baldilocks

Lucking Out

Two people have recommended the book The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene to me. So I did what seemed logical when two are in agreement about a book: I went ahead and ordered it from Amazon yesterday and it shipped a few hours after I did so. (I had read the book partially but I had checked the book out of the library.  And because I’m usually reading a minimum of two books simultaneously, I didn’t get to read it before I had to take the book back.)

One of the proponents of the book--Tamon Pearson, a Facebook friend--called the following law ‘the most memorable’ for him: “Avoid the unhappy and the unlucky.” Am I intrigued by this caution? You bet.  But, at the same time, the admonition seems almost redundant.

As a Christian, I try to stay away from certain words; words that indicate a life ruled by chance; words which imply that that any force has power over the power of God—words like ‘lucky,’ ‘fortunate’ ‘unfortunate,’ even words like ‘coincidence.’  I stay away from those words because they indicate disbelief, doubt and/or non-belief in the identity and character of the God of the Bible.

But thinking about the word ‘unlucky’ and joining it to the concept of unhappiness, those who are “unlucky” seem to be those who believe that nothing good will happen to them.  As a result, usually, nothing does and even when they "luck up" and something good does happen to them, they find some flaw in that good thing and complain about it.

There are those who believe that things will never turn out all right.   In other words, there are those who have little to no faith in God and, therefore, such people don’t believe that God loves them, wants them to be happy *and* has the power to make that happen.  

Now I’m not saying that God is going to let even those who consistently have faith in Him have anything and everything that they want, because God knows that not everything that an individual wants is necessarily going to be good for that individual.  But those who are “unlucky” can’t even take pleasure in getting lucky (if you’ll pardon the expression).  No.  The "unlucky" will remain under that dark cloud, refuse to be moved and, as a result, the unholy union of unluckiness and unhappiness is joined together.  

Further, the "unlucky" often have removed themselves from the Providence of God, either by omission or commission.  Rather than being “unlucky” what such people are subject to are the forces of Chaos.  They are outside of the Order that God provides which means, as the saying goes, feces will happen to that person.  So this leads us back to the law which Tamon found so remarkable: if you know an Unhappy-Unlucky person, you want to stay far away from them because you don’t want feces to happen to you merely because of proximity.

Conversely, those of us who believe in God’s Providence, who believe in the Bible’s promises, who believe in the power of God, are always “lucky,” are always “fortunate” and are, therefore, always “happy” even in sorrow, because the one thing that we know and are always happy about is that our souls are saved—that everything will come out alright in the end for us.  We have our Blessed Assurance in Jesus Christ.  

And ultimately, if we have faith, things are going to turn out alright not just in the end but while we are trying to get to the end.

My pastor, learned in the languages of the Bible—ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic--taught us that the word for ‘power’in Greek when discussing God’s power is ‘dynamis,’ obviously the origin of the words ‘dynamite’ and ‘dynamic’—the agent and description of radical change. It is the type of change that certain earthly politicians can’t begin to fathom. God can change things; like your “luck”—but only if you ask and believe that it will happen.

(‘Power’ Reference: Strong’s Strongest Concordance 1411)

"COINCIDENTALLY": Went to the barber shop today. When one of the other barbers--not mine--noticed that I was reading Prayers for the Assassin, he remarked: "You should read this book 48 Laws of Power...." Boom!

What I'm Reading (July 27, 2009)

I once had an amusing email exchange with Mr. Ferrigno about a fun article he wrote for National Review Online. Since then I suppose that I've been on his mailing list because I received notice from him that his Heart of the Assassin came out to favorable reviews last month. However, since I hadn't read Prayers yet (which came highly recommended), I figured that I'd start at the beginning.

What's the the series about? Let's just say that a lot of disbelief must be suspended--and I don't mean that the plot, set in the future, is implausible. Thing is, without faith, it's all too plausible.

Tearing Down Different Walls

This morning, President Obama mentions to NBC’s Today Show host Meredith Viera that he met with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to discuss his plan to nationalize healthcare, according to Ed Morrissey. What’s the big deal? Well, do the phrases ‘separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances’ mean anything to you? No?

Likely, neither does the phrase ‘coconut treatment.'

More:

After this came to my attention, I contacted two sources in Washington and asked if presidents routinely conferred with the CBO on budget scoring. Both called this highly unusual and could not recall if or when it had been done in previous administrations. It treads on the entire process of legislative oversight and threatens the independence of the CBO from the administration, which is essential for Congress — if it’s interested in independent analysis. [snip]

This feels like an attempt to either intimidate or co-opt the CBO, neither of which would be a good thing.

Way to completely understate things, Ed! (Empahsis mine.)

Regardless of which purpose is the correct one such a meeting is completely in keeping with the manner in which this administration has operated from beginning. Repeated demonstrations of disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the concepts set forth therein are meant to do one thing: render that Constitution meaningless.

Of course we know that this same Constitution has been savaged by earlier interpreters and enforcers of it—by those who saw laws which are not there. The thing about that is this: it emboldened those who are now ready to ignore or render meaningless the laws and concepts which are there.

"No Battle to Fight Tomorrow"

Free to Say "Hell No"

Live from the Afterlife (again)! It's the great economist Milton Friedman inveighing against socialized medicine in 1978.

Reagan Knew

Ronald Reagan on nationalized healthcare:

You'd think that all of the present-day opponents of bleeding the U.S economy dry...um...curtailing the liberty of U.S. citizens...er...equalized healthcare were cribbing from this video.

The foot is in the door and has been for decades.

(Thanks to Allahpundit)

It's As If They're Trying to Provoke an Attack at Home

The House of Representatives will investigate the Sheepdogs…

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says his panel will investigate whether the CIA broke the law by not telling Congress earlier about a secret [non-operational] program to deploy hit teams to kill individual al-Qaida members.

As the Wolves nibble at the edges…

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Homicide bombers posing as guests attacked American luxury hotels in Indonesia's capital and set off a pair of blasts Friday after evading hotel security, smuggling explosives into the Marriott and assembling the bombs in a room on the 18th floor, where an undetonated device was found after the explosions.

The bombers had stayed at the hotel for two days and set off the blasts in restaurants at both hotels. The blasts killed eight people and wounded more than 50, authorities said. At least eight Americans were among the wounded.

And what is this horse manure?

A senior U.S. official told ABC News the [Jakarta] attacks came as a "surprise."

A second U.S. counter-terrorism official said the CIA and other intelligence agencies had given no indication to the White House of "any threat reporting in the last 18 months" involving the Indonesian al Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah.

And if some fine, upstanding CIA operative had blasted the suicide bombers before they self –detonated, would the House be gearing up to investigate him and his superiors right now?

I dreamed I saw a great wave climbing over green lands and above the hills. I stood upon the brink. It was utterly dark in the abyss before my feet. A light shone behind me but I could not turn. I could only stand there, waiting.

--Lord of the Rings

Yes we're all waiting--waiting for that grand betrayal. It will be in the Spirit of the Times.

(Sheepdog/wolf metaphors courtesy of Bill Whittle)

So "Proud"

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) steps in it again, this time using her witless concepts about race.  Why does all the fun stuff happen on Thursday when I have obligations?

Help us, Sage from South Central (and run against this genius in 2010)--you're our only hope!

(Thanks to Andrew Breibart)

Eye Opener

Good morning. Familial duties take priority but the following image might be better than coffee. It's the House Democrat Health Care Plan.

(Click to enlarge)

(Linked all over but the source is here. Very good, Mr. Boehner.)

The Word for the Day is 'Pusillanimous'

As in "how pusillanimous the Democrats are to appease our enemies and to go after those who would protect us from harm."

Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo has more. And for the pusillanimous among you, there is harsh language to be heard.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Did the Russians Really Snub Obama?

Or was the president merely introducing member of his traveling part to President Mevedev?

Look at the video again, especially the last time that President Obama puts his hand out.

I think it's a misunderstanding on my part and that of other viewers. Of course it would have helped if the president could have at least faked that he was enjoying himself. That sour look sad 'snub.'

My bad.

(Thanks to Booker Rising)

PREVIOUSLY: It Won't Rub Off

Pattern: Masters

So U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is pondering an investigation of the CIA and of Former Vice President Dick Cheney for some sort of crime when the man possibly directed the organization to even ponder making a direct hit on America’s enemies? And the particulars of said program were made public by the New York Times in 2002?

But didn’t this same Department of Justice decline to prosecute blatant voter intimidation perpetrated by the “New Black Panther Party” in Philadelphia—the exact same sort of voter intimidation which was practiced in the South against black Americans prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

I guess it really does come down to who is doing the crime with these people. Any sort of principle or morality is never even considered. Such must, of course, be grounded in truth.

And don’t forget the revenge motive, because these “inconsistencies” are always about that.

One more pattern observed: AG Holder pretends that his putative investigation is against the wishes of President Obama in the same manner that U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pretends that her own crusade to show photos from the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program and from Abu Ghraib are against the president’s wishes. Bull cookies. The two are merely acting on the president’s orders and taking the heat which he doesn’t have the stones to shoulder. These actions—and all the others—are done with President Obama’s approval, make no mistake about that. Delegation of authority isn’t part of a Leftist philosophy.

(Thanks to Karl at Hot Air)

It Won't Rub Off (UPDATED)

Whoa! During the Moscow trip, many Russian officials refused to shake the president's hand!

What was that about, Cold Warriors? I know that the Russians aren't exactly open-minded about race, but come on! It's the president of the United States.

Or perhaps President Obama is too much the Leftist even for Russians. Too weird.

(Thanks to American Thinker)

UPDATE: Did the Russians Really Snub Obama?

Tales from the Cold War

Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president of the United States, repudiates President Obama’s version of the Cold War:

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

Just so.

With President Obama, it’s to the point where his groveling to and rewriting history for our enemies and frenemies has become so frequent that we are beginning to become complacent in refuting his fantasies. Good thing that pundits like the fearless progeny of Darth Cheney have not.

(Thanks to Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ. Drew thinks that Miss Cheney and her father should be on the 2012 GOP presidential ticket and, to that end, has a most excellent slogan.)

The Stopped Clock

Normally I avoid Obama speeches like the plague. The president’s need to be on TV every single day reminds me of an ex-boyfriend who thought he was so great, so much God’s gift to womanhood, that a girl couldn’t possibly be in her right mind for preferring another over him.

“Stop calling me!”

(One thing about Obama-on-TV-fatigue: I’m sometimes think that the inducement of it is intentional.)

However, the speech made during President Obama’s first trip to the African continent as president was bound to produce some items of interest even though I had to take a nap in the middle of reading it.

In parts of it, President Obama almost sounds like Milton Friedman in his praise of self-reliance and laissez-faire economics.

We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans. [SNIP]

Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict. The West has often approached Africa as a patron or a source of resources rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage and nepotism in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is still a daily fact of life for far too many.” [SNIP]

No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.” [SNIP]

People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. [SNIP]

You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, and end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up.

To be honest, I don’t think that a person who was not President of the United States and a President of the United States who was not of African descent would be listened to with respect to a message of self-reliance. Oh, you think that’s not fair? Fairness has nothing to do with reality. As a matter of fact, the concept of “fairness” is what’s taking this country down as I type this.

Frankly, I’m not sure that the president believes his own words. Actually, I know that he does not believe his words. He proves that he doesn’t by providing yet more “aid” to the tune of $63 billion, in spite of what people like James Shikwati, Dambisa Moyo and Philip Ochieng say about what aid--read: global-scale welfare--has done to the initiative of Africans. And the fact that this American chief executive has, in six months, set in motion the nationalization of much of his own country’s economy resounding buries the praise and exhortation of freedom and self-reliance to the continent of his fathers. The president’s words in Ghana were merely that—‘just words.’ To Americans, that is.

But to the Africans? I wonder whether some countries and/or ethnic groups will heed these words and, perhaps, follow through on them. Because it really doesn’t matter whether President Obama means what he says to the Africans or not. What does matter is whether some group/nation on the continent believes that free markets, etc. will improve their lot. And what does matter is whether an African group/nation puts forth a sustained follow-through on those beliefs. It is, however, up to the various sets of Africans whether they want to institute positive change, if you’ll pardon the expression. Just because Barack Obama talks out the side of his neck doesn’t mean that his insincere words won’t save some someones. God uses whomever He wants.

Africans have been sitting on a goldmine for millennia. But as it turns out, they are also sitting on a breadbasket. Think of this every time you see the starving, disease ridden African children on TV.

The “dark” continent could become reborn. All they need to do is stop trying to dupe people into giving them their money via the Internet, stop having tribal wars, ignore the DDT and biotech food naysayers, depose the kleptocrats and....

Find a basis for the rule of law. One does exist, as we know.

Tangent: here’s a opinion about Europe and Africa and how the two continents have developed over the centuries.

Europe embraced Christianity and that, in my opinion, made many intellects and talents open to divine inspiration. That Europe squandered its blessing by lording it over the world and then turning on each other does nothing to diminish that blessing. However, I bet that Europe and Russia turning on the Jews in the early to twentieth century was the final straw for God. Now that continent’s decline proceeds apace.

Will America follow in Europe’s footsteps? Some believe that it already has. Spiritual laws apply.

(Thanks to Rae and to Instapundit)

Pope and POTUS

President Obama paid his respects to the Russian versions of Bergen and McCarthy and caused a small stir at the G8 by appearing to ogle the backside of a young Brazilian girl (he didn’t but French President Nicholas Sarkozy definitely did; ah, the French). Now the POTUS is on his way to Ghana after having taken a trip to the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI. The two allegedly discussed abortion and embryonic stem cell research—obviously from opposing viewpoints. As an opening salvo, the pope gave the president a book on bioethics.  

One wonders whether the pontiff also slipped a copy of Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation-–authored by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger--to Black Liberation Theology’s most famous adherent. 

An excerpt therefrom: 

...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads. 

 (Emphasis mine.)

I wouldn’t doubt that this pope just happened to slip his 1984 repudiation of Liberation Theologies in with the gifts.

Speaking of Defenders of the Faith, my dad—the American one--is on a mission. One might call it a Crusade. Dad—a Methodist pastor—has made it his business to confront other black Christian pastors on their generalized failure to instruct their flocks regarding the evil of abortion and its role in the physical, moral and spiritual destruction of Americans who happen to be black.  Please pray for him.

Of the Bears (Again)

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is running a Caption This contest for the following photo snapped during President Obama's pilgrimage visit to Moscow to mend fences (or whatever) with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

President Obama and President Medvedev bond

I haven't even read the seven pages of comments over there, but at the top of page seven is the winner--there cannot possibly be a better:

Today Georgia. Tomorrow Georgia.

In addition, the wily Vlad saw fit to praise Former President Bush's hospitality--read: class--and wish the latter a happy birthday--yesterday--in a telegram sent right before President Obama's visit.  

During the last years we have been working on strengthening Russia-U.S. cooperation. Although there were differences between our countries, I always valued your openness and sincerity," Putin said, congratulating Bush on his 63rd birthday on July 6.

"With special warmth I recall your hospitality in the Crawford ranch and your family estate in Kennebunkport," Putin wrote, referring to their 2007 meeting at the Bush family vacation home when the two leaders went fishing and ate lobster.

Is the timing mere coincidence?  "Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan."

I wonder what the results of a POTUS appearing to be the world's doormat will be.  Those on the Left believe that it will make the world love us again (sic).  Those on the Right suspect that the supine posture of a POTUS will embolden our enemies.  But I can't help but believe that a third result will come from the rude, disrespectful treatment that the president is eliciting from our enemies and frenemies.  And as with all "hunches" I get, I'm content to let this one play out--sometimes I don't want to know.

Mirror, Mirror

Mind of his mind: 

"I think that President Medvedev is my counterpart, the president of Russia," [President] Obama said in an interview with FOX News Tuesday. "The prime minister [Vladimir Putin], who I just met today, obviously still has enormous influence." 

The U.S. president said that Medvedev and Putin are on the same page about Russian affairs, even if some think Putin is the master puppeteer controlling the president.

In spite of the denials, it's been obvious who’s pulling Medvedev’s strings. However, what about his counterpart? 

Pay attention to what's going on here--quite a few items will be slipped under the general radar today.  And pray for us here in LA who want no part of the mass rending of garments over you-know-who.

BTW, the You Tube videos recreating my Tea Party speech are up.  Drink coffee first; I bored myself.

Independence Day Speech Notes

(Dedicated to the Oath-Keepers)

The speech and the trip to Northern California went well, better than I had imagined—and not because I’m some great interlocutor or anything.  One of the blessings (for me) contained in the sojourn was that I got to make several new-old friends--like USN veteran Doug Wright and his family.  In addition, the reassurance that I am not alone or that those who think and believe as I do are not mere words on a monitor was extremely comforting.

Also, the opportunity to revisit the beauty of the beloved Monterey Peninsula presented itself.  Even though I didn’t arrive home until just after 5AM today, the entire trip was well worth it.

Here are some photographs of the event.  Since we don’t know whether anyone filmed it, I’m going to recreate the speech tomorrow and post the results--for good or ill--to You Tube.  However, since I made such a big deal of the event, I wanted readers to get an idea of the flow of the talk.  To that end, here are a few edited notes.

*****

• The Bill of Rights lists rights not conferred by the government; they’re rights conferred by Natural Law and, in turn, Natural Law is conferred by Divine Providence. 
• Barack Obama calls these ‘negative rights.’  But they’re not negative to individual human beings; they’re negative to those who want to assert power—who want to use government to insert themselves between the individual and God.
• What many  who observe the United States and its history and don’t get is that, if the Founding Fathers, what they stood for, their standards and beliefs were so great, why those principles coexisted with so much illiberty in the land up until the mid twentieth century.  Why was there slavery until 1863?  Why was there legislated civil and electoral oppression until the 1950s and 1960s? Answer: because human beings, their institutions and their adherence to their own professed standards are imperfect.  But does that mean that standards are useless or that the individual or nation which has objective standards is a hypocrite?
• Here’s a pertinent comparison: human beings murder each other.  Because this continues to happen, does that mean that God should have never legislated that we should not murder?  Does that mean that we should not have secular laws proscribing murder? 
• Martin Luther King, his fellows and his allies petitioned their government for a redress of grievances and said “America, you will live up to the standards that the Founders of OUR nation spelled out.” Such law existed and America and its government could only say “oh yeah, right.”  What if Dr. King had said the exact same thing but under these conditions:  no law existed which acknowledged the God-given freedom of this country’s citizens; instead there was a “constitution” which took the place of Natural Law? What if there had been no Bill of Rights? See: 2009 Iran.
  
• Infidelity: When a people and their government make promises to each other, and one party or another says “hey I’m breaking all of these promises—I don’t have to keep the promises I have made to you” then the contract is dissolved and the contract’s penalties are in effect.  We don’t even want to think about the endgame of a violated and dissolved marriage between this people and this government.  The penalties will be deep, harsh and horrible.  Let’s not get the point of such a divorce.
• I am the progeny of African and American slaves, of European and American slave owners, of Native Americans and of one East African come to America to better his life and that of his posterity.  I was born in Chicago.  That makes me an American, end of story.
• Disengaged from their foundation, laws are just window dressing—a pretense of a pretext for a power and resources grab.
• Original Redemption: This nation can and has been redeemed because the seeds of its redemption were planted in its very founding—just like that seed for our redemption as human beings was planted in creation. 
• It is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are Created equal” meaning that all humans were made equally in God’s image.  The fact that all humans did not contemporaneously exist in equality at the time of the Founding does not diminish this in the least. On the contrary, the statement in the Founding transcended the existential realities of the time and made Freedom for all Americans possible.   

(Thanks to Thomas Sowell and Mark R. Levin) 

Independence Day

God keep us--especially those who are engaged in battle as we speak.

I'll be at the Fremont Tea Party with many other Left Coast Bitter Clingers, making the case for Liberty.

The Hazards of Having African Relatives

No this isn't about him.

The weirdest thing happened this morning. I received an email from my father--the African one--saying that he was in Nigeria attending a conference and that he was without money or a passport; he said that he had accidentally left them in a cab.  (Most regular readers know that my father is Kenyan journalist Philip Ochieng.)

It was the correct email address. The wording of the letter, however, seemed suspiciously generic as if were a broadcast--or a Nigerian email scam.  But I thought it was my father so I emailed back—“Okay I will help.”  Blessedly, however, I decided to Google the name of the conference.

So when the incipient scammer wrote me back with details I said “will help you, Father, but I need to know that you are who you say you are.”  Two simple questions were asked and the answer to one should have rolled off of the tips of my father's fingers.

The response?

Julieet [sic],
why are you asking such question, i want you to use the information of the Hotel manager and send what you said you have for now. i also want you to call me on this number +*************.
Get back to me with the scanned copy of the transfer receipt.

I don’t think so.  My father’s email address has been hacked.

So now I have to figure out how to let him know this. Suggestions?

UPDATE: An old friend volunteered to look up the headers and they do resolve to Nigeria.  The friend jogged my memory and I remembered that there is still an old email address of my father's lying around so we'll see whether he still has access to it.

I'm not calling there.  Arm. Leg. Firstborn.