neither spontaneous nor unplanned, to the extent that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has instigated many of the uprisings, is working hand-in-hand with non-Muslim marxist/progressives in ways to coordinate future conflicts for the purpose of toppling governments, which would create the necessary power vacuum for them to assume control of the government. The grand plan is to gradually extend the power and influence of Islam and its attendant sharia la, culminating in the establishment of a global Caliphate. This worldwide Islamic dictatorship will not be a desirable outcome if you believe in any degree of personal freedom, and especially not if you are a Christian.
The current unrest in Egypt began with rowdy but more or less nonviolent assemblies of up to a quarter-million people protesting the oppressive Mubarak regime. While the army stood by in a show of force in an effort to contain the massive demonstrations, it also initially showed restraint, letting the crowds do their thing without harrassment. However, on Wednesday, things began to turn violent as "pro-government" demonstrators confronted the protestors, with the inevitable violence breaking out, resulting in over 100 deaths, including an attempted assassination of the Egyptian vice-president that resulted in the deaths of two bodyguards. It is interesting to note (especially because the blamestream media refuses to cover such things) that in at least one incident, Egyptian Christians stepped in to protect Muslims from the mob as the Muslims were praying in the street. Journalists - especially from the Western media - became part of the story as the mobs turned on them, beating some and chasing many others away in fear.
For the Muslim Brotherhood, as with the American radicals, open violence and generalized chaos and fear are the tools to bring about the chaos and revolution they so deeply desire. It is disheartening to see the collusion between American radicals and the Muslim Brotherhood. I say disheartening because these are people - many from well-off families - who have profited from the very American ideal they seek to destroy, yet most have a severely corrupted view of their own country, and even moreso of the ramifications of their own political worldview. Now, becoming intensely hypocritical enemies of a free people themselves, they conspire with other enemies for the same purpose. They seem to be working the principle which they each (rightly) accuse the US government of doing: the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy. Both live for their dreams of world domination, global slavery (although most aren't honest enough to admit that), and especially with the MB, the destruction of Israel and the death of all its citizens.
Perhaps the most fascinating and ironic part of this mutual pact with the Devil is that neither has any long-term plans to share that all-inclusive territory. Both are dedicated to the use of treachery, lies, deceit, torture and deadly violence on a massive scale to achieve their goal, so it should be interesting to watch - after (assuming) they have disposed with those of us who resist - which one will ultimately win all the chips; the atheist, marxist progressives or the frothing at the mouth radical Muslims who will not tolerate 'infidels'. Any way you look at it, there is a rocky, bloody, horror-filled road ahead. Thankfully, we Christians (you know, the folks who generally give you a choice in how you want to live) realize that there is a greater plan at work that neither of the antagonists have any control over.
The 'Rights' stuff. It is the word that, perhaps more than any other, signifies the current American worldview: rights. They are so deeply embedded in the American conscience that we not only have an official list, they also are subconsciously taken for granted by the majority of people (and like virtually everything else, often abused). They are among the primary issues in nearly any political debate. Whenever someone gets arrested they are recited by the arresting officer, and when people of nearly any age get in nearly any sort of trouble, the first thing out of their mouths is, "I have a right..." But do we, really, anymore?
In recent years - and the trend is only increasing - what we have traditionally viewed as rights are being more and more treated as privileges, and what are clearly privileges granted by government are being treated as rights. And as much as I am in favor of adult citizens being able to buy a firearm, I don't agree with a push for legislation that would force someone to buy a gun if they don't want to. However, in this instance, it appears the effect is primarily to spark debate on the legitimacy of the Obama malAdministration's plan to force Americans to purchase health insurance. If that is the case, I agree with the intent.
to commit (the abortionist) the act under the rubric of "choice," while the choice to publicly protest such an aberration has been refined, from the right of free speech, to an arbitrarily-limited privilege which is, more often than not, refused. It is ironic that only the most blatantly egregious (and careless) of these legally-sanctioned human butchers ever faces justice, while the horror of that dark 'art' is a megacorporation protected by governors, judges, presidents and congresspeople for the past 38 years. For the children who actually get to be born, this liberal version of child sacrifice is a social norm. No wonder there is so little respect for one another anymore.
Low 'Volt'-age. A few weeks ago, I touched on the topic of the electric cars that our government is trying to push on us; way too expensive, too limited in range (all-battery models such as the Leaf), taking too long to recharge, etc. But recently several news organizations, including the Washington Post, are pointing out some other inconvenient truths about the battery-mobiles that are especially applicable to those of us living or traveling in the colder climes.
And lest you think I'm just picking on electric vehicles; there is a report from the UK revealing a troubling but obvious (to most people) aspect of the 3,000+ wind turbines the Brits are relying on to eventually provide up to 30% of the country's electrical needs: they don't work when the wind doesn't blow. Yes, I know; you're as shocked as I was. But during a recent severe cold spell where the windmills were still, they had to fire up the old coal plants to keep people from freezing. What's worse, they had to use power from those plants to turn the windmills to keep them from freezing up as well. Something worth keeping in mind when you're trying to use the technology to supply one-third of your nation's power demands.
Cold, hard truth. Gotta love those environmentalists (to be honest, the "mental" part of it is largely coincidental). Really, don't you long for the days of yore, when national leaders would seek wisdom, and actually put a modicum of thought into what they were forcing their populations to live with? Instead, they are using faux science and outright lies to back a series of treasury-draining initiatives that have marginal (if any) positive value.
The weather really sucks lately. Have you noticed it has become colder and snowier over the past couple of years? According to everyone we are supposed to believe, "global warming" is to blame. Really? Predictions from some folks in the know indicate even colder weather coming for the foreseeable future, putting additional strain on increasingly limited fuel and food supplies. Those shortages will be felt more acutely because of government interference in every area of life, from taxation, to rising prices for everything, to restrictions on energy production and increasing control over all aspects of the food supply. Doesn't it tell you something when one of the founders of Greenpeace makes the argument in a new book explaining that global warming, as well as global cooling, are part of an inescapable natural cycle that, first and foremost, is influenced by the sun.
The science of climatology is extremely complex, not fully understood, and largely based on faulty data. The politics of global warming - which at this point affect most of the otherwise-authorative sources - focus on two main points: that global warming is produced by man's effect on the environment, and that man can dramatically alter the climate. I join those who posit that both are faulty positions. The effect of mankind on the global climate is relatively miniscule compared to, say, volcanism and solar effects. The efforts some nations (primarily the US and Western Europe) have made great strides in countering the environmental effects of the early industrial age, and those efforts do and should continue to mitigate pollution. Of course, the willingness of the West to be good stewards of the Earth is somewhat offset by the wanton and unrestricted pollution of emerging industrial nations such as India and China.