Craig R. Kelso

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

What Some Mexicans Want

These two images showed up on Facebook recently in response to Donald Trump's campaign comments and his rally in California prior to the California primary election.

The first picture suggests a possible contradiction. A person of Mexican descent who lives in the U.S., but still prefers Mexico to the U.S. Why doesn't the person move back to Mexico?

This second picture answers the apparent contradiction suggested by the first photo. Many people from Mexico want to change the U.S., or portions of the U.S. into Mexico (again).

I believe that much of the southwestern portion of the U.S. (Aztlan) is considered by people of Mexican descent to have been stolen from Mexico, and they want to it back.

Now we are back to the original problem: If people of Mexican descent like Mexico so much, why don't they return to Mexico? If the southwestern portion of the U.S. was returned to Mexico, then that region would have the same kind of government corruption and poverty as exists currently in Mexico.

Mexico has all of the resources that the U.S. enjoys, but chooses, by it's choice of government and culture, to not have to same kind of prosperity as North Americans. If folks from Mexico want to live in the U.S. and enjoy the freedoms and prosperity of North America, then they need to do what North American do/did to make the U.S. what it is, instead of trying to turn the U.S. into Mexico.

Friday, March 18, 2016


I was having a discussion with my daughter and son-in-law after dinner a few nights ago. The subject of Socialism came up and that led to a discussion about what forces are operating in American politics that explain why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have so much popularity in their respective parties. I proposed that capitalism and socialism are the driving forces that are motivating voters toward Trump and Sanders. I know it's not that simple, but I believe those two ideas can be used as organizing principles that connect Trump and Sanders to their constituencies.

The one thing people who support both Trump and Sanders have in common is that they are pissed off at the government for not doing its job. Trump folks are mad at the Republican establishment for not doing more to stop President Obama and the Democrats from advancing their liberal agenda, even with majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The people who support Sanders are mad because President Obama didn't move far enough to the left, which is kind of stupid, because Pres. Obama and the Democrats have done quite a lot in the way of getting what they want during Obama's two terms in office. This is where the similarity between the two groups of voters ends

Socialism can be used to explain the popularity of Bernie Sanders. He promises lots of free stuff, This is Democratic party standard operating procedure. It worked with Obama's election. Bernie is going beyond free stuff though, he is promising a utopia. The idea of a utopian society is one that has been around for a long time. A utopian society would require a socialist government, and for some reason, socialist governments usually demand an atheist populous. Or, maybe it works the other way around. First people lose their faith in God. If their is no God, then there is no afterlife. This life is all there is, so a person needs to make the most of it. If there is no Heaven after this life, then we better create some kind of heaven on earth; a socialist/utopian society.

Capitalism is, at least, part of the reason for Donald Trump's popularity. I will attempt to use Christianity, Capitalism, and the "Gospel of Prosperity" to explain Trump's popularity. Christianity and Capitalism are connected by the Protestant Work Ethic/Gospel of Prosperity. Many Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians believe that if they live good lives here on earth, God will allow them to prosper here on earth through a Capitalistic economic system. This is one large group of people who are supporting Donald Trump. The other group that likes Trump are the people that believe he will do something to fix the immigration problem. Ann Coulter wrote a book called Adios America in which she stated that any Republican could win the 2016 election simply by running on an anti-immigration platform. That is exactly how Trump began his campaign.

So, maybe it's more of an Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian vs. Atheist thing than a Capitalism vs. Socialism thing. Trump has the support from Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, anti-GOP establishment (pissed off), and anti-immigration voters. Sanders has anti-Democrat establishment, and youngsters, and Utopian/Socialist/Communist voters in his camp. Trump just might become the GOP nominee, but Sanders doesn't have a chance to become the Democratic nominee. He is too far behind Hillary Clinton at this point in time. But, it is just amazing to me that Trump and Sanders have so much popularity.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Government is not God

What is the outcome toward which the policies of our current administration (Pres. Obama, Democrats, etc.) seem to point? What are some of the clues? Government regulation, Obamacare (ACA), military cutbacks, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, gun control, immigration, political correctness, gay marriage, and humanistic secularism to name several. More recently, the refusal of the Obama administration to label attacks by terrorists as “radical Islamic terrorism.” There are a couple things going on here: 1) the Democratic Party agenda, and 2) President Obama’s agenda. In a blog post I created back in August, 2014, I made the following comments:

A couple weeks ago, I was listening to a conservative radio station. Monica Crowley made the statement that President Obama's agenda was to expand government dependency, thereby creating a permanent Democratic voting majority. This is different from Dinesh D'Souza's claim that President Obama intends to use debt as a weapon of mass destruction in order and weaken the U. S. military so that the U. S. can no longer be what Obama considers to be an imperialist nation.

My thought is that Crowley was stating the Democratic Party's agenda, and D'Souza is stating Obama's personal agenda

I still have the same opinion regarding the Democratic Party and President Obama. The Democratic party does want to establish a permanent majority so they can further their agenda. It now appears that Pres. Obama is somewhat anti-Christian and has a tendency to be somewhat pro-Muslim in his decision making as well.

However, in this post I would like to focus on a couple aspects from the list above; Government regulation and secular humanism.  To me, these clues seem to point to a society in which traditional, Judeo-Christian values are less important and the government has much greater control. In other words, a communist/socialist society. The popularity of Bernie Sanders (a self-proclaimed democratic socialist) would seem to be at least an indicator of that idea. The Democratic Party is attempting to institute a social democracy or democratic socialism. Actually, we already have a social democracy in the U.S. (social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanise" capitalism). Democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system.

It is obvious to me that the current administration is moving towards a democratic socialism, but why? The fundamental objective of socialism is to attain an advanced level of material production and therefore greater productivity, efficiency and rationality as compared to capitalism and all previous systems, under the view that an expansion of human productive capability is the basis for the extension of freedom and equality in society ( . When has socialism outperformed capitalism? Socialism always pretends to appeal to the masses, but usually ends up taking away people’s freedoms.
I recently read Planned Chaos by Ludwig von Mises, which written in 1947. Mises had emigrated to the United States to avoid persecution by the Nazis. He is highly critical of all forms of Socialism and believed that Socialism will always lead to tyranny. He also criticizes Interventionalism, a political position that posits it is possible to reach a compromise between Capitalism and Socialism. The problem with intervention is that one intervention requires further intervention to correct the previous interventions, and so on, and will eventually lead to Socialism and tyranny or despotism.

Here is my opinion. Democratic socialism promises to meet the needs of the masses. People like that idea. So they willingly allow the government to take more control of their lives, thinking that the government is somehow composed of benevolent individuals: that the government is God-like and will take care of their needs. After all, a socialist government usually attempts to convince its citizens that it is foolish to believe in God anyway.  Many people believe that a socialistic utopian society is a possibility here on earth, even though every attempt at such a society has failed. More often than not, the attempts have morphed into dictatorships or tyranny, or have just failed and disappeared. That is because there are no angels in government. The government is not God. The only place where a truly socialistic utopia exists is in Heaven.

Here is a link to a story told by Kitty Werthmann – 85 Yr Old Austrian Lived Under Hitler – Speaks of Socialism and Gestapo Kitty Werthmann

Here is a link to a blog that criticizes Ms. Werthmann, but the debate has some good responses to the skeptic:

Here is a link to a Rush Limbaugh transcript where he talks about Democratic strategies to accomplish their agenda:

Sunday, June 07, 2015

Faith and Certitude

I just finished reading Faith and Certitude by Thomas Dubay. I wish I had the words to describe what a wonderful book it is. It may be that I needed the information contained in the book at this time. Or, it may be that this book has information that everyone should know. It would be impossible to attempt  a summary of the book. I would need to read the book several times to accomplish that task. There are a few tidbits that I remember:

  • The existence of God cannot be proven using human logical reasoning. God's existence can be known based on a "convergence of evidences."
  • Faith in God is a choice, as is atheism.
  • One can have certitude based on the Christ-event.
  • A person can deny the evidence or accept that Christ was/is who He said/says He was/is.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Heroes and Assholes

I watched American Sniper last night. It was a good movie! It created some controversy. After researching a few articles on the Internet, I understand that Clint Eastwood changed/added to some of the story (dramatic license?). Chris Kyle was a gifted soldier. He wanted to fight. Was he a hero? After 9/11, I thought a lot about what it is to be a hero and came up with my own definition: someone who would give their life to save the life of another. That makes Jesus the ultimate hero. Other examples would be Maximilian Kolbe, the firefighters, policemen and others who sacrificed their lives to save other after 9/11. Soldiers are heroes as well. Using this definition, Chris Kyle was, at least, part hero.

Some heroes, if not all, are part hero and part asshole. Chris Kyle fits in this category. While I watched the movie, I admired him for his skills and toughness. But, I wish he would have waited to have a family. It made him seem a bit selfish to put his wife and kids through all that they went through. That made him sort of an asshole. He was a great man, though, nobody should argue with that, but they do. People like Michael Moore condemn him, because they just focus on the negative aspects of his life and personality. However, nobody is a bigger asshole than Michael Moore.

Here is an analogy:

Kyle was more like a bee than a wasp. Michael Moore is pure wasp.

Chris Kyle's wife, Taya, has been through hell, but she seems to be a woman who is strong enough to deal with what life has thrown at her. I pray that their kids grow up healthy and don't have many hangups because of what they have had to endure.


Sunday, August 31, 2014

Dem.s and Obama

A couple weeks ago, I was listening to a conservative radio station. Monica Crowley made the statement that President Obama's agenda was to expand government dependency, thereby creating a permanent Democratic voting majority.This is different from Dinesh D'Souza's claim that President Obama intends to use debt as a weapon of mass destruction in order and weaken the U. S. military so that the U. S. can no longer be what Obama considers to be an imperialist nation.

My thought is that Crowley was stating the Democratic Party's agenda, and D'Souza is stating Obama's personal agenda.

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.