Move out of Mom and Dad's house already

http://www.unz.com/isteve/trump-on-syria-withdrawal-we-give-israel-billions-of-dollars-theyll-be-ok/

Indyk doesn't really paint Israel in a very flattering light. The thirty year old entitled bratty little princess who still demands an allowance from Mom and Dad. I mean seriously, why DO we give Israel so much money? That isn't "dangerous" that's common sense.

Here's my solution. Both Israel and America would be a lot happier and safer if we stopped sending them our money and instead sent them our Jews.

Browngeld

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487193/Central-American-migrants-march-consulate-Tijuana-demands-Trump-administration.html

'We thought they would let us in' Caravan migrants march to the US consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, demanding Trump's administration to either let them in the US or pay them $50,000 each to go home

• Two groups of migrants wrote letters to the consulate, giving 72 hours to reply 

• One of the groups was made up of about 100 migrants, the other one of about 50 

• Their list of demands included speeding up the asylum application process 

• They also asked the US to remove Honduran President Hernandez from office

The brazen-ness of them!  They demand an answer from the US consulate!  They demand to be let in, or paid $50,000 each to go back home!

Look, if you're still virtue signaling about the migrants, or immigration, or anyone who wants to "work hard" can be an American regardless of the fact that he's a Honduran or whatever else he actually is, then you need to wake up and pull your head out of the sand.  These "migrants"—and honestly, almost all of the immigrants we've had since Ellis Island or before—are not Americans and never will be, and frankly, most of them don't even want to be.  They are the new Huns, the new Goths, the new Viking hordes.  They aren't trying to "become Americans."  They're trying to colonize America, conquer America, and in the meantime, demand tribute from Americans.  When Theodosius paid Hun-geld, the amount demanded was doubled.  When Ethelred the Unready paid Dane-geld, he was overthrown and replaced; England became a mere tributary to the North Sea empire of Danish Cnut the Great.  Even when the English reasserted themselves, that only lasted for a generation or two before French speaking Danes who now used the label Norman to describe themselves took over the country permanently.

Speaking of the Vikings, our ancestors understood the score.  Rudyard Kipling said, for instance:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away." 

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then  you'll get rid of the Dane! 

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away." 

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane. 

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: -- 

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Replace Dane in every instance it shows up with black, brown or especially Jew-geld, and you'll see the situation that America is in, and has been for a number of decades, quite frankly.

Agency vs God's omnipotence

Some selected quotes from Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist.  I'd venture to say that most Latter-day Saints have a better understanding of the theological intricacies involved than many evangelical Christians, but this is still pretty good stuff, worth thinking about.  He's not a member of our faith, but this material can easily be adapted into LDS doctrine, because it is already part of LDS doctrine, just not expressed in the typical LDS "style guide" manner.  We understand better than most because of our expanded knowledge of the Gospel that comes from additional revelation beyond that contained in the Bible, about the role of agency, and the fact that God does not often intervene in everything in our lives, or rather, that he doesn't intervene in the manner that we may want him to.  Look at Alma's comments to Amulek while the people of Ammonihah were murdering the faithful women and children among them for a great example from our Scriptures, that if other Christian religions had access to, much of the doubt around this particular question would be resolved.

That said; I dunno.  Maybe not.  The Bible contains the story of Job after all, and people still don't get it.

Doubts about the existence of God, particularly the existence of a good and loving God, often stem from great emotional pain. While doubts are naturally bound to occur to any rational individual in moments of somber reflection, it is particularly hard to imagine that a loving God who loves us would choose to intentionally inflict pain upon us, especially if He is all-powerful. When one surveys the long list of horrors that have engulfed countless men, women and children throughout the course of history, the vast majority of them innocent and undeserving of such evil fates, one finds it easy to sympathize with the individual who concludes that God, if He exists and is paying attention to humanity, must be some sort of divine sadist. 

Because doubts are reasonable, normal and inevitable, they should never be brushed aside, belittled or answered with a glib phrase, for not only does decency demand that they receive a sensitive hearing, but also because they can have powerful ramifications that resonate long after the doubter himself has had them resolved one way or another. Randal Keynes, a descendant and biographer of Charles Darwin, asserts that it was the death of Darwin's beloved daughter Annie, at the age of ten after a long illness that convicted the great evolutionist of his dangerous idea that neither divine intervention nor morality had anything to do with the operation of the natural laws. And if this tragic loss was not the only element involved in Darwin's transition from an accomplished student of theology to the inventor of what today is the primary driving force behind the anti-theist New Atheism, it is widely considered to have been the final step that pushed him over the edge. 

One would not be human if one could not sympathize with Darwin's anguished rejection of the notion that there was any justice or even a silver lining to be found in the death of his beautiful little girl. And perhaps there was some consolation, if any consolation was to be found, in viewing his terrible loss as taking place within the context of a mechanistic universe, wherein one was not subject to the ineffable caprice of an unpredictable deity, but to the predictable operation of natural laws which one could at least hope to understand and attempt to utilize. 

But [...] it is a basic theological error to attempt to place the blame for earthly tragedies on Him. In fact, it is not only a theological error, but also a fundamental error of logic to conclude that God, even an all-powerful God, must be to blame for every evil, accident or tragedy that befalls us.

[...] 

[W]e [are] forced to draw a distinct line between capacity and action, the confusion of which is also the root of a much more serious theological error. Interestingly, this theological error is committed by Christians as readily as atheists, perhaps even more often, as they trust in God's plan for their lives instead of making use of their God-given intelligence and free will. 

There are a variety of phrases which contain the same inherent implication about a certain view of God. Many evangelical Christians often refer to “God's perfect plan” for their lives. This concept is reinforced with children's songs such as “He's got the whole world in his hands” and echoed by sports stars who compete in the assurance that their victory has been divinely secured ahead of time. It is held by American Exceptionalists who believe that God has uniquely blessed the United States of America and has authored a Manifest Destiny for it, and by Christian Zionists who see a divine hand in every violent twist and turn of the Mideast Peace Process. 

These various evangelicals have an unexpected ally in Sam Harris, who declares it to be an obvious truth that “if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all” due to the fact that 20 percent of all known pregnancies miscarry, and then asserts that those who believe in God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence in light of “the relentless destruction of innocent human beings that we witness in the world each day.”
What the evangelical and the atheist have in common here is a belief that because God is omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate, he is somehow responsible for these events, although Harris would qualify that with the necessary “if he exists”. And in fairness, it must be pointed out that when Harris cites Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Asian tsunami as God's failure to protect humanity, he is really doing rather better than the “perfect plan” evangelical who would assert that these tragedies were sent by God for some ineffable higher purpose intended to benefit humanity. 

This belief in an all-acting God, who not only guides the grand course of events but actually micromanages them, is the result of the same confusion between capacity and action that we saw in the Contradiction of Divine Characteristics. When God asserts that He cares about the sparrows and knows when one falls from its branch, this is very different from an assertion that He only happens to know about it because He personally struck the sparrow down. An omniscient God knows the numbers of hairs on your head and an omnipotent God is capable of changing their color, but it requires an active Master Puppeteer to personally pluck them, one by one, from your balding head, in the desired order.

Because we understand that God does not interfere with our agency, and that He allows trials to befall us (which is very different than actively causing those trials to befall us) this particular fallacy is one that Latter-day Saints should be more resistant to than other Christians, but I find that that's not necessary true.

I particularly like the part near the beginning, which is often one of my personal weaknesses: "Because doubts are reasonable, normal and inevitable, they should never be brushed aside, belittled or answered with a glib phrase, for not only does decency demand that they receive a sensitive hearing, but also because they can have powerful ramifications that resonate long after the doubter himself has had them resolved one way or another."  I tend to have insufficient empathy to have much patience for people who struggle with things that to me seem to be self-evident, but of course, that's a personal failing of my own, and I need to be better at it.

The Lord's position on nationalism

Fascinating stuff.  I hadn't seen this in a long time (not since I took seminary in the late 80s, I'd bet) so it wasn't on my radar until someone else of another faith pointed it out to me.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/31/bible-undermined-concept-global-empires-favor-nation-states/

Here's the passage from the scriptures.  I skipped some verses that talk about the giants that possessed the land beforehand, and stuff like that.  From Deuteronomy 2.  Think about how this parallels the giving of the Land of Promise to the Americans. 

And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: 

Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. 

Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink. 

And the Lord said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession. 

And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. 

Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. 

This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee. 

And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 

Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left. 

Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet; 

(As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the Lord our God giveth us.
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. 

And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 

Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 

And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: 

Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. 

From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the Lord our God delivered all unto us: 

Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the Lord our God forbad us.