Craig R. Kelso

Saturday, July 19, 2014

America, D'Souza, and Obama

I have recently inundated myself with Dinesh D'Souza: his debate with Bill Ayers, his recent book (America: Imagine a World without Her), and the new movie of the same name. I have also viewed a few criticisms on the Internet blogs and done some research on the U.S. economy.

In D'Souza first movie, he predicted that Pres. Obama would increase the national debt to $20 trillion by 2016. It looks like that will happen. A second prediction related to the first prediction was that debt as a weapon of mass destruction would facilitate military cutbacks. There seems to be evidence that that is happening as well (e.g., the sequestration).  

In his new movie and book, he compares the spirit of 1776 to the spirit of 1968 and shows how many of the criticisms leveled against the U. S. can be seen in a different perspective than that of liberal progressives; that the U. S. has been a good influence in the world.

It is difficult to make the argument to progressives that Pres. Obama is deliberately attempting to weaken the nation by increasing debt, since the economy seems to be improving. But my gut feeling is that he may be setting things up so that what he does cannot be easily undone.

The graphic above shows alternative scenarios for the future of the national debt. Given Pres. Obama's ability to convince people to vote for him, the growing entitlement population, Obamacare, and the acceptance of his narrative  by progressives, it looks more and more like the dashed line will be the future reality.

D;Souza is doing what he can to serve as a counterbalance to the wave of progressivism. 


   

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

D'Souza vs. Ayers

I have viewed a couple debates between Dinesh D'Souza and Bill Ayers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqZQCCMmNnY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfVUktKzPSA. This is on the heels of D'Souza's movie America. D'Souza's premise is that the U. S. a good nation. We make mistakes, but most of the time we get it right. On the other hand, Ayers seems to believe that the U. S. is an evil empire.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Civil Rights

The most important civil rights issue of our time is not whether or not people of color have rights; that battle has been won. Or, whether or not women have rights; that battle has been won. The most important civil rights issue of our time is the fight for the right of unborn babies to live.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Evil uses our weakness against us.

Several years ago, a priest, Fr. Jude Egbuna, from Nigeria and I went to the Stations of the Cross in San Luis, Colorado. We had some good conversations and enjoyed whole experience. During our conversation, Fr. Jude told me about how he was once robbed when he lived in Nigeria. He speculated that the thieves who had stolen money from his residence had consulted witch doctors to determine that there was money to be stolen at his residence. He explained that witch doctors can see some kind of smoke, not from fires, emanating from homes that may be good targets. I asked him why that kind of stuff (witchcraft, etc.) doesn't happen as much in the United States. He responded that Satan uses our greatest weaknesses against us, and that devil uses materialism against us in the U.S. It may be that the robbers had a different way of knowing that Fr. Jude had money in his residence, but Fr. Jude's statement that Satan uses our weaknesses against us holds true.

There is an ongoing debate in the U.S. about who are the really bad guys. Is it the big corporations who won't share with the poor and have too much control of the government? Or, is it the socialist-minded people who want to transform the U.S. into a Utopia and want big government to control us? I would say that it is both. Those who have a lot should be willing share with those who have little. But, it should not be forced on them by the government. Charitable giving should be something the wealthy do because it is morally the right thing to do. Socialistic-minded people should realize that putting the responsibility on the government will only take away individual rights and lead to tyranny.

When either group fails to do what is right, that is when evil gains a foothold.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Catholic Church, Constitution, Fundamentalists, Atheists, and Tradition

I was recently watching a discussion/debate between a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi, and an atheist on Fox News.  They were discussing whether or not Satanic groups should be allowed to erect structures next to a display of the 10 Commandments at an Oklahoma City public building.  It appeared to me that the atheist was actually winning the argument because he had the Constitution on his side (First Amendment - separation of church and state, etc).

It occurred to me, that fundamentalist Christians (Protestants) and atheists have something in common: neither group takes tradition into account. Protestants believe the Bible alone is the only source of revelation or truth (sola scriptura). They deny Sacred Tradition, which is one of three sources of truth (Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium) in the Catholic faith. The Bible came out of Tradition, not the other way around. And, an individual interpretation of the Bible may be erroneous, so the Magisterium is necessary in order to avoid heresy (this is analogous to needing a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution).

Atheists, and others, interpret the Constitution in much the same way; they deny that the Constitution came out of a Judeo-Christian tradition. For example, God/Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence  (When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.).  Were the Founding Fathers referring to a good and just God or an evil god? Atheists believe that, since God is not mentioned in the Constitution,  Judeo-Christian tradition does not need to be considered when making public policy decisions.
 
The Founding Fathers may have made a mistake in not mentioning God in the Constitution, but it would have been hard for them to even imagine the sort of humanistic secularism that is becoming prevalent in the U. S. these days. Do we need to add an amendment to the Constitution that states that the Nation's laws are based on the morality that stems from a good and just God/Creator so that we can avoid the kind of foolishness that atheists support? Or, are the members of the Supreme Court going to get their heads out of their butts and acknowledge that the Nation's laws really do stem from the morality of a Judeo-Christian tradition and make decisions that reflect this truth?
 
 

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Silas

Silas was born on October 21st. He is number 9 in the count of grandchildren for my wife and me, so far. The poor guy got circumcised this morning. He wasn't too happy about it. He is sleeping now, but I don't know what it will be like when he wakes up.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Big Government

I hear the comment that liberals want bigger government frequently.

A long time ago, when I was a rookie wrestling coach and thought that I had to have a rule to for every possible situation that might occur, an older more experienced colleague of mine, John Jordan, said to me, " Craig, if you create a rule, than you have to enforce it." His philosophy was to have as few rules as possible.

Someone commented that the "Democrats want bigger government" once again on a Fox news program this morning.

I have been listening to a series of lectures on economics from Hillsdale College. The lecture that I listened to yesterday was related to Keynesian theory which encourages government intervention when certain conditions exist. When government intervenes in the economy, then it inadvertently creates more rules, and, as my colleague told me years ago, if you create more rules, then you have to enforce them. More government intervention leads to more rules, which leads to a bigger, more authoritative government.

I have noticed the following phenomenon for a long time in education: People are too stupid to know what is good for them. So, our organization should "take the reigns" and tell them what to do for their own good. This seems to me to be the attitude of liberals and the current administration. It's not that they necessarily want bigger government, but that bigger, more authoritative government is a consequence their policies. I heard it called "Liberal Paternalism" a while back, and it is also referred to as "the intolerance of the so-called tolerant."

The conclusion that I come to from these thoughts is that the U. S., if it continues in the direction we're moving, will become an oligarchy (if it is not one already).