Do you need your government to be your father? Gag me.
Daddy O brings parenting into politics
Just call him Daddy O.
Most leaders’ playbooks take at least a page or two from “The Art of War,” but President-elect Obama’s rhetoric seems to be torn from very different kind of text: the modern parenting manual... “The most respectful — and effective — approach to parenting consists of working WITH children rather than doing things TO them,” he says. ‘Working with’ parents talk less and listen more. They regularly try to imagine how the world looks from the child's point of view. They bring kids into the process of decision-making whenever possible.
It would be easy to bash Obama’s enlightened-father philosophy as an insulting new extension of the nanny state, but the truth is that the exercise of power in any form shares a lot in common with the parent-child relationship...But progressive parenting experts argue that the “love and reason” approach to leadership is not only more respectful — it might also turn out to be more effective.
----------------------------
First, politics is NOT a parent-child relationship. Unless if you insist on using the parent-child metaphor, possibly that the CITIZENS are the parent and the people we elect to serve us are the CHILD. But Progressive liberals do not believe that, unfortunately, they believe the opposite. That is what this article is putting forth. But philosophical governance differences aside, let's talk war.
Over the past three days - amidst Christmas week in the Holy Land - radical Islamic terrorists in Gaza have fired more than 100 rockets, missiles and mortars at Israeli Jews living in the southern border towns of Sderot, Ashdod and Ashkelon. Since December 19th, nearly 200 rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza.
More than 6,000 rockets, missiles and mortars have rained down on some half a million Israelis living near the Gaza border over the last several years. Endless "talks" have done nothing to curb the killing. But Obama's approach is as a Daddy who will love and reason with them. Let's see how that goes.
5 comments:
Since Palestinian and Israeli terrorists alike behave like fussy children and both preach and do murder people, the best solution would be to take away the toy they so childishly fight and murder over: nuke Jerusalem, nuke all the "holy" sites, nuke Israel, and nuke Palestine. No one will be fighting over the "holy land" because it will all be uninhabitable for several thousand years.
Israelis are not terrorists. The peacefully inhabit a lawful land and endure thousands of rockets coming at them from godless terrorists who whose stated claim is to wipe them from the earth. They decided to defend themselves.
Israel is God's chosen land. It will not only be habitable, it will be the center of Jesus' reign on earth from the new Jerusalem. This is a promise. Not mine. God's
Nuke em all? Quite a well thought out answer to a complex problem. I think Israel was right to respond in force when hundreds of missiles came into their country. I do not, however, think Israel should carry on a ground war or continue to make arial attacks. The Palestinians should not have elected Hammas as their government. It is going to be a farce to watch them pretend to go after the terrorists instigating the trouble.
Chuck
Israel and Palestine are both murderers killing each other over nothing. Murderer or justified killing in the name of God - what is the difference? It makes no difference to the innocent child killed in the crossfire what semantics you use to justify his death. It isn't worth one human life to hold onto a worthless shrine. Give up the shrine. Give up the Holy Land. You are concerned they will destroy it? So be it. Better yet, destroy it so that people can see that God does not depend on the constructs of man. It means nothing. Is your faith so weak as to need a pile of rocks to hold it up? God dwells in the soul, not in real estate, not in a temple, not in a book, not in a "chosen land." God is disgusted that people hold real estate, even and especially designated "holy" real estate, higher and more precious than human life. God doesn't need real estate. God doesn't need a temple. God doesn't need a "center" from which to "reign." Those are the concepts and words of selfish foolish people, not the way of God. That is a promise. Not mine. God's
Anonymous that is pure blaphemy
Whether you like it or not, the Bible tells us that Israel was given all the land to the Euphrates River (which includes Jordan and Syria):
Genesis 15:18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--"
Genesis 35:10-12 God said to him, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel." So he named him Israel. And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you."
Deuteronomy 34:4 "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, 'I will give it to your offspring'"
and of course He doesn't 'need' a temple or a land but He deems it so, at least until after the Millennium Reign when He Himself will dwell among us and BE the temple.
Post a Comment