showing his in public.

You don’t have to be a birther to wonder about his national origins, give the suspicious way he has reacted to the questions.

f there were a valid birth certificate available–the State of Hawaii has not released any to my knowledge…even under the Freedom of Information Act–it would be in every newspaper.

This would effectively end the issue.

2) Who was his father? Barack Senior, you say.

Again we have been over this territory.  II have read an article that lines up pictures of the president with his mother, Virginia, Barack Sr. and Frank Davis, a self-admitted Communist who mentored the younger Obama when he was known as Barry.

You don’t have to be an expert in identification to see the close family resemblance to Davis and on a similar note, the lack of resemblance to Barack Sr.

Of course if Comrade Davis had been his natural father then any debate about his national origins would be mute.

3) What religion is he? You say Christian.  That’s possible but how do we really know.

People are still debating the religion of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.  Obama certainly studied his namesake’s religion when he lived in Indonesia and his mother had married a second Muslim man by that time.

He said in 2008 that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright had brought him to Christ yet I have never once heard him invoke the name of Christ in any speech, talk or personal interview.

If Reverend Wright brought him to Jesus, he is certainly tight-lipped about the ramifications of his “conversion.”

Several professional athletes that are born-again, refer to Jesus in virtually every interview they give and even on the field during games.  Just listen to Kurt Warner sometime.

4) What race is he? Biracial or mixed you say. He had a white mother and a black father–either Frank Davis or Barack Obama.  That seems like a 50-50 mix to me.

Well they just released his census form answers and President Obama checked the box for black.

In her column, Obama’s Census Identity for the WSJ the other day, Abigail Thernstrom makes several cogent points about just another of the president’s many identity issues.

First of all, she pointed out how officially he changed his race from  biracial which he is, to black, which he is not, on his census form.

Funny how we can know about this but we still do not know conclusively about his birth origins.

And I wonder, isn’t it illegal to falsify information on a census form–even if one has a good reason?

Well some people are above the law–like Bill Clinton for one.  I think perjury is still illegal.

Thernstrom goes on to recount his appearance on the David Letterman Show in September of 2009, where he talked about his search for his identity as an adolescent in high school.

This prompted the host to quip:  How long have you been a black man?

This may have more of an element of truth in it than the intellectually challenged host realized because it his high schools days, Obama was known as Barry and tended more toward the white side of his genetic make-up.

What neither seemed to understand or say was that Obama’s racial preference is based on the ante-civil rights assumption that even one drop of black blood made one a black person.

Thernstrom also points out that his false choice on the census was a slap at his dead mother, and the grandparents who acted as surrogate parents for much of his boyhood.

It is also strange that Obama has chosen the identity of his father who abandoned him when he was barely two years old.

Thernstrom opines that the reason he joined Reverend Wright’s Trinity Church was because it was an Afrocentric church with strong ties to the black community.

Thernstrom contrasts the president’s politicization of his race with the attitude of defamed golfer, Tiger Woods, who calls himself, because of his own mixed parentage a Cablinasian, that is a Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian.

Though I hate golf, and was very disappointed by his extra-marital behavior, I do admire Tiger’s witty approach to the dicey question of racial identity.

If only we could have gotten something similar from our president, then maybe the country would not be sending so many mixed messages.

He is very much like an American Chameleon because of his ability to try to change his identity to suit the blowing winds of political change.

Some day I expect to see him on a recreation of that old popular TV show of the 1950’s To Tell the Truth, where the original host, Bud Collyer would say:

Will the Real Barack Obama please stand up!


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds