Reduce Poverty By Teaching How America Became Great

I recently had an opportunity to sit down with Rush Limbaugh. We discussed why people outside our nation are envious of us and want to bring down our great nation, as opposed to trying to become more like us. We also discussed what needs to be done to increase prosperity around the world. Here are the transcripts.

Me.  Hi Rush.  Long time listener. It's an honor to have this opportunity to talk with you. 

Rush. Thank you, sir. 

Me.  There are a lot of people who, I don't know if they hate America, but they seem to be envious of us. They see how prosperous we are.  But instead of trying to understand how America became so prosperous, they talk bad about America.  They say that we are overly materialistic. They say that we have become prosperous at the expense of other people or other nations. You have people like the pope saying we need to create a larger government to take money from greedy Americans and share it with poor people in America and poor nations around the world. They say that we need to keep our borders open and allow anyone who wants in in. You even have people inside our own country who think this, such as Obama, which explains why he won't do anything about the invasion of immigrants. What do you think?

Rush.  Let's start with the pope. It's almost as if in his mind and in the minds of many other people, in fact, that you have the world, and it is what it is and then there's this one place in the world where it's much, much, much better than anywhere else in the world. It's richer. It has more opportunity. It has more freedom and more liberty. It's vastly more prosperous. The standard of living is way, way higher. It's got all kinds of weapons to protect itself and so forth. It's just better, it's just demonstrably better. 

Me. Uh huh.

Rush. And then the rest of the world is kind of eating the dust of this one really special place. And it's as though nobody ever stops to ask how did this one special place become special? They just assume that it was made that way, or that fate, or maybe in this case God, ordained it. And because there's only one special place in all the world, one place that's so much better, so much more advanced, so much more prosperous, however you want to define and characterize it, this place is so special, but it just happened. It's just the way it is. 

Me.  Exactly.

Rush.  And, as such, everybody else in the world is entitled to go there, simply because it exists. Everybody's entitled to go there, and anybody who wants to go there should be permitted to go there. And there ought not be any complaining about it, because in this special place, this one place that is far and away better than anywhere else on earth, everybody that's there was once from someplace else.

So everybody that's there had to go there to get there. So why should people going there to get there today not be permitted when everybody in the past was? No, I'm talking about the United States of America, not the Vatican. One special place, United States of America. It's far and away superior to every other place on earth, in terms of lifestyles, liberty, and freedom. In terms of the human condition, there's no place like it. 

Me. Exactly. 

Rush.  It's so special, everybody wants to go there. And there's not a thought given to how it got special. It's just assumed it was made that way, I guess. It's just assumed that it's just there. And it's also assumed that it's always going to be there. Call it the golden goose or whatever you want but everybody saying that we have no right to keep anybody out because nobody kept us out, we all had to get here. Nobody here now actually started here. Of course, that's no longer true.

But the whole construct of this is that, yeah, this is a special place, but not because of anything the people here did to make it special. It just happens to be. And the people who were here are here simply by winning life's lottery. It's all fate; it's all luck. And if anybody else in the world wants to come to this one special place, then nobody has the right to tell them they can't because we are all immigrants.

And nobody ever stops to ask in this debate, nobody ever stops to consider how did it get special? Because it wasn't made that way. We didn't just wake up one day and here is the United States of America, and it is the gem, the shining city on the hill, however you want to describe it, it had to be built. It was not there. But from the moment it began to be built, isn't it interesting that everybody in the world who heard about it wanted to go there?

Me.  It is.

Rush.  Maybe I should change the tense. Everybody who heard about it wanted to come here. And now the people who lead this special place don't seem to have any appreciation for how it became special. In fact, if they have anything, it's guilt over how it became special. And so they either want to open the borders and let anybody in because it's not fair that we are here and we're able to get here and others who want to come here are not, it just isn't fair.

So this special place in the world, the United States of America, it just happened. It just is. And it's our responsibility, as those who are lucky and fortunate enough, to happen to have been born here. It is incumbent upon us to share that same luck and good fortune with everybody else. Otherwise we are mean, selfish, polarized, partisan, extremist, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, whatever. 

Me.  And Greedy. 

Rush.  So it seems even from the pope, immigrants, anybody who doesn't live here, has an automatic right to come here just because there's no other place like it on earth. And what is never discussed is how it got so special. How did it happen? Why is it so prosperous? Why is it so free?

See, the correct thing to do would be to answer those questions and spread those answers all over the world. And that's what, to me, if I had the ability to command the attention of the peoples of the world, that's what I would tell them. I certainly wouldn't stand for policies that are gonna end up destroying this special place, because once this special place is destroyed and is no longer special, then where is everybody gonna go?

Me.  So, basically, rather than look at America as the model and trying to reproduce it, rather it seems everyone wants to tear it down.  I think it points to the root of the problem we have in this culture and around the world. There's envy and there's a begrudgingness. Envy is something that can be a positive because I can be envious or you can be envious of someone's possessions and use that as a positive to try to strive to achieve whatever you need to, to get those possessions in terms of a job, education, whatever it is. And neighbors can be envious of what the other person has yet still be happy for what they have and the relationship will endure. However the problem we have is a begrudgingness. People see what other people have and they don't want them to have it. And if neighbors have a begrudging feeling towards their friends' possessions, eventually it's gonna eat away and destroy the relationship and they're gonna look at ways to try to take away what their friends have.

Rush.  There's no question, that happens in neighborhoods, I mean, that happens among friends. I mean, you're right, that's a natural human emotion. That's called jealousy. That's called covetousness. If you covet what somebody else has.

Me.  Right. And that's why I think the problem is people are so busy worrying what other people have and looking for ways of taking it away from them, they don't appreciate the things they have, and people can really work on not looking to take away what everyone else has, you know, look at it as a positive. I'd much rather be in a country where the median income was maybe a hundred thousand dollars because it tells me, okay, I have a chance of getting that median income, rather than living in a country where no one has anything so I can't be jealous of someone's fancy cars.

Rush.  Exactly. But let me refocus the question, because I was not speaking per se. I'm glad you called to enable me to make this clarification. When I asked the question when others around the world look at the US, why don't they seek to emulate it and spread that specialness all over the world rather than everybody trying to get here. You're right, there's someone to tear it down. But the answer to the question, "Who wants to tear it down?" I'm asking about other leaders, powerful people, people who have the ability to lead movements that would emulate the United States around the world or Americans who would try to proselytize about the American way of life.

We've had those. And they've been called renegades and conquerors and imperialists and so forth. But the real reason is that most of the world's leaders are tyrants. That's another reason that we are special and why we are so hell-bent opposed and frightened of tyrants. We don't want dictators, which is what most people live under. Most people were born to tyranny and bondage and dictatorship, and most, to this day, are still subject to it in one way or another, or in many ways. Those people, the tyran... Do you think Fidel Castro wants his people to be free? Do you think Raul Castro wants his people to be free? Do you think Stalin, old Joe, wanted his people to be free, or Lenin? Do you think Hitler wanted his people to be free? How about the ChiComs? Do you really think they want their people to be free? 

Me. No. 

Rush.  No. They want them to be controlled. 

The leaders in these tyrannies and dictatorships do very well economically. They are literal thieves. They plunder and steal the national wealth of the countries they lead, a la the Castros, a la the Soviet leaders. Look at the oligarchs even today there, Putin and his buddies. The thing that stands in the way of that is a free people and a runway economy. A growing economy with prosperity for all. That's, again, what explains, illustrates, defines the specialness or uniqueness of the United States, and it really is a rarity. 

Me.  Most people want to make their nations like ours, but their leaders don't want that. So most people around the world continue to have their natural rights denied. 

Rush.  My question was all of these leaders that I'm talking about, these tyrants and dictators, if you listen to them, what are the names of their countries? The People's Republic of whatever. The people don't have a say in anything in these countries. The leaders who claim to be for the little guy, who claim to care about the oppressed, who claim they're gonna get even with the rich, claim they're gonna get even with those who have their jackbooted thugs on the necks of the little guy, don't mean it.

If they did, they would be trying to emulate the United States, and they would attempt to seek the stature and credit one would attain from founding, establishing, leading such a nation, such a prosperous nation. But that's not who these people are. They're dictators. They're tyrants. They rule by the use of force and intimidation and imprisonment. And that is the story for most of the people in the world. And in light of that fact, it infuriates me even more when I have to listen to people both in this country and visitors to this country blame us for the problems in the world. 

Me.  And they do try to blame us.  They blame us for all the poverty of the world, such as the pope is saying nearly every day; that we need to spread the wealth rather than create it. 

Rush.  It really steams me. It really ticks me off when they start going down this road of climate change and how we're destroying the world and we are destroying the planet. I can't tell you, I get so insulted, I get so angry when I hear this. The dictators, and many others who seek to run and rule countries, do not want a free people.

Me. So if these dictators truly wanted to help people. If the pope truly wanted to help the poor, what is it that he ought to be preaching. What is it that dictators need to be doing to truly create wealth and benefit the people of theire countries.?

Rush.  You cannot distribute wealth or redistribute it unless what happens first? 

Me.  It has to be created. 

Rush. Sure, the U.S. is going to give 350 million, governmentally, and that's probably not the last figure. Privately, U.S. citizens are going to donate even more, probably double that amount before it's all said and done. Where does this money come from?

Me.  Capitalism.  

Rush.  So the real point of this, to me, as a great economic exercise, is to note that the real important thing that makes all this possible is the creation of wealth. Many of our nation's teachers also don't realize why poverty in developing countries is declining at such a rapid rate." It's not because of the redistribution of wealth. It's because of the redistribution of resources and the redistribution of capitalism, something I have long advocated on this program. We don't need any more wealth redistribution. We need a more widespread distribution of capitalism, and it's happening.

Me.  Right.

Rush. I have an interesting story that cleared yesterday from, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle, and it is a piece by Jim Klauder, who is a vice president for the Foundation for Teaching Economics, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving economic understanding amongst the peoples of the world, and listen to some of this. Here's the headline to the story: "Ignorance Shrouds Capitalism's Profound Impact on Reducing Poverty ? It should come as heartening news that 2004 was one of the most prosperous years in history. Not because the U.S. economy grew by a solid 4.3%, but because developing countries experienced an explosive 6.1% economic growth. According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected 'an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years.' Equally encouraging, the report notes that 'the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty.'

Me.   So why don't teachers teach this? Why is it that our kids don't learn that it's capitalism that creates wealth?

Rush.  They have to be taught themselves that capitalism is good for the poor because they think it's bad. They think capitalism is bad. It's like the left's definition of trickle-down economics. The left defines trickle-down economics as the rich leaving their homes, going to the park, robbing the homeless of what they have, and getting even richer. I know it makes no sense, but that's how they argue it. They argue that rich people become rich because they steal from the poor or they deprive the poor of their "fair share" or what have you. It's bogus. It's outrageous. It's stupid.

Me. So what should teachers be teaching?

Rush.  The poor get out of poverty by virtue of capitalism and opportunity: the creation of wealth.  This culture, if spread to the rest of the world, would be the greatest thing that could happen for the people of the rest of the world

Me.  We are running out of time. Do you have any concluding words. 

Rush.  Well, if they (the left, dictators) really cared about the little guy, if they really cared about the little guy, and want the little guy to have an improved life, more contentment, more happiness, then the United States is what you would emulate. You certainly wouldn't tear it down. So it must not be true when they tell us what they really want is to help and assist and elevate the little guy, 'cause they don't elevate anybody. The people I'm talking about try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. They seek equality and fairness by reaching for the lowest common denominator they can find. Equally shared misery seems to be what their utopia is. 

Me.  If you could influence all the people of the world...

Rush. So if I had the good fortune of having the ability to influence people all over the world every time I spoke, I would do my best to make sure people understood why the United States of America is special, and then I would suggest that everybody who wants to come here, "I don't blame you, fine and dandy, there's a legal mechanism for this. We're not denying people the right to come to our country. There's a legal way to do it." That's another thing people forget, including the pope.  We're not talking about being anti-immigrant. We're talking about obeying the law. The law exists for lots of reasons. In this case, the law exists to maintain the integrity of this special place. We allow immigrants here, happily so.

Me.  Right.

Rush.  You have this special place, you want it to remain special, you better find out why it became special. And then after that, as I say, if I had the ability to influence people all over the world just by speaking or writing, one of my objectives would be to find out how this special place became special and then tell everybody. "If you want what happens in the US, it can happen where you are, too. This is how." And I'm not talking about replicating our history with wars and this kind of thing. I'm talking about economic systems, human rights systems, everything that is combined to make this place special. This is no means the only place that can be special. Isn't it odd that it's the only place that is? And isn't it even further intriguing, so many people want to blow it up. Why? Obviously it's a threat. There hasn't been a military force like the United States of America in the history of the world.

Me.  Thanks, Rush, for taking time from your busy schedule for this interview. I could listen to your wisdom all day long.

Rush.  Thank you. 

Further reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Our freedom threatens the world's tyrants
• Rush Limbaugh: How liberalism advances
• Rush Limbaugh: Redistribute capitalism, not wealth

Myth Buster: All rich people, corporations, nations are greedy

Quite often my liberal friends say things like, "Donald Trump is greedy," "It's a rich, greedy corporation." They refer to any rich person as greedy, not just Trump.  Any corporation that makes money is greedy, such as, "Greedy pharmaceuticals" set their prices too high. I think It's frustrating to me when they say stuff like this, but I think I understand why they do: it's based on a fallacy.

It almost seems as if liberals hate success, as they are often trying to punish people who succeed. They falsely believe, that left to their own devices, people will not give to charity; they will not help the poor. I attempted to allay this myth in my post, "Pope Francis Wrong About Capitalism."  Capitalism creates opportunities, and people under capitalistic societies donate more to charity than people under any other form of government.

I think the big misconception, the big fallacy of progressives, is that they believe there is only so much money in the world, and if one person, or one corporation, becomes wealthy, that this comes at the expense of everyone else, especially the poor.  In other words, if one person makes a million dollars, this is a million dollars that will not help the poor; in fact, it hurts the poor.  That's why they refer to rich people like Donald Trump as greedy and selfish.

The truth is that there is plenty of money to go around so that everyone can get rich.  This what Trump is saying when he says, "I'm rich, and I will make you rich too."  There is no shortage of money in the world. Rather than trashing people like Trump who succeed, we ought to put them up on a pedestal with an inscription under saying, "You can be like Trump: You can get rich too."

That's the whole point of American exceptionalism.  It's not that we are better than other nations, it's that, before American, 90% of people lived in poverty. America -- more specifically: American Exceptionalism -- has made it so that anyone can rise up to be as rich as kings or queens or totalitarian leaders. This was never possible before America.

People like Trump are a rare breed who sacrifice all to succeed.  Trump had to sacrifice years and money on educating himself, and he had to take great risks to succeed.  In fact, he was so focussed on succeeding that he risked his first marriage to Ivana. I don't mean to ramp up Trump here, I'm just trying to give an example of how getting rich is not bad.  Trump got rich by creating hundreds if not thousands of jobs. As Trump rose to the top he took many people with him.

That's the whole purpose of unfettered capitalism or capitalism.  Some call it supply side economics.  As Jack Kemp used to say, "A rising tide lifts all ships."  During the 1980s, when regulations and taxes were cut, people of every class rose to a higher class. In fact, when regulations, taxes, and government programs were cut in the 1920s, there was no unemployment (it was 2%, while most economists consider 4.5% no unemployment as there will always be people between jobs).

It's not only just individuals and corporations that are greedy, it's America. There are literally people, even within our own country, who think this is unfair; it's unfair that Americans are so rich, because they get rich at the expense of every other nation. They think we are the reason other nations are poor because we absorb all the money in the world.  They think it's not fair that we have all the wealth and no one else does.

What they fail to see is that 99.9% of the world was poor prior to America. Before America, there was no place in the world you could go to be free; there was no place in the world where you could worship what are religion you wanted; there was no place in the world you could go to take an idea you had and prosper.

Again, what they should do is put America on a pedestal and teach rulers of other nations how to accomplish what America has accomplished. Instead of saying Americans are greedy, they ought to ask: What made America so great? What made Americans so prosperous? Why does everyone want to go to America? How can I do that for my country?

Let me word this another way. People who really care for the poor, for the little guy, should want the little guy to have an improved life: more contentment, more happiness, more stuff.  If this is true, then they should want to emulate the United States. You certainly wouldn't want to tear it down.  If you truly cared about the poor, you would create a nation just like the United States.  You wouldn't teach them that America is selfish and greedy and rich at the expense of everyone else.

America is about freedom, liberty, and prosperity.  So if you want people to succeed, you should teach American principles, not deride them. Because before America there was no prosperity. The people who teach that America is rich and greedy try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. Then when those people are gone, there are no jobs. This is substituted for government checks, which will disappear when the U.S. is gone. Then everyone will be equally poor. That is the utopia they seek -- fairness, equality of poverty.

It doesn't make sense. Why try to destroy the one beacon of hope, the one shining city on a hill, where every person has an equal opportunity to succeed.  Why destroy that by telling people that those people are greedy in their materialism? Why, if you truly love the poor and want to help them, wouldn't you teach them how to get it too? Why not teach your people how to prosper?

You have a special place, you want it to stay special, you better learn how it got special. Otherwise, you are going to have people want to destroy it, and you won't have a reason to stop them. Or, if someone were to come into our nation (as progressives have) and try to tear it down one piece at a time, and you didn't know why it was great in the first place, you might just stand by and let it happen.  In fact, you might even be willing to give up your liberties for the cause. You might be convinced to do just that.

And that's what's wrong with our country today, is our schools are not teaching the answers to these questions, so kids are growing up in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and yet they think it has always been this way. They think people were always free. They don't understand that 99.9% of people lived under totalitarian dictatorships or monarchies before the U.S. came about, and that freedom had to be fought for. They aren't taught this, so they don't feel the need to protect and defend it against the onslaught of liberalism.

That's why they can so easily be taught that anyone who succeeds in life is greedy and selfish; that anyone who gets rich does so at the expense of the poor; that capitalism breeds poverty. When the truth is that everyone was poor before the Unisted States, and capitalism creates prosperity not poverty.

Anyway, America is special, and to keep it special we must know how we got to where we are.  Once we know that, it will be easy to see how capitalism creates jobs; capitalism creates prosperity.  Capitalism makes life better for the poor, not worse.  If you really, truly love the poor, then you will tell them that they can have it too if they want.  And that's why Trump says, "I am rich, and I want to make you rich too."

Pope Francis wrong about capitalism

This is Pope Francis's take on capitalism. The Statistics prove him wrong.

I explained a while back how I admire Pope Francis. I love how he stands true to the principles of the church despite adversity, and despite efforts to change it.  My beef with him is his criticism of capitalism, which he has called "the new colonialism" and "the dung of the devil."

He is more a man of the poor than a theologian as his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.  While I assure you he knows a lot more about Biblical teachings than I do, he does not seem to understand the basic tenets taught by the Bible as to how to deal with poverty. The Pope said:

If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.

You see, it sounds like he's preaching  fascism, socialism, or some a sister form of it that we call liberalism or progressivism.  He is preaching social justice, that we all come collectively together to make personal sacrifices to benefit the poor; that we create a large government that makes sure the wealth is spread; that we take from those who succeed (all the greedy people) and give it to those who are poor.

That, to me, is socialism. To this, Rush Limbaugh responded with a question:

Did Jesus tell people to give their money to the Romans so that the Romans could then distribute it?

Writing for National Review, "The Economic Fallacies of Progressive Christianity," David French took this a step further.  He wrote:While the words may be less fiery than those Francis has used in the past, their meaning is still clear: Politicians exist in part to mandate public economic sacrifice in the name of a nebulous “common good.” Yet one must take great care when making religious claims about political management of the economy, never forgetting that ideology can’t trump human nature and outcomes matter more than intentions. I can agree wholeheartedly with the Pope’s calls for an ethical capitalism in which great wealth carries with it great responsibility. I remain wary of the rhetoric of redistribution. One can scour the entire Bible without finding any example of progressive taxation or any endorsement of large-scale government redistribution of wealth. One can scour the entire Bible without finding any example of progressive taxation or any endorsement of large-scale government redistribution of wealth. Instead, the default position is that the individual owns his property and the worker deserves his wages. While charity is an unquestioned obligation, scripture also places responsibilities on the poor that would make any good progressive blanch.
He then proceeded to give a couple examples.

The Apostle Paul condemns idleness, saying, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” In the book of First Timothy, he goes even farther: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

The bible even conditions church aid to widows on their age and reputation for good conduct: Young widows are excluded for fear that they will grow “idle.” These words sound extraordinarily harsh to modern ears, yet they reflect divine insight into fallen human nature — rewarding idleness will breed more idleness.

Indeed, in the only government God did establish — ancient Israel — the “welfare” system stood in stark contrast to modern custom. Here’s how He commands the Israelites to use their possessions to care for the poor:  

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner."

 Not only is private property recognized (“your land”), but the welfare that does exist requires the poor to actually engage in the harvest to collect the gleanings. God commands nations to strengthen the hand of the poor, and outcomes matter. Recent history demonstrates that capitalism, not socialism, is the great engine that lifts people out of poverty. 

No form of government has been more charitable to the poor than capitalism. It creates an environment whereby anyone with an idea, and a will and some desire, can rise up from poverty to the middle class, and even to the upper class.  Capitalism offers equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

Even for those who have been unable to rise above poverty, poverty in the United States is not t
he same as poverty in third world nations. Capitalism has made it so even the poor have food and clothing, and they have television sets and radios and probably even quality beer if they so choose to choose that over more humbling purchases.

Likewise, as Jesus would have preached, Americans donate more to charitable causes around the world than any other nation. Writing for mashable.com, "10 Most Charitable Nations," Matt Petronzio said that 68% of the U.S. population donated to charity in 2014, 51% did volunteer work, and 49% helped a stranger. This is better than any other nation, and America is a capitalistic nation.

So it is capitalism that Jesus would have championed for, not socialism. While the pope is right to hold true to Chrisitan principles, he is wrong to criticize capitalism.  Capitalism has done more for the poor than any other form of government -- ever.

Sorry to criticize the pope, but he is wrong: capitalism does not disadvantage the poor: it makes life better for them.

Further reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: My Question on Jesus and Charity
• National Review:  The Economic Fallacies of Progressive Christianity
• 10 Most charitable nations in the world
• Pat Buchanan: U.S. and Capitalism in Crisis

People who believe unemployment rate is 5.5% are fools

So, the White House is reporting a 5.5 unemployment number, the best it's been since 2008.  This sounds good, especially considering 4.6% is considered no unemployment. This is true because it's not possible for every person to have a job all the time, as people are shifting jobs all the time.  So the 5.5% unemployment number comes out and we are supposed to be all happy and think that the recession is over.

Yet this is not true once we investigate the numbers.  First of all, we must realize that the 5.5 number is the U3 unemployment number. It does not count the number of people who have given up trying to find a job after being out of work four years. If you're not actively seeking a job and you don't have one, you're not counted as unemployed. When you count those who are no longer looking, it's called the U6 number. The current U6 unemployment rate is 10.3%.

Right now there are a record 92.8 million working age people no longer in the workforce, and that is a 37 year low (and it's been a record low now for 11 consecutive months).  The total number of people 16 and over who are able bodied people who could be working is 243 million, so that means that almost half of the people who could be working are not.

Of course the actual percentage of working age people working is currently 62.8%, which is at a 37 year low.  That means that 37.2% of working age people are not working.

What we do know is that all of these people are eating. It used to not be that way.  It used to be that if you weren't working you weren't eating, and that was your incentive to get a job.  If you weren't eating when you weren't working, you bit your pride and got any old job. That might mean working at McDonalds.  That's not the case today as a record 50 million people are on food stamps.

No matter how you look at it, people who think the 5.5% unemployment is accurate, and that it's an indicator that the economy is getting better, are fools.

Further Reading:

• Articulating ideas: A closer look at jobs numbers
• Track the U6 Unemployment rate
• Rush Limbaugh: CNN overjoyed by phony jobless numbers

Do you believe in global warming?

Not one of my kids, nor my wife, has ever asked me the following question: "Do you believe in global warming?"  My son is 16 now, and I don't think he would ever ask me this question because he's a smart kid and can see the answer for himself.  But, hypothetically speaking, let's assume for the sake of this post that he did ask me this question.

Son:  "Dad, do you believe in global warming?"

Dad:  "That's a misleading question."

Son:  "What do you mean?"

Dad:  "Let me rephrase your question for you.  Dad, do you believe in man made global warming?"

Son: "Okay!  Do you believe in man made global warming?"

Dad:  "Facts matter. Here are the facts: If you look to the satellite data in the last 18 years, there's been zero recorded warming."

Son: "So, you're saying global warming isn't real!"

Dad:  "I'm saying the data and facts don't support it."

Son:  "What do you mean?"

Dad:  "Look, there is always going to be global warming and cooling. Nothing is statistic. That's not the argument. The argument is whether or not modern civilization, such as is experienced in most Western Nations like the United States and Europe, is responsible for it.  Is America responsible for climate change? That is the absurdity of it.

Son: (listening intently)

Dad:  "Think of it this way. The climate is so complex that it is beyond the mortal mind to understand it. Just like our minds cannot fathom creation beyond the Big Bang Theory, the human mind cannot explain climate. We can study it, we can research it, we can release whatever we think we've learned, but we can't conclusively say anything factual about the weather, let alone the climate."

Son: "But the media says there is a consensus that global warming is real.  They say it's a consensus among scientists."  

Dad:  "Where there's a consensus there's no science.  Science is not up to a vote. If science were up to a vote, it would be very easy for Obama to buy the favor of scientists with grants, which he is doing by the way. Science cannot be bought.  Science cannot be voted on.  

Son:  "But, Dad, they teach this in school as thought it were a fact."

Dad:  "And when you doubt them they probably look at you and say, 'Jordan, you're not saying that global warming isn't real?'  

Son:  "That's exactly what happens." 

Dad:  "This just goes to show how much smarter you are than they are.  They have been hoodwinked.  It depresses me, but it's true.  It amazes me how many smart, educated people have fallen for the global warming hoax.  

Son: "So you think it's a hoax?"

Dad:  "I think there are people so indebted to the idea that mankind is causing global warming, they have so much invested into it, that they can't get out of it.  During the 1970s they were so concerned about global cooling they wanted to melt the polar caps.  Aren't you glad they didn't succeed."

Son: "Uh huh."

Dad:  "Then the temperatures started to rise, and during the 1990s they changed to global warming.  Then in 1998 global temperatures stopped going up.  Son, there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures since, I think, 1998.  So now they call it climate change.  They just don't give up.  You want to know why they don't give up?

Son: "Why?"

Dad:  "Because global cooling, or warming, or climate change, or whatever they choose to call it tomorrow, is nothing more than an excuse for them to push forth their high regulation and high tax agenda.  That's all it is."

Son: (Smiling)  "I'm impressed." 

List of Obama scandals

Here is a list of Obama scandals:

1. Mexican gun running
2. SEAL Team 6
3. State Dept. lying about Benghazi
4. Voter fraud
5. The Military not getting their votes counted?”
6. The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else
7. The of drones in our own country without the benefit of the law
8. Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese
9. The president arming the Muslim Brotherhood
10. The IRS targeting conservatives
11. The DOJ spying on the press
12. Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives
13. Goving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it
14. The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else
15. The president’s ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester
16. The president’s threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress
17. The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February
18. The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama
19. The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role
20. The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct
21. Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress
22. 65 million voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff -- like Obamaphones -- from taxpayers

How to defeat an atheist

One of the most difficult choices we can make as humans is to believe in God. There are simply so many people who have chosen not to believe in him for one reason or another, and many of them work hard to try to pull you away from God. So what do you do in the face of such challenges? What do you say? 

Here is a list of some of the things people might say to challenge your faith, and what you may consider saying to them.

1.  Science proves God does not exist.  Einstein believed in God, and said that he saw no reason why God and science cannot co-exist. He said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

2.  Well, Einstein found the Bible Primitive, Childish.  That's because the Bible IS primitive and childish. That's just how people wrote back then. It was allegorical. 

3.  Nobody lives the way the Bible preaches. No person lives completely by their Faith, which is why we have forgiveness. For example Chris Kyle had Faith and he carried the Bible with him, but he did not read from it every day

4.  The Bible is not historically accurate. Actually, whether you believe in God or not, the Bible is one of the most significant historical documents ever written. I have read many history books where the Bible is used as a reference to paint a picture of the era in which it was written.

5.  The Bible is not factual.  Christians believe everything in the Bible is true.  If everything in the Bible is true, does this mean that Christians have to choose between science and the Bible.  The key to understanding the Bible is to understand the difference between truth and fact.  Simply put, something can be truthful without being factual.  For example, if you are trying to download a large file onto your computer and it is taking a long time, you might say that it is "taking a million years." You would be speaking the truth: the file is taking a long time to download.  Figurative language such as this communicates truth without relying totally on facts.  We say that as Christians, we believe everything in the Bible is true.  What we mean is that the Bible teaches us, without error, the truth about God.  Although the Bible does contain historical information, the authors of the Bible were not primarily concerned with historical or scientific facts.  Their goal was to teach the truth about God.

6.  Science proves that God could not have created the world in seven days.  The first creation story in the Book of Genesis is true, although it does not attempt to teach scientific facts.  It teaches us truths about God and his relationship with creation, such as: God is the author of all creation, God brings order out of chaos, human beings are created in God's image, and everything God created is good. As Christians, we can learn from what scientists are teaching us about creation and, at the same time, learn from the Book of Genesis about the religious truth of Creation. Besides, God actually created the world over six eras.

7.  Adam could not have lived 930 years.   Once again, you have to consider the era in which the Bible was written.  People back then never even considered the idea of keeping track of a person's time in this world.  When the Bible says that Adam lived to be 930 years old, it is teaching the religious truth that he lived a long life, which is a sign of God's blessing. 

8.  The story of Noah could not have happened.  Actually, there is historical evidence of a great flood that wiped out much of the population of the world that then existed.  So this story is based on this historical fact.  However, the story of Noah teaches the truth that we drown in sin and only those who obey God's voice are saved. 

9.  Jonah could not have lived in a fish.  The story of Jonah is true: when you say no to God's will, you will find yourself in darkness. You see, much of the Bible is told allegorically.  This was simply how people wrote back then.  

10.  The entire old testament is poppycock.  Look, again, don't be concerned with historical fact or scientific fact when reading the Old Testament.  What you should be concerned with is learning the truth about God.  Remember, everything in the Bible is true.  After all, God has given us his Word.