How Asking 5 Questions Allowed Me to Eat Dinner With My Kids

By Charles Duhigg, NY Times, March 10, 2016:

Four years ago, when I began working on a book about the secrets of productivity, I had a hidden motivation: I wanted to figure out how to eat dinner with my kids.

Both my wife and I had demanding jobs. We have two sons–now 7 and 4–and knew it was important to eat dinner together. But it proved consistently impossible for us all to sit down at the same time. Every morning, we would announce our intentions of leaving work early enough to dine as a family. 

But one thing would lead to another, we would get delayed at the office, and then the babysitter would call to say that the children were starving and so we would tell her to appease them with snacks. Most parents know where this leads: Kids all hopped up on Pirate’s Booty, parents guiltily sipping wine while re-heating leftovers, full of self-recriminations and promises that next week, things will be different. Until, that is, next week rolls around and the same thing happens again.

So, when I began interviewing exceptionally productive companies and people for my book, “Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Being Productive in Life and Business,” I often asked them to help me solve our family’s woes. I eventually found a solution in the most unlikely of places–an old car factory–and a method known as “the Five Whys.”

In the 1980s, the Japanese car manufacturer Toyota opened its first American plant in Fremont, Calif. The factory was guided by a management philosophy known as the Toyota Production System, which at its core holds that even the most complex problems have simple causes–if you know how to look for them.

For us, “the Five Whys” worked in a fairly straightforward manner. We began by identifying a problem: We never managed to have family dinner. Then we explored, at the most surface level, why that was true: Because my wife and I always got home later than we expected.

Then came another question: Why were we getting home so late? The answer was that, although we intended to leave the office by 5, we often found it impossible to walk away from our desks because there were so many miscellaneous tasks we had ignored during the day.

That prompted the third question: Why had we ignored all those tasks? Well, inevitably, we arrived at work each morning just as our first meetings were starting, and so rather than deal with unread memos and emails, we put them aside until later in the day–and then, when we finally got to them, there were new memos and emails that demanded our attention.

The fourth question: Why were we arriving at work right before our first meetings, rather than earlier in the day? Because although we always intended to leave the house at 8 and get the kids to school, we usually ran late, and didn’t get out the door until 8:20 or so.

And, finally, why were we leaving the house later than we planned? Because it took so long to get the kids dressed in the morning that we always left later than we expected.

We had started by identifying a problem–we never managed to have family dinner–and by using “the Five Whys” found a root cause: Our kids were taking too long to get dressed in the morning. Before conducting this exercise, I had never suspected that there was a connection between our morning routines and our evening mealtimes. But once we forced ourselves to ask why after why, it was clear what needed to change. 

If we could convince our kids to get dressed earlier, we could make it out the door faster, and in turn would have time at our desks to deal with emails and memos before the day started getting crazy, and then we would be able to leave work earlier, and make it home in time to have dinner together. So we instituted a new family rule: Now, each night before going to bed, our kids lay out their clothes for the next day, and then they get dressed as soon as they wake up.

Researchers have found that this method of looking for root causes works in dozens of settings. “The Toyota Production System is arguably the most important invention in operations since Henry Ford’s Model T began rolling off the production line,” the Harvard Business Review observed in 2011. The Five Whys is “a process of continually asking questions until you get to the root cause,” and getting closer and closer to a problem until you understand what’s really going on. The Five Whys method has helped managers eliminate waste, aided executives in figuring out what projects to pursue and which to discard, helped children understand how to analyze problems and find solutions and assisted teachers in creating environments where even underperforming students can succeed.

At the center of the Five Whys–and the reason it’s so effective–is a basic insight: “Productivity” means different things to different people, but at its core, it’s about thinking a little more deeply about the choices we make every day. For my book, I interviewed neurologists and executives, as well as the filmmakers behind “Frozen” and teachers who transformed the Cincinnati school system, and found each of them echoing this idea. Productivity isn’t about running faster or pushing yourself harder, but rather, about working smarter and paying a bit more attention to what is really going on.

Nowadays, our kids are dressed every morning by 7:30. They choose their outfits the night before, and we’ve made a game of laying out their clothes before they fall asleep. It’s a small shift in how we get things done, but the impact has been profound: Mornings are calmer, we’re out the door more promptly, we get home from work earlier and we usually have dinner as a family at least three times a week. Applying business strategies can’t solve every problem in every family, and productivity isn’t every family’s goal, but understanding how to analyze problems by drilling down to their roots can go a long way toward making life easier.

And in my house, learning to make small adjustments in our routines is delivering big returns. Parenting will never be considered a purely productive activity–but it’s getting easier, and better, every day.

Read More

Notes from the Field

By Simon Black - 

March 10, 2016 Santiago, Chile:

The 12.5 hours spent crossing the Pacific on Qantas flight 27 feels like going through a wormhole. 

The flight departs Sydney, Australia at 12:50pm and arrives to Santiago, Chile the same day at 11:20am. In other words, the plane lands 90 minutes before it departs. 

When I landed yesterday, the captain came on the P.A. and said, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have good news; if you enjoyed Wednesday March 9th, it’s still Wednesday March 9th!” 

It really does feel like going back in time. 

This feeling was only reinforced when I whipped out my phone and saw that German bank Berlin Hyp had just issued 500 million euros worth of debt… at negative interest. 

I wondered if I really did go through a time warp, because this is exactly the same madness we saw ten years ago during the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. 

To explain the deal, Berlin Hyp issued bonds that yield negative 0.162% and pay no coupon. 

This means that if you buy €1,000 worth of bonds, you will receive €998.38 when they mature in three years. 

Granted this is a fairly small loss, but it is still a loss. And a guaranteed one. 

This is supposed to be an investment… an investment, by-the-way, with a bank that almost went under in the last financial crisis. 

It took a €500 billion bail-out by the German government to save its banking system. 

Eight years later, people are buying this “investment” that guarantees that they will lose money. 

The bank is now effectively being paid to borrow money. 

We saw the consequences of this back in 2008. 

During the housing bubble, banking lending standards got completely out of control to the point that they were paying people to borrow money. 

At the height of the housing bubble, you could not only get a no-money down loan, but many banks would actually finance 105% of the home’s purchase price. 

They were effectively making sure that not only did you not have to invest a penny of your own money, but that you had a little bit of extra cash in your pocket after you bought the house. 

Paying people to borrow money is just crazy, whether it’s homebuyers, bankrupt governments, or banks. 

Global insurance giant Swiss Re calculated that roughly 20% of all government bonds worldwide now have negative yields. And over 35% of Eurozone government bonds have negative yields. 

(They would know—along with pension funds and banks, insurance companies are some of the largest buyers of bonds.) 

With this deal, Berlin Hyp becomes the first non-state owned company to issue euro-denominated debt at a negative yield. 

They won’t be the last. 

We’re repeating the same crazy thing that nearly brought down the system back in 2008—paying people to borrow money. 

The primary difference is that, this time around, the bubble is much bigger. 

Back then, the subprime bubble was “only” $1.3 trillion. 

Today, conservative estimates show that there’s over $7 trillion in negative rate bonds. 

What could possibly go wrong?

Until tomorrow, 

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More

Jesus ou Darwin? Um deles está errado! Luis Jervel

Read More

To Believe or not to Believe, That is the Question? or the Evolution Connection!

By Dennis Edwards:

Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901—the second longest reign of any British monarch in history. Queen Elisabeth II has just surpassed that period on September 11th, 2015. Explaining England’s great success as a nineteenth century nation, Victoria once said,

England has become great and happy by the knowledge of the true God through Jesus Christ . . . This is the secret of England's greatness.[1]

But England did not stay great for long. For it was during Queen Victoria’s very reign that the seeds of destruction were planted, grew and multiplied. In the early and mid-eighteen hundreds, following such men like Darwin, the great empire accepted the false theories of naturalism and evolution. Through the acceptance of these doctrines, England ate the fruit which would lead to her own downfall.

Naturalism is the idea that all reality can and should be explained by natural non-guided forces. Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural or states that if the supernatural exists, it does not interfere with the natural world. James Hutton and Charles Lyell were the advocates or promoters of naturalism in science, which is called uniformitarianism. Darwin and Lyell were close friends. Darwin even wrote that it seemed like his theory, the Origins, came out of the mind of Lyell.

Uniformitarianism is the idea that geological features should and could be explained by present-day natural forces at their present day rates and not by a worldwide Flood. Lyell said his goal was to get “Moses out of science.” He trained as a lawyer and used his lawyer’s power of persuasion to cleverly promote Hutton’s ideas in his very popular book Principles of Geology.

It is interesting to note that Apostle Peter, writing to the early Church in order to “stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,”[2] said the following:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the Last Days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.[3]

The idea of uniformitarianism, or the idea that all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation, ignores the global Flood. It states that the slow processes that we see today, such as wind and water erosion, are accountable for forming over millions of years all the geological features found in nature.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.[4]

Hutton and Lyell (picture on left) willing ignored the evidence of a worldwide Flood, which had been the traditional way the geological features were interpreted up until the end of the eighteenth century. They did so because they had an agenda to get “Moses out of science,” and not because of scientific evidence based on reason. Twentieth-century evolutionary scientist Derek Agar, an atheist, wrote the following about that very event:

My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (Hutton and Lyell) who were conditioned by social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field…In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes![5] 

The evolutionists wanted to avoid “catastrophic” processes, because that is what the creationists were advocating with their interpretation of the geological column as a result of the global Flood and not “millions-of-years” of slow evolutionary history. Stephen Jay Gould (picture below),  a formerly foremost evolutionary American scientist, made the comment about Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism in his remarks concerning the famous “Great Scablands Debate.” During the “Great Scablands Debate” of the early 1920s, a scientist named Bretz presented a paper questioning the uniformitarian interpretation of the geological features found in the Great Scablands. Gould comments on the reaction of the American scientific “establishment” to this “creationist” idea.

The ‘establishment,’ as represented by the United States Geological Society, closed ranks in opposition (to Bretz)…. Instead of testing Bretz’s flood on its own merits, they rejected it on general principles (because it sounded too much like the global Flood of the Bible)… Bretz stood against a firm, highly-restrictive dogma (uniformitarianism) that never had made any sense: the emperor had been naked for a century. Charles Lyell, the godfather of geological gradualism, had pulled a fast one in establishing the doctrine of imperceptible change.[6]

Bretz presented his scientific and evidence based papers on the Great Scablands from 1923 until 1979. It took the establishment, the scientific community, fifty-six years before they were finally willing to accept his conclusions.[7] Their uniformitarian bias had prevented them from accepting Bretz’s conclusions earlier, because his interpretation could be considered as evidence for the global Flood. They could not allow a Divine foot in the door.[8]

But, eventually, the overwhelming scientific evidence of catastrophism, the idea that some type of catastrophic events caused much of the geological features that we find today, won the day. Modern day evolutionists have, therefore, modified their theory to include periodical catastrophes. It’s part of the Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory. But they have adamantly held to “millions-of-years,” because without “millions-of-years,” evolution would be bankrupt. The Apostle Peter warns us that the day of reckoning will finally come for all mankind.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.[9]

Man prefers living his life free from the idea that there will be a judgment. The famous nineteenth century writer Aldous Huxley (picture on left) confessed he wanted to be free from the religious restraints so that he could behave himself in whatever manner he wished in order to fulfill his sexual desires. Huxley was the grandson of one of Darwin’s closest friends, Thomas Huxley, often referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog.” Grandson Aldous, following his grandfather’s conclusions, made the following apology, which I mentioned in an earlier chapter: 

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.[10]

So we find during the early nineteenth century a rising tide of intellectualism away from the Bible and faith and away from the traditional Christian interpretations in science. With the acceptance of millions of years of naturalism and then evolution, the wedge against faith had been laid and soon the whole house began to fall. In the Psalms we read, 

If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?[11]

Naturalism, uniformitarianism, and evolution were the philosophical ideas, though dressed in scientific garb, which attacked the foundation of Christianity. It is in the very book of Genesis that we find the record of Creation, the Fall of man, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the need for a Redeemer. Right from Genesis we see the need of salvation, the need of redemption. 

Through the Bible history we see man’s failure as individuals and as nations to follow God. We see man’s failure to live in harmony with God and one another. We see man’s pathetic and despondent condition without God. However, it is in the New Testament, through the life of Christ, that we gain hope once again. We read the beautiful words from the mouth of the Messiah and His Apostles and gain strength to continue on in the weary world we find ourselves. Like Einstein said, 

I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene…. No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.[12]

But today our families and our nations are reaping the fruits of having our Christian foundations destroyed by these false philosophies. We have sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.[13] In other words, we have sown vain, empty, foolish doctrines of men and are reaping the resulting moral chaos that threatens to bring down our entire Christian culture. 

Jesus said, 

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?[14]

We as a nation no longer believe the writings of Moses. We have rejected the historicity of the book of Genesis and no longer believe the Words of Jesus. It is foolishness unto us. As a result, we are experiencing the “falling away” spoken of by Apostle Paul.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering unto him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.[15]

Paul is warning that the day of Christ’s coming and our gathering together unto him, or what is commonly referred as the rapture, would not occur until after a falling away from the faith and the revealing of the Anti-Christ or “the son of perdition.” Paul gives us the reason for the falling away occurring: 

Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.[16]

Or in other words, we rejected the truth when it was revealed to us. 

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.[17]

Do you believe the lie of naturalism, the lie of evolution?

Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, made the following statement:

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.[18]

King David of ancient Israel wrote, 

The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shews His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech and night unto night shews knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.[19]

In other words, God speaks through His creation to every man. The creation speaks of the glory of God. We are all without excuse, because all creation cries aloud of God’s existence.

The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It was written from before the time of Moses, when the first five books of the Bible were edited and written down. Nevertheless, we find a similar commentary: 

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knows not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.[20]

In the study of the stars, of nature, and of life; we should be brought to the realization that the only logical conclusion for it all is a loving Creator-God. But why has man fallen away from the truth? Paul goes on in his letter to the Romans to explain why: 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.[21]

Sounds like the theory of evolution, the new creation myth for modern man. Today’s modern science has 

changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.[22]

And what about you, have you accepted the lies of modern science that negate the Creator God? The Proverbs tell us, 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.[23]

Are you being foolish or wise? Will Jesus’ own warning come to pass? Is our Christian love waxing cold because of the abundance of iniquity in today’s society? Is the abundance of our material blessing choking out God’s Word in our lives so that we become unfruitful? When Jesus asked His disciples the following question, was He being rhetorical or prophetic, or both? 

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?[24]

Jesus’ question reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote on the death of God in his story The Madman, which Dr. Ravi Zacharias uses often in his discourses:

"Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed Him - you and I. All of us are His murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?”[25]

Nietzsche seems to have known that the rejection of God would cause mankind to fall into an endless abyss of hopelessness. Is this not what we see in the world today? Are we not plunging continually? Jesus said the love of many would wax cold as a result of the increase in iniquity in the last days. Has it not become colder? It certainly seems like in our lifetime that it’s become a bit colder even with all the talk of global warming! Is not night continually closing in on us? We have chosen darkness rather than light, because our deeds are evil.[26] We have rejected the love and light of God. We have killed Him and have embraced the darkness. That darkness that promised us liberty was itself the servant of corruption and now we are in bondage to it.[27] We cannot escape on our own.

But there is an escape. God has made a way of escape. Turn around and call out to the Father in Jesus' name and He will hear you. He promises that if we confess and forsake the way of darkness, He will have mercy upon us.[28] Jesus said, 

I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.[29]

Are you seeking the truth? Then come to the light, the light of Christ, the true light and He will set you free! As Jesus said,

If ye continue in my words, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[30]

But He warned,

If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.[31]

In other words, if you think you have the light already and don’t need Jesus, then you’re really in darkness. Like Paul also said,

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, Who is the image of God, should shine unto them.[32]

Have you been blinded by the god of this world, or has the glorious light of Christ opened your heart and mind to God’s truths? Taste and see that the Lord is good.[33] Let your own heart be the test-tube to see if Christ is real. The future is in our hands. Will He find faith in you? The answer is up to you! In the next paragraphs, I have included various books and YouTube links of the authors on the topic of evolution/creation for those who want to look more deeply at the topic.

James Perloff’s Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism has lots of good information and is a good starting point. If you read nothing else, Perloff’s book is sufficient.[34] Dr. Henry Morris’ The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict is a historical study but gives you a better understanding of the long conflict between those who believe in a Creator and those who don’t.[35] In Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils Marvin L. Lubenow does an interesting study of the human fossil record and finds the results confirm the creationist’s viewpoint: there are no intermediate fossils.[36]

Dr. Gary Bates presents a thorough examination of the Extra-terrestrial theory in his best-selling Amazon creationist book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.[37] If you think aliens may have seeded the first life on our planet you need to read his book. Ken Ham’s classic The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years will help you understand why the evolution/millions of years is such an important philosophical issue.[38] Dave A. Schoch’s The Assunptions Behind the Theory of Evolution:The Modern Theory of Evolution Isn’t Dead – Because it was Never Really Alive! will further your understanding of the assumptions that evolutionists believe off-hand and why they are unfound scientifically and logically.[39]

Bill Cooper’s After the Flood is historical look at the ancient Eurpoean geneologies and how they confirm the Biblical data.[40] In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Dr. Michael Denton, not a creationist, gives a critical look at the theory of evolution, explaining why the theory is no longer credible.[41] Editor John Ashton has collected 50 articles from Doctors of Science where each one offers his reason for believing In Six Days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation. My older son read Aston’s collection when having doubts about creation and said the essays persuaded him that creation was indeed the more scientific and logical choice.[42] Brian Young’s Doubts about Creation? Not After This! has some interesting tid-bits not found in any of the other books mentioned. He touches on the Nephelim of Genesis and the Book of Enoch.[43]

Here’s a simple little book that even your kids will understand, Joyce Swanson’s Exploding the Big Bang: Could a box evolve? If simple things can’t and don’t evolve, why should we expect complicated things to do so?[44] Why do we find Flood legends throughout the various civilization of the world? Why are the stories so similar? Is it because they result from one common event? Charles Martin looks at these question in his book The Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event.[45] In Dinosaurs or Dragons? Creation or Evolution? Darek Isaacs researches the evidence of dragons in history trying to decide if the dragons were in fact dinosaurs. He comes to a surprising conclusion.[46]

Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial exposes the irrational position of the evolutionists. While on sabbatical in England, Berkeley University Professor Johnson became interested in the Darwinian question and took a legal look at the arguments and found them extremely lacking.[47] Dr. Carl Werner, using history and simple science, shows the weaknesses and faults of the evolution theory. His book Evolution: The Great Experiment is well illustrated and easily understood by youth and adults alike.[48]

Michael Oard’s Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to Their Secrets looks at the woolly mammoths and the ice age from a Biblical perspective, and shows the Biblical view is a better explanation than evolution’s millions-of-years.[49] Dr. John Morris’ book The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth-Past, Present and Future will help you understand how the evolutionists come up with millions-of-years. It will also introduce you to the scientific data that supports the idea of a recent creation.[50]

Those are a few of the books I’ve read on the evolution/creation debate. If you haven’t investigated the topic thoroughly, please get a hold of some of these books and read. You may be surprised at how much good scientific information and reasoning there is that refutes the evolutionary concept.

Footnotes:

[1] http://logosresourcepages.org/History/quotes.htm
[2] 2Peter 3:1
[3] 2Peter 3:3-4
[4] 2Peter 3:5-6
[5] Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, 1981, pg. 46-47.
[6] Stephen Jay Gould, “The Great Scablands Debate,” Natural History, Vol. 87:7 (Aug.Sep 1978) pg.12&14.
[7] http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html
[8] http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
[9] 2 Peter 3:7
[10] Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19. http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-23a.htm
[11] Psalm 11:3
[12] http://gentleislam.com/love/pages/einstein.htm
[13] Hosea 8:7
[14] John 5:46-47
[15] 2Thessalonians 2:1-3
[16] 2Thessalonians 2:10
[17] 2Thessalonians 2:11
[18] Romans 1:20
[19] Psalm 19:1-3
[20] Job 12:7-10
[21] Romans 1:21-23
[22] Romans 1:25
[23] Proverbs 1:7
[24] Luke 18:8
[25] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Madman, 1882. http://www.historyguide.org/europe/madman.html
[26] John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
[27] 2Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the sevants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
[28] Proverbs 28:13 He that covereth his sin shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
[29] John 8:12
[30] John 8:31-32
[31] Matthew 6:23
[32] 2Corinthians 4;4
[33] Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that truseth in him.
[34] James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, Maine, 1973. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWthzqE_h0
http://jamesperloff.com/why-the-creation-evolution-debate-matters/
[35] Dr. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict, Master Books, Arizona, 1989. http://creationtoday.org/product/the-long-war-against-god/
[36] Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker Books, Michigan, 1992. http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/bones-of-contention-revised-and-updated-edition/142791
[37] Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Master Books, Arizona, 2004. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jjhkf_e4pM
[38] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Master Books, Arizona, 1987. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKF2MxPlJ28
[39] Dave A. Schoch, The Assunptions Behind the Theory of Evolution:The Modern Theory of Evolution Isn’t Dead – Because it was Never Really Alive!, Author House, Indiana, 2008. http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1249087.Dave_A_Schoch
[40] Bill Cooper, After the Flood, Middlesex, England, 1995.
http://www.ezekielwatch.com/portals/69/resources/aftertheflood.pdf
[41] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Great Britain, 1985.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/pdf/korthof18.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Nh3RjZQiI
[42] John Ashton, Editor; In Six Days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation; Master Books; Arizona, USA; 2001.
http://api.ning.com/files/kvOHl9cTrw7nNm9triMxsw6T5A7r3Q0S7e2RPDerPNa0GRvO96ilNq6QDhf*A4jVWiDDrGp2n71bBZIeXO9pHKbQ1oPST-47/InSixDaysLO.pdf
[43] Brian Young; Doubts about Creation? Not After This!; Creation Instruction Publishing; Oregon, USA; 2008. http://creationtoday.org/product/doubts-about-creation-not-after-this/
[44] Joyce C. Swanson; Exploding the Big Bang: Could a box evolve?; Masterpiece Creations; South Dakota, USA; 1998. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/reviews/exploding-the-big-bang-joyce-c-swanson/1003244693?ean=9780966491630#reviews-header
[45] Charles Martin; The Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event; Master Books, Arizona, USA; 2009. http://creationtoday.org/product/flood-legends-global-clues-of-a-common-event/
[46] Darek Isaacs; Dinosaurs or Dragons? Creation or Evolution?; Bridge Logos; Florida, USA; 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rho47Mey0Ww
[47] Philip Johnson; Darwin on Trial; Regnery Gateway Publishing Co; 1991.
http://www.maxddl.org/Creation/Darwin%20On%20Trial.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
[48] Dr. Carl Werner; Evolution: The Great Experiment; New Leaf Press; Arizona, USA; 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w
http://thegrandexperiment.com/
[49] Michael Oard; Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to Their Secrets; Master Books, Arizona, USA; 2004.
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/frozen-in-time/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxzXNQbQpeM
[50] Dr. John Morris, The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth-Past, Present and Future, Master Books, Arizona, USA; 1994. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VCu9aN2tE4

Read More

Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything

A compilation:
Link

Download Audio (9MB)

The statement is simple, yet profound: Jesus + Nothing = Everything.

Stop and think about that. Chew on it. Say it to yourself with unction: “Jesus plus nothing equals everything.” The statement comes from Tullian Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham and pastor at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. It was the title of a sermon series he delivered on Paul’s letter to the Colossians, reminding us that Jesus Christ is supreme over all things. Consider Paul’s words in Colossians 1 (NKJV):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.—Colossians 1:15–23

Don’t you love that? Paul helps us see the all-sufficiency and superiority of Jesus Christ, the fullness of His preeminence and beauty, so that we would be zealous to turn from our idols and human ideals and turn to Him alone for our freedom and grace that we so desperately long for.

It’s not “Jesus + gifts” or “Jesus + blessings” or “Jesus + job” or “Jesus + family” or“Jesus + religion.” It’s “Jesus + nothing = everything.” Yes, for the believer, He really is everything; He really is enough. And I pray that for you today, reader. That Jesus would be more than enough, His grace would be more than sufficient, and that no matter what circumstances life brings us—good or bad—we would be able to confess, along with Job, “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”1— Chris Poblete2

*

I think most of us begin our Christian journey with this simple truth.

I’m broken. I need Jesus. The end.

However, as we launch out on this new journey, it doesn’t take long before we begin to hear this growing and incessant whisper that says, “Try harder, do more.” Sing more. Memorize more. Journal more. Preach more. Pray more. Evangelize more. Serve more.

This approach can look quite spiritual to those around us; however, it’s often rooted in an inner conviction that our worth as a Christian is dependent upon our ability to outperform those around us. Behind this spiritual façade is a fragile and insecure heart desperately attempting to get God to love us more.

The cross isn’t something we start with and then move on from. The cross isn’t just the starting line of our faith; it’s the centerpiece. Grace isn’t something we need just for salvation; it’s like air for the believer.

So today when you hear that whisper in your head that says, “Try harder, do more,” go back to this: I’m broken. I need Jesus. The end.—Pete Wilson3

*

Through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, God forgives our sins. They have been imputed to Christ, meaning they became His and are no longer ours. At the same time, Jesus’ righteousness has been imputed to those who receive Him and accept His gift of salvation, so God no longer sees us as sinners worthy of punishment, but rather as righteous in His sight. Our “legal” guilt and condemnation are removed, and the separation between God and us is no longer there.

The word justify used in the New Testament is the Greek word dikaioo. One of its definitions is to declare or pronounce someone to be righteous. Our justification means that God declares us righteous, or declares us no longer guilty and condemned. This doesn’t mean that we who have received His gift of salvation are now sinless, as we are all still sinners, but it means that “legally” we are seen by God as righteous. As our sins were imputed to Jesus, and thus are seen as His, so is His righteousness imputed to us, and His righteousness is seen by God as ours.

All of this is God’s work, not our own. There is nothing we could do or achieve to deserve this forgiveness and righteousness. It’s a gift from God. In His love He made the way for us to be righteous in His sight—not by our works or good deeds, but by His grace, mercy, and love. It’s a gift of love, costly on God’s side, free on ours.4

Scripture makes it clear that people are not saved by being good or doing good works or keeping the laws of Moses—or anything we do ourselves. Salvation, which results in justification, depends solely on God and His plan. All we have to do is believe that God has made it available through Jesus, and accept it by faith.5

A beautiful feature of justification is that, as Christians, we no longer need to feel anxiety regarding our standing with God. Though we still sin, our status of having the righteousness of Christ does not change. We no longer need to question whether we’ve done enough or are close enough to God to merit salvation. God has done it all, and through Jesus’ death and resurrection we are and will always be seen as righteous by God.

The love and sacrifice of God, through Jesus’ death on the cross, has resulted in our justification before God. It has removed our separation and has reconciled us with Him. What a precious and valuable gift has been offered by the God of love to humanity! “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”6—Peter Amsterdam

*

When it comes to drawing near to God and pleasing him, legalism insists that obedience precedes acceptance—that it’s all up to us. But the fresh breeze of gospel freedom announces that acceptance precedes obedience—that once we’re already approved and already accepted by God in Christ, we can freely follow God’s lead and grow in doing his will out of genuine gratitude for his amazing grace and without any fear of judgment or condemnation when we fail.—Tullian Tchividjian7

Published on Anchor March 2016. Read by Jason Lawrence.

1 Job 1:21.
2 http://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2011/05/25/jesus-nothing-everything.
3 http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-blogs/173995-the-incessant-whisper.html.
4 See Ephesians 2:8–9.
5 See Romans 10:9–10 and Galatians 2:16.
6 Romans 5:1 ESV.
7 Tullian Tchividjian, Jesus + Nothing = Everything (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2011).

Read More

Clinton on Abortion

Read More

Are the Major World Powers Blundering Toward War?

By Michael T. Klare, The Nation, March 3, 2016:

Whether or not we have slid into a “new Cold War,” as claimed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at the Munich Security Conference on February 13, we certainly have entered a period of escalating provocations, with China, Russia, the United States, and other major powers testing one another’s resolve through a series of military feints.

 

While usually contained below the level of armed combat, these actions–deployment of bombers or warships in or near a rival’s territory, construction of new military bases in menacing locations, aggressive military maneuvers, and so on–naturally invite countermeasures of an increasingly belligerent sort and so increase the risk of war.

These provocations are occurring on multiple fronts simultaneously. In Asia, the United States, China, Japan, and other powers are engaged in an escalating contest of wills over control of disputed islands in both the East and South China seas. In Europe, Russia is seeking to extend its sway over eastern Ukraine, while the United States and its NATO allies are bolstering their forces on Russia’s periphery. In the Middle East, numerous countries, including the United States, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, are jockeying for geopolitical advantage amid the bloody ruins of Syria.

Each of these countries has its own reasons for conducting such activities. China, a rising power, seeks to reclaim its historic status as the regional hegemon–which involves testing America’s determination to retain its status as the current hegemon. Russia, a former superpower, seeks to reverse the encroachment of Western powers on its periphery and restore its sway over areas once incorporated into the Soviet Union–a drive that inevitably entails clashes with NATO and its new members in Eastern Europe. The United States, still the world’s sole superpower but weakened by the bruising wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeks to repel any further challenges to its global paramountcy. Washington’s dilemma is further complicated by the 2016 presidential election, with all the Republican candidates and Democrat Hillary Clinton calling on President Obama to act more assertively in addressing these challenges. While none of these actors, at home or abroad, wish to provoke an actual shooting war, all seek to demonstrate “resolve” and “toughness” (words we’re hearing a lot in the campaign) by engaging in military actions short of war.

This jousting for political and psychological advantage takes various forms. In the East China Sea, China has declared an “air defense identification zone” (ADIZ) over a group of uninhabited islands (called the Diaoyu by China and the Senkaku by Japan) and threatened military action against planes that enter the area without identifying themselves to Chinese air-control authorities. In response, the United States has sent nuclear-capable B-52 bombers into the ADIZ without informing Chinese authorities. Chinese and Japanese warships also engage in near-daily show-of-force encounters–coming close to each other and readying (though not, as yet, firing) their guns–in the waters surrounding the islands.

In the South China Sea, the Chinese have built military installations (including airstrips, radar facilities, and surface-to-air missile batteries) on artificial islands they created by piling sand on low-lying atolls; in response, the United States has deployed missile-armed destroyers in close proximity to the Chinese-occupied islands. As part of its “pivot to the Pacific,” moreover, the Obama administration has established a new Marine Corps base in northern Australia and beefed up its military ties with the Philippines, going so far as to negotiate the US Navy’s return to the giant base at Subic Bay, from which it was ejected in 1992 due to widespread public opposition there.

In Europe, NATO and Russian combat planes have been playing a cat-and-mouse game in international airspace ever since the onset of the Ukrainian crisis. Typically, Russian bombers and fighter planes fly westward toward the airspace of one of the NATO powers, prompting them to scramble interceptor aircraft and chase the Russians planes off–so far without shots being fired. (Turkey, also a NATO member, did shoot down a Russian plane when it allegedly strayed into Turkish airspace on November 24.) Similar moves are reportedly occurring at sea. In October 2014, an unidentified submarine, believed to be Russian, entered Sweden’s territorial waters, prompting the largest mobilization by the Swedish Navy since the end of the Cold War.

Both Russia and NATO are also enhancing their capacity to conduct military operations in Ukraine and the surrounding areas–moves designed to send a signal as much as to prepare for actual combat. Russia, for example, has steadily bolstered its military capabilities in areas facing Ukraine. In a March 2015 exercise, the Russians deployed nuclear-capable Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers in Crimea and Iskander ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania. NATO, for its part, has been strengthening the military capabilities of Ukraine and the Baltic states–all once part of the USSR–and has been holding elaborate military exercises near Russian territory. Last June, for example, NATO forces conducted the “BALTOPS 2015” naval exercise in the Baltic Sea region, featuring amphibious operations and the use of B-52 bombers to drop antiship mines. According to Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders, the exercise was intended both to reassure NATO members in Eastern Europe and to send “a warning to President Putin.”

This conspicuous parading of military capabilities has escalated to new levels in recent weeks, with decisions by NATO and the United States to further expand their combat capabilities in Eastern Europe. On February 2, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that the Obama administration would quadruple spending on such efforts in the coming fiscal year, raising allocations for its so-called European Reassurance Initiative from $789 million in 2016 to $3.4 billion in 2017. This increase, he said, “will fund a lot of things: more rotational US forces in Europe, more training and exercising with our allies, more pre-position and war-fighting gear and infrastructure improvements to support all this.” A similar initiative was announced by the NATO powers at a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels on February 10. In consonance with the US plan, the NATO initiative will involve the rotation of combat forces into Central and Eastern Europe to conduct military exercises and prepare for possible combat there.

Determined to show that it will not be intimidated by any of these moves, Russia’s defense ministry announced a “snap” military exercise on February 8, including ordering troops in its central and southern military districts–an area that includes a stretch of border facing the separatist regions in eastern Ukraine–to full combat readiness. Some analysts viewed this action as preparation for possible intervention in Ukraine if rebel forces there launch a new offensive in the spring; others see it as a warning to Turkey, should the Turks take further action against Russian forces in Syria (like the aircraft incident on November 24).

Where all of this will lead is anyone’s guess. At this point, all that can be said with any confidence is that the frequency and aggressiveness of these provocations is increasing, with each party believing it necessary to respond to its rival’s actions with countermeasures of even greater vigor and boldness. History suggests that such behavior tends to create an atmosphere of ever-increasing tension and suspicion, where one provocation too many can lead to crisis, panic, miscalculation, and a resort to arms–exactly the scenario that led to the outbreak of World War I just over 100 years ago.

If this outcome is to be avoided, all parties involved should take steps to lower the risk of inadvertent escalation. For example, the Obama administration should rethink its decisions to bolster US combat capabilities on the periphery of Russia, to send B-52s into Chinese-claimed airspace, and to deploy warships in Chinese-claimed waters. But the other parties need to take reciprocal actions as well. Secretary of State Kerry should build on the example set by the Syrian cease-fire and engage in intensive dialogue with his Russian and Chinese counterparts to reduce tensions elsewhere. Disagreements will persist on many issues, but these need not be accompanied by the kind of muscle-flexing whose only outcome can be a more precarious and dangerous world.

Read More

Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, March 5, 2016:

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ­authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

Clinton’s publicly released correspondence also includes classified emails written by about 300 other people inside and outside the government, the analysis by The Post found. The senders included longtime diplomats, top administration officials and foreigners who held no U.S. security clearance.

In those cases, Clinton was typically not among the initial recipients of the classified emails, which were included in back-and-forth exchanges between lower-level diplomats and other officials and arrived in her inbox only after they were forwarded to her by a close aide.

The Post analysis is based on an examination of the 2,093 chains of Clinton’s email correspondence that the State Department decided contained classified information. The agency released 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process but blocked the sensitive information from public view. The Post identified the author of each email that contained such redactions.

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels–or some combination of the two.

The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

The handling of those emails has drawn particular criticism from Republican lawmakers and officials in the intelligence community, who have argued that Clinton’s use of a private server exposed some of the government’s most closely guarded secrets to hacking or other potential breaches.

Clinton has struggled to fend off the email controversy since it was revealed last year that she used the private server. Republican presidential candidates have vowed to make an issue out of her handling of classified information, with front-runner Donald Trump saying last week: “What she did is a criminal act. If she’s allowed to run, I would be very, very surprised.”

A key question facing Clinton is whether any of the emails she authored–or any of the correspondence stored on her private server–contained information that was classified at the time it was sent.

When her use of a private system was first revealed, she told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” At other points, she has said that none of the emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them–a point she reiterated Friday in a CNBC interview.

But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent–even if it was not labeled.

The State Department has sidestepped the question.

Security experts say Clinton’s private server added risk because it functioned beyond typical government safeguards. That would have been the case not only while she was in office but also for two years after she stepped down, when the emails remained in the server’s memory.

Read More

Libya: How Hillary Clinton Destroyed a Country

By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, March 3, 2016:

“We came, we saw, he died,” exclaimed an ebullient Hillary Clinton, as she exulted over the horrific death of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. Visiting Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the American Secretary of State was eager to take credit for the “liberation” of yet another Muslim country by Western powers acting in concert. 

An extensive and quite revealing New York Times investigation reports on “a ‘ticktock’ that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s ‘leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.’ The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: ‘HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,’ it read.”

These days, however, out on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton is not quite so eager to take ownership of what can only be characterized as an unmitigated disaster, a case history dramatizing the perils of “liberal” interventionism from inception to bloody denouement.

Mrs. Clinton was easily won over by the Libyan rebels who presented a utopian view of what the post-revolutionary era would look like: there would be free elections, a free media, women would be able to “do it all,” and everyone would get a pony. They “‘said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,’ said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. ‘They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.’”

Confirmation bias in a writer or reporter is fatal, but only to his/her own career: in a Secretary of State it is a death sentence for thousands. And that’s exactly how it turned out in Hillary’s case.

To this day, Clinton avers that “it’s too soon to tell” whether the Libya intervention qualifies as an unmitigated failure–even in the face of marauding militias, no less than two self-declared governments, the horrific death of an American ambassador at the hands of the very militias we empowered, and the incursion of the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other terrorist outfits. She refused to be interviewed for the Times article.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden opposed regime change, Clinton took the side of the younger “back-benchers,” as the Times calls them, who wanted to go in there and “get on the right side of history.” The misnamed “Arab Spring” was in full bloom, and the media was pushing the idea that this was a great awakening of “democracy.”

Hillary, who had hesitated at first to jump on the bandwagon during the Egyptian events, made up for lost time in Libya. She “pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed,” the Times reports. Those arms would be used to attack a CIA outpost in Benghazi, where Ambassador Stevens would fall at the hands of these very militiamen.

While initially the US was purportedly acting only to prevent civilian deaths at the hands of Gaddafi–a “humanitarian disaster” that turned out to be nothing but media-driven war propaganda–Hillary and her staff soon fell down the slippery slope to actively aiding the rebels. The ‘responsibility to protect” soon became another regime change operation, as in Iraq.

“‘We don’t want another war,’ she told [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. ‘I take your point about not seeking another war,’ she recalled him responding. ‘But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.’”

The French were pushing particularly hard for a more muscular Western response, and in a meeting with French and British officials the frogs played their “trump card,” as the Times describes it. Although the meeting was convened to decide whether to act, Clinton was informed that “French fighter jets were already in the air”–but, added the French official, “this is a collective decision and I will recall them if you want me to.”

This certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “leading from behind” that administration officials used to describe our role. Clinton was supposedly “irritated,” but she capitulated readily enough.

“‘I’m not going to be the one to recall the planes and create the massacre in Benghazi,’ she grumbled to an aide. And the bombing began.”

The Libyan leader, who had ruled his country for more than 40 years, knew what the outcome would be. His regime, “he railed to anyone who would listen,” was Libya’s sole defense against Islamist crazies who would overrun the country if not for him. But no one in the West was listening.

Clinton was jazzed that this was supposedly a model of “multilateralism,” with the Arab League as well as the Europeans in on the deal. But that proved to be the original mission’s undoing as Qatar–a little pesthole of an oil-rich country long dependent on the US military for its existence–starting funneling weapons to Islamist militias with dubious credentials. This is how we were pressured into going from “humanitarian intervention” to regime change. If we didn’t arm the “good” militias, Clinton argued, the bad ones being empowered by Qatar would prevail. Yet military officials were not convinced:

“NATO’s supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis, had told Congress of “flickers” of Al Qaeda within the opposition. Mr. [Tom] Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, argued that the administration could not ensure that weapons intended for ‘the so-called good guys,’ as one State Department official put it, did not fall into the hands of Islamist extremists.”

As the Times makes all too clear, Clinton has a bias in favor of action, as well as relying on what can only be called a woman’s intuition. Her aides, the Times says, “described her as feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.” Another word for this is recklessness.

Clinton eventually succeeded in persuading President Obama, who signed a presidential finding authorizing a covert action to overthrow Gaddafi. US weapons poured into the country. The militias were unleashed, while Clinton hailed the elections that were staged shortly after the “liberation.” Yet as it turned out the elected officials had no real power: the guns were in the hands of the militias, who extorted government officials for more weapons in return for not being killed. The country went to pieces rather quickly, but our Secretary of State and would-be President had already moved on: she was too busy plotting regime change in Syria to be bothered with the unraveling of Libya.

Clinton wanted to make a deal with the Qataris that we would arm their favored radical Islamists in Syria if they would lay off aiding al-Qaeda-type crazies in Libya. But when the President vetoed her Syrian regime change plan, the proposed deal was off–and Libya continued to deteriorate into the Mad Max scenario we see today.

She quit the State Department after losing the internal debate over Syria, and is now campaigning for the highest office in the land on a platform of “love and kindness.”

Not that there’s much “love and kindness” in the country she destroyed almost single-handedly.

This Times story dropped like a stone: although normally one would expect such a damning account of a presidential candidate’s tenure as Secretary of State to be grist for the media mill, there wasn’t so much as a peep about it from anywhere else–including from the Republican candidates, never mind from Bernie Sanders.

A woman who could very well occupy the highest office in the land, with near total control of US foreign policy, basically committed an entire nation to perdition. Where’s the outrage? The liberal media, which is clearly rooting for Hillary, isn’t about to point to this horrific example of incompetence and hubris.

Read More