Humphrey Stevenson
Last night, I attended a great lecture put on by The USA Patriots. The title of the lecture series is “Of God and Country.” The two speakers were Associate Pastor Jeff Reed of Kirk Of The Hills in Tulsa, OK and Pastor Jason Murphy of New Life Church in Owasso, OK. Wonderful music was provided by The Hargroves. A group of Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts did a great job as the Color Guard for the evening. There was a huge assortment of delicious cakes, cookies and other snacks provided for intermission.
A full discussion of the content of the lectures is not possible here. However, Pastor Reed proved, with historical evidence, that the United States was founded as, is now and always has been a Christian nation. Pastor Murphy showed how the land mass that is now the United States was a special place, intentionally hidden away by God for hundreds of years until He was ready for it to be settled by a chosen group of people so that the greatest and most free nation in history could be formed.
I am terrible at estimating crowd size, so I will only say the there were several hundred in attendance. The large hall in which the event was held was filled to near standing room only.
I would like to thank The USA Patriots for sponsoring the event and all others involved in making the event possible. Also, a special thanks to the pastors and congregation of Kirk Of The Hills for opening their superb facilities for the evening.
There is another lecture in the series scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 7 pm at:
Kirk Of The Hills
4102 E. 61st Street
Tulsa, OK
So if you are in the Tulsa area, please come. You will learn much more about how God has influenced this great nation and have wonderful time while learning it.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The "Debunkers"
This quote was given to me at a meeting of The USA Patriots. It was made by Professor E. Merrill Root. Specifically he was speaking of history revisionists who were attempting to tarnish the fame of George Washington. However, I don’t think I ever heard a more spot-on description of the liberals of today.
"They are always working to deflect truth and shock men, to reverse and pull apart, to destroy by "debunking". They are not content with the truth, but lust for the trick; they seek fame by destroying fame.... The Greeks had an image for it: there was a man of no merit, who therefore burned down the most beautiful of buildings so that he might live in the fame of infamy. In the dawn of the twentieth century such men begin to multiply in the land, raising and training a guerilla army of smilers with a knife, hero mockers, vivisectors of value, haters of life, "debunkers", pint sized vandals of the mind, termites in the timbers of culture, who (having no greatness) resented all greatness.... who, since they could not create, lusted to destroy. Like the fungus of decay, like the rust that eats pure metal, like the moths that devour lustrous fabric (mere bellies with gray wings!), they lusted to devour and destroy and corrode and tarnish. They sought to shout a "No" to life and to love. And these "debunkers" were, and always are, of the Devil's party. They act as they do because they are little, and know it; because they are sick, and know it. They cannot endure that there should be greatness, because they are not great; they cannot endure that there should be goodness, for they are not good. They cannot revere a master, for they are not artists. If they could see George Washington as he (was and) is, they could not bear to see themselves as they are; therefore they hate him because he shames them".
Professor E. Merrill Root
"They are always working to deflect truth and shock men, to reverse and pull apart, to destroy by "debunking". They are not content with the truth, but lust for the trick; they seek fame by destroying fame.... The Greeks had an image for it: there was a man of no merit, who therefore burned down the most beautiful of buildings so that he might live in the fame of infamy. In the dawn of the twentieth century such men begin to multiply in the land, raising and training a guerilla army of smilers with a knife, hero mockers, vivisectors of value, haters of life, "debunkers", pint sized vandals of the mind, termites in the timbers of culture, who (having no greatness) resented all greatness.... who, since they could not create, lusted to destroy. Like the fungus of decay, like the rust that eats pure metal, like the moths that devour lustrous fabric (mere bellies with gray wings!), they lusted to devour and destroy and corrode and tarnish. They sought to shout a "No" to life and to love. And these "debunkers" were, and always are, of the Devil's party. They act as they do because they are little, and know it; because they are sick, and know it. They cannot endure that there should be greatness, because they are not great; they cannot endure that there should be goodness, for they are not good. They cannot revere a master, for they are not artists. If they could see George Washington as he (was and) is, they could not bear to see themselves as they are; therefore they hate him because he shames them".
Professor E. Merrill Root
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Leftist of the Year Award
The Leftist of the Year Award
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
All hail Obama the peacemaker! Yes, in a scant nine months, President Obama has done more than anyone else to bring peace in our time. That is at least the determination of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in awarding him this prize. President Obama was selected over two hundred and four other nominees. Because of Nobel committee rules, we will not know who the other nominees were, at least not for fifty years. But there is no way anyone can say with a straight face that there was no one on that list more accomplished in the area of promoting peace and more deserving of this award than Barack Obama.
Tim Marshall suggested in his SkyNews blog that the Nobel Peace Prize has lost much of its impact in recent years for awarding institutions and joint winners. Awarding it to Barack Obama guarantees headlines worldwide and the Nobel Committee may have hoped it would regain some of its luster. Marshall also suggested that such a stunt could cheapen the award.
Members of the Nobel committee attempted to justify their choice in the face of a fire-storm of criticism. Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP that the President was given the award because of “Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.” The problem with that statement is that prior to being nominated for an award, the nominee has usually accomplished something for which to be recognized. For example, before a singer is nominated for a Grammy, they have recorded a song. (Milli Vanilli notwithstanding) But the deadline for nominations for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was February 1. At that point, Barack Obama had been President all of eleven days and done neither of the things Jagland points to as accomplishments. So why was Obama even nominated?
Peace does not come because you hope for it. It does not come because you make speeches about it. Peace comes because you defeat those who would cause war. Given this, I would submit to you that George W. Bush has actually done more to promote peace than Carter, Gore and Obama combined.
During the eighties, President Reagan was called crazy and a warmonger because of his belief that the Soviet Union was a menace to peace and a danger to free people everywhere. The media cringed at the “bombing starts in five minutes” line. They said he was insane for challenging Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Ronald Reagan faced up to and defeated the greatest force for evil of his time (maybe of all time). He accomplished this without firing a shot. That is real peace. Alas, he did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been many others who have brought peace to the world and did not receive the Peace Prize; Winston Churchill who stood against the murderous Nazi regime in the beginning, alone, Franklin D. Roosevelt who came to the aid of Churchill and entered the war once we were attacked by the Japanese or Harry Truman who finally brought an end to World War II. None of these men and so many others, who brought actual peace to the world by defeating those who would have war, ever received this so-called peace prize.
Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News program that we should be proud that President Obama won because it was a sign that the rest of the world likes this President. Several years back there was a push to promote soccer in this country and deemphasize the more traditional American sports. The main reason given was that soccer was the most popular sport in the world outside the U.S. Now I have nothing against soccer, but I could not and still do not understand how that fact made soccer more worthy of promotion than baseball or football. I don’t wish to sound rude but outside of a very few places I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. The President of the United States is just that and not President of the world.
So, what are we to make of this award our President has received? Given President Obama’s accomplishments (or lack thereof) prior to receiving the prize and considering the last two American recipients Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, it would seem that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than the Leftist of the Year Award.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
All hail Obama the peacemaker! Yes, in a scant nine months, President Obama has done more than anyone else to bring peace in our time. That is at least the determination of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in awarding him this prize. President Obama was selected over two hundred and four other nominees. Because of Nobel committee rules, we will not know who the other nominees were, at least not for fifty years. But there is no way anyone can say with a straight face that there was no one on that list more accomplished in the area of promoting peace and more deserving of this award than Barack Obama.
Tim Marshall suggested in his SkyNews blog that the Nobel Peace Prize has lost much of its impact in recent years for awarding institutions and joint winners. Awarding it to Barack Obama guarantees headlines worldwide and the Nobel Committee may have hoped it would regain some of its luster. Marshall also suggested that such a stunt could cheapen the award.
Members of the Nobel committee attempted to justify their choice in the face of a fire-storm of criticism. Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP that the President was given the award because of “Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.” The problem with that statement is that prior to being nominated for an award, the nominee has usually accomplished something for which to be recognized. For example, before a singer is nominated for a Grammy, they have recorded a song. (Milli Vanilli notwithstanding) But the deadline for nominations for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was February 1. At that point, Barack Obama had been President all of eleven days and done neither of the things Jagland points to as accomplishments. So why was Obama even nominated?
Peace does not come because you hope for it. It does not come because you make speeches about it. Peace comes because you defeat those who would cause war. Given this, I would submit to you that George W. Bush has actually done more to promote peace than Carter, Gore and Obama combined.
During the eighties, President Reagan was called crazy and a warmonger because of his belief that the Soviet Union was a menace to peace and a danger to free people everywhere. The media cringed at the “bombing starts in five minutes” line. They said he was insane for challenging Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Ronald Reagan faced up to and defeated the greatest force for evil of his time (maybe of all time). He accomplished this without firing a shot. That is real peace. Alas, he did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been many others who have brought peace to the world and did not receive the Peace Prize; Winston Churchill who stood against the murderous Nazi regime in the beginning, alone, Franklin D. Roosevelt who came to the aid of Churchill and entered the war once we were attacked by the Japanese or Harry Truman who finally brought an end to World War II. None of these men and so many others, who brought actual peace to the world by defeating those who would have war, ever received this so-called peace prize.
Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News program that we should be proud that President Obama won because it was a sign that the rest of the world likes this President. Several years back there was a push to promote soccer in this country and deemphasize the more traditional American sports. The main reason given was that soccer was the most popular sport in the world outside the U.S. Now I have nothing against soccer, but I could not and still do not understand how that fact made soccer more worthy of promotion than baseball or football. I don’t wish to sound rude but outside of a very few places I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. The President of the United States is just that and not President of the world.
So, what are we to make of this award our President has received? Given President Obama’s accomplishments (or lack thereof) prior to receiving the prize and considering the last two American recipients Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, it would seem that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than the Leftist of the Year Award.
Theater of the Absurd
Theater of the Absurd
by Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
Welcome to Obama Theater, starring that master illusionist Barack Obama. No, not the sawing the woman in half illusion; the make $787 billion disappear before your very eyes illusion. (Wait, that was real.) It was the “thousands of shovel-ready jobs” or the “unemployment will not go above eight percent” that was the illusion. Obama and his cohorts are very good at crafting an image, but we’re starting to see that the image is the illusion.
Countless people are being exploited to help create the image of Obama. We remember the adoring crowds mechanically chanting “Yes we can” during the presidential campaign rallies. In the campaign and even now schoolchildren have been enlisted to sing praise songs about Obama. Most recently it has come to light that the White House pressured the National Endowment of the Arts to create propaganda in support of Obama and his agenda.
Even the First Lady attempts to create an image that may be an illusion. In the Obama’s failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago, Michelle Obama made a speech to the IOC carefully crafted for effect. Mrs. Obama said she remembers sitting on her daddy’s lap watching Olga (Korbut), Nadia (Comaneci) and Carl Lewis compete in the Olympics. The problem with the First Lady’s statement is that she was born in 1964. OK, I’ll buy that maybe she sat on her daddy’s lap watching Olga Korbut compete in the 1972 Olympics when Mrs. Obama would have been eight years old. But saying she was sitting on his lap watching Nadia Comaneci compete in 1976 strains credibility and if she sat on his lap watching Carl Lewis in the 1984 Olympic Games, there was some kind of weird family dynamic I don’t even want to think about.
Obama’s constant dependence on a teleprompter is well documented. When he reads prepared speeches off of the teleprompter, Obama comes across as very smooth and polished. However, when he is off-the-cuff he stutters and stammers and appears to be in search of a coherent thought. When a person truly believes what they are saying and are passionate about it, it does not matter whether they are reading a prepared speech or speaking extemporaneously. Now I am no authority on the subject, but there are some that claim that Obama adds electronic reverb to his live speeches in order to make his voice sound more booming and authoritarian.
On October 5, Obama had one hundred fifty physicians from all fifty states at the White House for a meeting with the President on his health care plan. All the doctors had on white lab coats. It reminded me of career day in elementary school; the policeman in his neat blue uniform, the fireman wears his turnouts and the carpenter with his hard hat and tool belt. The image was more important than what these men said. That’s exactly the effect the administration wanted with this stunt. It’s as though we are all children and would never believe these people were doctors unless they wore white lab coats. Never mind the fact that physicians don’t routinely wear lab coats anymore.
According to the New York Times, the fact that they happened to bring their lab coats was no accident. They were instructed by the administration to do so. In fact many dressed in business suits or dresses and did not bring their lab coats. Those were provided white coats by the White House staff. The speech Obama made to these doctors was nothing new, same old rhetoric we’ve heard before. But what Obama said wasn’t important. It was the image of those white clad physicians sitting before the great Obama that was important.
Recently, Saturday Night Live did a spoof of President Obama’s campaign promises compared to his lack of accomplishments. SNL is no stranger to poking fun at presidents. One needs only to look at their treatment of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton during the 1990’s. SNL practically made a living trashing George W. Bush. It has been a staple of the show. But this time SNL made the mistake of turning their wit on The One. So desirous is the media to protect the Obama image that CNN actually did a “fact check” of the comedy skit.
All presidents desire to craft an image. So, it is not surprising that President Obama would seek to do the same. What is surprising is the lengths that he and his supporters will go to in order to build and protect that image. The image may be phony but the agenda is all too real.
by Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
Welcome to Obama Theater, starring that master illusionist Barack Obama. No, not the sawing the woman in half illusion; the make $787 billion disappear before your very eyes illusion. (Wait, that was real.) It was the “thousands of shovel-ready jobs” or the “unemployment will not go above eight percent” that was the illusion. Obama and his cohorts are very good at crafting an image, but we’re starting to see that the image is the illusion.
Countless people are being exploited to help create the image of Obama. We remember the adoring crowds mechanically chanting “Yes we can” during the presidential campaign rallies. In the campaign and even now schoolchildren have been enlisted to sing praise songs about Obama. Most recently it has come to light that the White House pressured the National Endowment of the Arts to create propaganda in support of Obama and his agenda.
Even the First Lady attempts to create an image that may be an illusion. In the Obama’s failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago, Michelle Obama made a speech to the IOC carefully crafted for effect. Mrs. Obama said she remembers sitting on her daddy’s lap watching Olga (Korbut), Nadia (Comaneci) and Carl Lewis compete in the Olympics. The problem with the First Lady’s statement is that she was born in 1964. OK, I’ll buy that maybe she sat on her daddy’s lap watching Olga Korbut compete in the 1972 Olympics when Mrs. Obama would have been eight years old. But saying she was sitting on his lap watching Nadia Comaneci compete in 1976 strains credibility and if she sat on his lap watching Carl Lewis in the 1984 Olympic Games, there was some kind of weird family dynamic I don’t even want to think about.
Obama’s constant dependence on a teleprompter is well documented. When he reads prepared speeches off of the teleprompter, Obama comes across as very smooth and polished. However, when he is off-the-cuff he stutters and stammers and appears to be in search of a coherent thought. When a person truly believes what they are saying and are passionate about it, it does not matter whether they are reading a prepared speech or speaking extemporaneously. Now I am no authority on the subject, but there are some that claim that Obama adds electronic reverb to his live speeches in order to make his voice sound more booming and authoritarian.
On October 5, Obama had one hundred fifty physicians from all fifty states at the White House for a meeting with the President on his health care plan. All the doctors had on white lab coats. It reminded me of career day in elementary school; the policeman in his neat blue uniform, the fireman wears his turnouts and the carpenter with his hard hat and tool belt. The image was more important than what these men said. That’s exactly the effect the administration wanted with this stunt. It’s as though we are all children and would never believe these people were doctors unless they wore white lab coats. Never mind the fact that physicians don’t routinely wear lab coats anymore.
According to the New York Times, the fact that they happened to bring their lab coats was no accident. They were instructed by the administration to do so. In fact many dressed in business suits or dresses and did not bring their lab coats. Those were provided white coats by the White House staff. The speech Obama made to these doctors was nothing new, same old rhetoric we’ve heard before. But what Obama said wasn’t important. It was the image of those white clad physicians sitting before the great Obama that was important.
Recently, Saturday Night Live did a spoof of President Obama’s campaign promises compared to his lack of accomplishments. SNL is no stranger to poking fun at presidents. One needs only to look at their treatment of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton during the 1990’s. SNL practically made a living trashing George W. Bush. It has been a staple of the show. But this time SNL made the mistake of turning their wit on The One. So desirous is the media to protect the Obama image that CNN actually did a “fact check” of the comedy skit.
All presidents desire to craft an image. So, it is not surprising that President Obama would seek to do the same. What is surprising is the lengths that he and his supporters will go to in order to build and protect that image. The image may be phony but the agenda is all too real.
Real Health Care Reform
Real Health Care Reform
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
Those of us who are against Obama style health care “reform” are portrayed as only being against it because of Obama, wishing only to deny him a political victory. We have been characterized as heartless and cruel and have even been called racist for our views. Mainly we are thought to have no ideas of our own; that we have no solutions for the problems that do exist in our health care industry.
One huge problem in our health care industry is frivolous lawsuits. Doctors pay thousands of dollars each year for malpractice insurance. They also order many unnecessary tests just to cover the bases in case they get sued. Therefore, we need tort reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, since Mississippi instituted its tort reform legislation, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen by ninety percent and malpractice insurance premiums are down thirty to forty-five percent.
There is something the Federal government can do to help. They are empowered by the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce. They should remove all barriers so that health insurance companies can sell health insurance across state lines. This would increase competition in the health insurance market increasing quality and consumer choice and bringing the cost of policies down.
Many young people do not wish to pay premiums for a health insurance policy. They have other priorities and I would never be in favor of forcing anyone to buy something they do not want, but they need to understand the risk they are taking. If they are willing to accept the risk, so be it. But if they get seriously ill or injured, they must be made to pay for the health services they use.
This is one of the most important real reforms we could introduce to the health care industry; putting the consumer in charge of paying for health care services. Most people eat in restaurants and when they have finished their meals they expect a bill to be presented and they pay it. They don’t expect the bill to be sent to their “meal insurance company.” The Federal government has not introduced “DinerCare.” Although with this bunch you never know, so don’t give them any ideas.
Why has the concept of paying for the services you use been lost when it comes to health care? When confronted with the idea of the patient directly paying for their health care services, people seem to be afraid that if they are hurt or sick they will have to haggle a price with a doctor or run from doctor to doctor shopping for the best price. But when market forces are introduced, you won’t have to do this; the market will do it for you. How do I know this; because it already does.
Let’s look at an everyday example of the market functioning in this way. My wife calls me at work and says, “Honey, on your way home, please pick up a loaf of bread and a quart of milk.” Now, am I going to drive all over town looking for the absolute best price on these items? No, I’m going to stop at the grocery store I pass on my way home. Will I get the absolute lowest price on these items? No, probably not, there may be a store or two that charge a few pennies less. But the real question is: will I be charged a reasonable and fair price? Most likely, yes. Why, because every grocer in town knows the price range they must be in (in economic terms, the floor price and the ceiling price) to sell their goods (i.e. compete) in that market. In other words, the market sets the price.
When the health care consumer is directly paying for services, the health care market will function very similarly. A doctor will not be able to charge any price they want, because they are not the only doctor in the market. He is competing with the doctor down the hall, the doctor across the street, the doctor two blocks up the street, the doctor three blocks down the street and so on. As it is now, the doctor is not really competing. He knows what the government or an insurance company will pay for a given procedure and that is what he charges theses institutions.
We in the United States are blessed with the greatest health care industry in the world. What problems there are not going to be solved by a government takeover. That will only destroy the best of the industry. The only thing that will solve the problems in the health care industry is the same thing that has given us the highest standard of living in the history of the world; the free market.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org
Those of us who are against Obama style health care “reform” are portrayed as only being against it because of Obama, wishing only to deny him a political victory. We have been characterized as heartless and cruel and have even been called racist for our views. Mainly we are thought to have no ideas of our own; that we have no solutions for the problems that do exist in our health care industry.
One huge problem in our health care industry is frivolous lawsuits. Doctors pay thousands of dollars each year for malpractice insurance. They also order many unnecessary tests just to cover the bases in case they get sued. Therefore, we need tort reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, since Mississippi instituted its tort reform legislation, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen by ninety percent and malpractice insurance premiums are down thirty to forty-five percent.
There is something the Federal government can do to help. They are empowered by the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce. They should remove all barriers so that health insurance companies can sell health insurance across state lines. This would increase competition in the health insurance market increasing quality and consumer choice and bringing the cost of policies down.
Many young people do not wish to pay premiums for a health insurance policy. They have other priorities and I would never be in favor of forcing anyone to buy something they do not want, but they need to understand the risk they are taking. If they are willing to accept the risk, so be it. But if they get seriously ill or injured, they must be made to pay for the health services they use.
This is one of the most important real reforms we could introduce to the health care industry; putting the consumer in charge of paying for health care services. Most people eat in restaurants and when they have finished their meals they expect a bill to be presented and they pay it. They don’t expect the bill to be sent to their “meal insurance company.” The Federal government has not introduced “DinerCare.” Although with this bunch you never know, so don’t give them any ideas.
Why has the concept of paying for the services you use been lost when it comes to health care? When confronted with the idea of the patient directly paying for their health care services, people seem to be afraid that if they are hurt or sick they will have to haggle a price with a doctor or run from doctor to doctor shopping for the best price. But when market forces are introduced, you won’t have to do this; the market will do it for you. How do I know this; because it already does.
Let’s look at an everyday example of the market functioning in this way. My wife calls me at work and says, “Honey, on your way home, please pick up a loaf of bread and a quart of milk.” Now, am I going to drive all over town looking for the absolute best price on these items? No, I’m going to stop at the grocery store I pass on my way home. Will I get the absolute lowest price on these items? No, probably not, there may be a store or two that charge a few pennies less. But the real question is: will I be charged a reasonable and fair price? Most likely, yes. Why, because every grocer in town knows the price range they must be in (in economic terms, the floor price and the ceiling price) to sell their goods (i.e. compete) in that market. In other words, the market sets the price.
When the health care consumer is directly paying for services, the health care market will function very similarly. A doctor will not be able to charge any price they want, because they are not the only doctor in the market. He is competing with the doctor down the hall, the doctor across the street, the doctor two blocks up the street, the doctor three blocks down the street and so on. As it is now, the doctor is not really competing. He knows what the government or an insurance company will pay for a given procedure and that is what he charges theses institutions.
We in the United States are blessed with the greatest health care industry in the world. What problems there are not going to be solved by a government takeover. That will only destroy the best of the industry. The only thing that will solve the problems in the health care industry is the same thing that has given us the highest standard of living in the history of the world; the free market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)