This article is pasted directly from another site:

Jewish World Review May 17, 2010/ 4 Sivan 5770

‘Los’ Suns: Stuck on Stupido

By Arnold Ahlert

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into Suns' games without paying? What if the owners had a good idea as to who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"--Phil Mushnik, NY Post, May 16th, 2010

Nothing illuminates the bankruptcy of liberalism better than liberalism itself. The above quote was a composite of fan responses to Phoenix Sun owner Robert Sarver's idea that his team wear "Los Suns" jerseys to protest the new Arizona immigration law. Is there any doubt how Mr. Sarver would react if what he claims to believe in were directly applied to his interests? How about his players? How many of them would take a salary cut so that "undocumented attendees" whose "only crime" was a desire to see an NBA basketball game could attend one?

There is a reason the expression "limousine liberal" came into being. It aptly describes those who fervently believe in the theory of liberalism--as long as they remain largely immune from its practical application. It is the cabal of self-righteous souls who are positive that Arizonans are racist, xenophobic bigots--but would never stand for illegal aliens sneaking across their property in the middle of the night. It is the same people who encourage family-destroying, welfare dependency--as long as the socially dysfunctional stay in their own neighborhoods. It is those who support all manner of alternative energy--as long as it doesn't despoil their ocean view.

It is those who bemoan the deplorable condition of public schools--even as they send their own children to private ones. It is those who champion financial "reform"--because they already have their wealth, and they don't want any competition. It is those who applaud government-run health care--because they have lifetime access to the best hospitals and doctors in the world, and will never spend a minute in any emergency room rubbing elbows with the great unwashed. It is those who wax poetic about the innumerable shortcomings of the country--from the tenured safety of a college campus.

There are none so enlightened as those for whom "do as I say, not as I do" underlies the totality of their worldview. Unabashed hypocrisy is the foundation of modern-day liberalism. It is the ideology of people who consciences are completely assuaged by the idea of "throwing money" at every problem they encounter--as long as it's other people's money, and someone else is doing the heavy lifting.

How about it, Mr. Sarver? How about allowing free admission to one of your remaining playoff games? How about serving free refreshments? Certainly such a magnanimous gesture is doable. Perhaps you could persuade your players, concessionaires, parking lot attendants, etc., to take a one game pay cut as well--or you could simply pay them and take the hit personally. And since you're apparently comfortable with illegals remaining a permanent part of the Arizona landscape, perhaps the occasional "Free Game and Refreshment Night" could become an equally permanent part of the Phoenix Suns schedule.

And why stop there? Maybe it's time to start replacing some of our mainstream media personnel with undocumented workers. After all, who would be more effective blasting Arizonans and other Americans for their "racist" attitudes than those who have had personal experience with them? Who would make a more effective advocate for "comprehensive immigration reform" than someone who would directly benefit from it?

That is not to say working in the media is one of those jobs "Americans refuse to do," but why should illegals be limited to such work? If we're going to make millions of border-busters part of America, shouldn't some upper-echelon jobs be included in the mix? Isn't that what liberals mean when they talk about "fairness" or "social justice?" Doesn't "spreading the wealth around" apply to everyone? Shouldn't all neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, businesses, etc., experience the "richness of unassimilated multiculturalism" that liberals demand of Arizonans?

Shouldn't everyone walk a mile in someone else's shoes?

Talk is cheap. And no one makes it cheaper than the American left, for whom "feeling good" is all about them feeling good at someone else's expense. There isn't a scintilla of doubt in my mind what the reaction of most liberals would be if millions of stock brokers, journalists, celebrities, college professors, et al, were sneaking across the border and demanding that America "accommodate" their needs and desires.

The late Leona Helmsley once said that "only little people pay taxes." Liberalism has precisely the same price tag: only "little people" pay for the excesses of the self-anointed. Phoenix is the kidnap capital of the United States? I don't live there, but I'm sure Arizonans are racist. Arizona rancher Robert Krentz gets killed on his own property in an area officials already know is an illegal "smuggling corridor?" I didn't get killed and it's not my ranch, and Arizonans have no right to protect their lives and their property if it conflicts with my ideology.

Modern day liberalism is a cancer. It is fascism being sold as progressive thinking by elitists for whom all things counter-culture have become the traditional. It is a knee-jerk contempt for everything that makes this country the envy of the world. Only liberals could believe that importing millions of illegal, low-skill, under-educated people "enriches" America. Only liberals could conclude that "celebrating our differences"--differences which precisely separate Third World nations from First World nations--are "no better or worse" than expecting immigrants to adopt our culture and our values.

Only liberals can lump illegal and legal immigrants into one philosophical package in order to brand those who make the crucial distinction between the two xenophobic bigots.

And only a contemptible media would be such a willing accomplice to such obvious mischaracterizations, misinformation and outright lying perpetrated by the American left. And that's by commission. Here's a statement by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder speaking to the House Judiciary Committee that's been virtually ignored by the MSM:

"I have not had a chance to, I've glanced at it. I have not read it. .. I have not really, I have not been briefed yet. I've only made, made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. "

To what was Holder referring? The Arizona immigration bill, which is all of ten pages long.

Think Holder's the only one? Of course not. Liberal outrage isn't about informed opinion. It's all about uninformed emotion whipped up by those with an agenda--including an Attorney General who ought to be thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed by his ineptitude and his bias, but most assuredly isn't. The Arizona law feels wrong? That's good enough for liberals.

We'll see how good liberals feel in November.

Is Social Justice a Christian Doctrine?

Many people today have taken to saying that if Jesus of Nazareth were in his pre-resurrection ministry in contemporary America (maybe from Nazareth, Texas?) he would be a socialist, a conservative, a revolutionary, a protestor, a militia member, and on and on. I don’t think he would be any such thing.

Was Jesus a proponent of “social justice?” To understand this issue you must look at Jesus’ ministry in context of that era. The society he was in was Jerusalem/Judea as a conquered servant-state of Rome. The Judean government was a puppet government of Rome, but was also notably corrupt, filled with self-serving politicians and appointed office holders. Those who were Roman citizens had considerable human rights, but none of the rest of society did.

At least two types of legal servitude were common in Jerusalem at the time of Christ: captive slaves, who were owned by their masters or by the empire, and indentured servants. A slave was owned, had no civil rights, and was completely at the mercy of their master. An indentured servant was in every respect a slave to their master, and could be beaten or used in any way that the master chose to use them, as long as no Jewish or Roman law was broken. There were various ways in which a person could become indentured, two of the more common being, 1) voluntary for a specified time for specified benefits and or payment, or 2) bound, in which the master paid the debt and/or bought the person from prison and set a covenant with the magistrate for the terms of the indenturement. The term for a bound servant was determined by the cost and an expectation of reasonable profit for the master, so could be for many years.

Normally a voluntary indenturement was for three to ten years, and included room and board, and some kind of payment at the end of the agreement. Fairly commonly, the term also included training the servant in a specified trade or skill. (Indentured servants have been used as far back as recorded history, and the practice was very common in Colonial America where it’s estimated that half the white immigrants came as indentured servants.) In Judea, terms of voluntary servitude ranged typically from three to seven years, but could be longer. While most masters were humane in their treatment of indentured servants, some were cruel and abusive.

Jesus never preached against any of these social or government institutions, and in fact, there are several references in the New Testament where church members are told to be obedient to their master. He told both master and slave to live righteously and be obedient to God. He did not tell slaves to resist or protest, nor masters to give up their slaves. (Some will say that Christ said to “sell all you have and come follow me,” but he was talking to a specific individual not all followers.)

The Jews were heavily burdened by the Roman Empire with oppressive laws and taxes. They were convinced that when the Messiah came, he would come as a military conqueror throwing off the shackles of Rome and ending the excessive tribute she extracted from them. Instead Christ told them to obey the Roman law, and pay taxes to Caesar; to worry about their own sins, spirituality, and morality. The people of Judea despised this attitude, and when given a chance chose the militant Barabbas be set free rather the kindly, healing Jesus of Nazareth.

Some point to His driving the money changers from the temple as His dislike of commerce; but this is untrue. He was upset that they were profaning the house of God, making it a marketplace rather than a place of worship. The message here is that giving respect to God is more important that your livelihood or anything else.

Jesus was not anti-military; he welcomed Jewish temple guards and Roman soldiers into his fold. He never told them to abandon their professions. He did warn against violence begetting violence when Peter cut off the ear of a guard coming to arrest Jesus. But being military or an officer of the law was never criticized. The same is true of hated public officials such as tax collectors and publicans, Christ ministered to them; He condemned hypocrisy among them, but welcomed them to join with Him.

Christ never preached “social justice” as some would have us believe. He preached that no matter what your circumstances in life, each person must live life righteously and kindly, serving God and man, while meeting your legal obligations to the government.

The point is not that forced servitude, slavery, corrupt government, or unfair practices are alright, because they are not. The point is that Christ planted a spark in one individual after another to be good, just, kind, and moral, and it grew to encompass and improve billions of lives. Not by social action, activism, or politics but by touching the heart and soul of one person at a time.

So these activist ministers who believe the Gospel of Christ should be administered by force, coercion, politics, demonstration, or “civil disobedience” are not following in the footsteps of Christ. His was a ministry to the inner goodness of the individual, not to politics, law, or civil justice. Those who justify their politics as Christian activism don’t understand His message.

Spending Like a Drunken Sailor? Not Really.

I recently saw a response to a letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic to a statement that Obama was “spending like a drunken sailor.” The responded said, “I was a drunken sailor, and the difference between me and Obama is that when I ran out of money I stopped spending.” Look at the deficit spending chart (below) comparing the Bush & Obama administration to understand this statement.

The Bush administration deficit is shown in grey on the left; the Obama administration deficit is shown in the red and pink bars in the column to the right. CBO: Congressional Budget Office, this is the “accounting department” for the US Congress. They study bills that are passed and project the costs per year that each bill will generate and the revenue that each bill will generate; they then subtract the total costs from the total revenue to show either a surplus of revenue as in 2000 & 2001, or a deficit as shown in every other year since, and projected for the next nine years. The figures are not released by the CBO until congress has reviewed and approved them, so they were basically authorized by the controlling democrats in both houses of congress. The pink bars are the amounts that the Obama white house admits to. You will notice that their figures are consistently less than CBO figures, but not by much.

Bush and the Republican controlled congress did well in balancing the budget for the first two years, even generating surpluses. On September 9, 2001 terrorists attacked New York, throwing the economy into a devastating downward plunge, due to costs of physical rescue and recovery efforts, business failures, insurance settlements, and other such costs, resulting in a great loss of tax revenue causing 2002 to go into deficit. The following years saw increased spending primarily for the Afghan and Iraqi wars, as well as increased intelligence and security spending. War time deficits are historically normal. The big dip at the end of the Bush administration was avoidable and only happened because the president and president-elect in consultation with congress decided it was necessary to “bail out” AIG.

The Obama administration has committed our future generations to enormous debt by quadrupling deficit spending in his first year in office and into the future. If this were the state of your personal budget, you would be hopelessly bankrupt. This is not spending like a drunken sailor, it is spending like a professional credit card thief; no limit to what he spends, he won’t have to pay it.

Time For Chicken Little to Make an Appearance

How bad is the oil leak off the coast of Louisiana? Pretty bad, some say much worse than the infamous Exxon Valdez. So we are now hearing great alarm from the environmental religion, using this as a cause célèbre for attacking off-shore drilling for petroleum.

In May 2009 researchers with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the University of California, Santa Barbara released a study that found that natural leaks of sub-oceanic petroleum off the coast of Santa Barbara release as much crude oil into the ocean as up to 80 Exxon Valdez disasters. Each day the natural seafloor seeps near Santa Barbara, California release 20-25 tons of oil, and have done so for several hundred thousand years.

Not only do seeps such as these occur naturally throughout the oceans, but there are scores of other similar phenomena on both land and sea. These include land seeps of crude oil and tar, oceanic asphalt volcanoes, natural gas seeps, and land-bound tar sands. Some of the natural gas bubbles so change the density of the water, that ships sailing into them immediately sink; this is known to happen off the coast of Indonesia, and is thought to happen the Sargasso Sea (mid-Atlantic), which could account for mysterious disappearance of ships in the “Bermuda Triangle".

Taken together, these leaks amount to many times the volume of all human produced petroleum, gas, and refinery by-product “releases” into the environment. So while environmentalists decry the petroleum industry, their residue is only a drop in the ocean compared to natural geophysical releases. Amazingly enough nature has figured out how to take care of this problem. Bacteria and other sea and land life forms eat it, starting it up the food chain.

So from a temporary, cosmetic relatively small area (few thousand miles), this can legitimately be viewed an environmental problem. But the real disaster is the loss of human life, highly technical, highly expensive equipment, and the oil itself. With or without man, nature would take care of the spill to its liking, whether man likes it or acknowledges the fact. If it makes it to shore, it will be more serious, because it affects fishing and other livelihood activities, and usually really stinks, besides being harmful to wildlife.

Man is part of nature. We do what we do and nature takes advantage of our castoffs in its own way and time. Most of the religion (not science) of environmentalism that is rampant today does not understand this. Man’s concern should be with conservation of resources and not messing up our own nest. If we do this nature will be happy.