• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Harry Reid Ignores Obama’s Pleas to Pass (what Obama calls his) Jobs Bill.

Reid resists McConnell’s move

to take up the president’s jobs bill

 

posted  by Tina Korbe   at HotAir

“In Dallas today, the president blasted Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) for the House Majority Leader’s rejection of an all-or-nothing approach to the American Jobs Act, repeatedly calling on Cantor to “come down” to Dallas to explain why he opposes the bill and urging the House to “at least put this jobs bill up for a vote.”

Perhaps he should have saved his censure for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The Senate Majority Leader today refused to allow Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the president’s jobs bill up for a vote.

The way Reid did it was a little wonky. McConnell planned to add the AJA as an amendment to the China currency bill currently under consideration in the Senate. “I wanted to disabuse [Obama] of the notion that somehow we’re unwilling to vote on his proposal,” McConnell said. But Reid “filled the tree,” taking advantage of his right of first recognition and adding so many amendments to the bill that McConnell was unable to tack the AJA to it, too. Reid then even went so far as to accuse McConnell of “obstruction” and engaging in “a political stunt.”

But, however he did it, the message Reid sent was loud and clear: He will do whatever it takes to delay a vote on the AJA, perhaps because he knows he lacks a filibuster-proof supermajority, perhaps because he knows support for the legislation will do little for Democrats on the campaign trail.

“‘Right away’ is a relative term,” Reid said, to explain why he’s untroubled by the president’s repeated calls for immediate action.

In light of the woeful lack of support for Obama’s bill in both chambers, how long will the president maintain the pretense of urgency he’s adopted to push the passage of his bill? How long will he pretend it’s a medicine with no unintended side effects for all our economic ails? He’s pushed the class warfare line for so long that he won’t be able to retreat from it without admitting he took the wrong approach to job creation in the first place. Given this president’s track record at admitting a mistake (say, for example, the mistake he made by appointing Eric Holder as Attorney General), that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. Instead, we can expect more equivocation from Mr. Reid, more delays on the AJA and, sadly, no real solutions to the jobs crisis.”

Eric Holder Lies Again…..Claims He Had No Idea of “Fast and Furious” Plot

Is There a Special Prosecutor

In Eric Holder’s Future?

by John Hinderaker   at   PowerLine

CBS News dropped a bombshell today: leaked documents show that Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on Fast and Furious in the summer of 2010. Why is that a bombshell? Because Holder testified before a Congressional committee that he first learned about the program within a few weeks of his May 2011 testimony. The CBS account is surprisingly aggressive–like real reporting:

New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious. …

the Justice Department has publicly tried to distance itself. But the new documents leave no doubt that high level Justice officials knew guns were being “walked.”

This is the relevant portion of a memorandum from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center to Holder dated July 5, 2010:

There are additional memos at the linked CBS site as well. I assume Holder would say that he forgot the references to Fast and Furious in emails and memos that he received in 2010. I also assume he was under oath when he testified before the Congressional committee. Some are calling for a special prosecutor to look into DOJ’s conduct in connection with Fast and Furious and similar programs. At a minimum, Justice needs to stop stonewalling Congress and fully produce the records that have been requested.

UPDATE: The CBS News story has been updated to include Holder’s explanation: “[T]onight they tell CBS News, Holder misunderstood that question from the committee – he did know about Fast and Furious – just not the details.” Which seems awfully lame, since Holder testified: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” “Heard about for the first time” is a strange way to say he’d known about the program for a year, but had only recently been briefed on the details.

Rush Limbaugh Exposes Lefty Lies about Perry’s ‘Nigger’ Rock, Booing at Gay at Debate

……..”I think Perry, back when this happened in the eighties, was a Democrat. It’s fascinating. I told you last week last week, two weeks ago, that I had had a revelation. For 23 years I’ve been entertaining calls from frustrated members of this audience. “Rush, why don’t the Republicans say X? Rush, why don’t the Republicans do that? Rush, how come the Republicans always do this? Why don’t they…?” I have always sat there and said, “Why are you asking me? I can’t explain it. I don’t know,” but I finally came up with as good an explanation as there is out there, and that is: They still view the mainstream media as the primary group they have to convince that they are legitimate. They still think it’s the mainstream media that they have to get their message out through, and this is evidence of what I mean.

So here you have the Washington Post with an unsupported nonstory, and here comes Herman Cain piggybacking on it trying to capitalize on it, essentially letting the mainstream media (in this case, the Washington Post) set the narrative. It’s exactly what I mean. There’s this… I don’t know if you call it a fear or just a mistaken belief that the power in media still exclusively resides in the mainstream media, and it’s those people that you have to get on your side; those people you have to use to get your message out, or what have you, and so that leads to pandering to them. Cain is doing it in this case. The Republican leadership in both the House and Senate are renowned for doing it throughout all of our lives. Even some Republican presidents have done so.

There are no on-the-record sources for this. Cain is out there saying that Perry’s rock stuff was “insensitive.” Perry and his dad tried to cover it up and Herman Cain is out there saying that Perry’s insensitive. There are no on-the-record sources in the Washington Post for this story. You remember Macaca? They got George Allen out of the presidential race, senator from Virginia, by claiming that he uttered some racial epithet or insult. You know, he called some traveling Democrat troublemaker “Macaca.” It’s a good thing the rock didn’t say “Hymietown.” Yeah, or “white interloper.”

Well, the Reverend Jackson has famously referred to New York City as “Hymietown,” and Reverend Sharpton has been on the record berating “white interlopers” in Harlem. This is insulting to everybody’s intelligence. It is part of the Democrat Party media template or playbook from 30/40 years ago. It’s a stretch and it’s a grasp. There is certainly no substance to it, and there was no reason for Herman Cain to try to piggyback this. Nobody, nobody on the record will say that they saw the word on the rock after 1983. Nobody will even say on the record that they saw it, and yet we’ve got this big story about it. I don’t remember the Washington Post turning over any rocks when Obama was running for office.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Washington Post will not even publish a photograph of the rock at Perry’s hunting spot. They say it’s a year-old photograph they claim to have seen; that even after being brushed clear of dirt, only the N and two G’s were faintly visible. So why would the word have been more visible years ago when the paint was fresher? Where are these old photos? Why won’t they post them? Wouldn’t they help support the story the Washington Post is trying to do here? Is that why they couldn’t be printed or are they just too inflammatory? Maybe the photographer is afraid for his life. This is such an obvious smear even by the Washington Post’s standards. It’s the worst kind of smear. This is McCarthyism, Charlie McCarthyism. It is an absolute joke. It’s hilarious.

They interviewed, the Washington Post interviewed more than 24 people with their rock story, and not a one of them would go on the record to disagree with Rick Perry’s timeline. The Post says they’re “afraid for their lives.” Anyway the whole thing is a setup. It’s so obviously and patently absurd, and this is all they’ve got. This is all they’ve got to defend The One. They can’t defend him. They can’t defend his economy, they can’t defend his policies, they can’t defend him personally. Nope. They gotta run out and try to personally destroy Obama’s potential opponents. We all knew this. It’s just happening, and it’s happening early and is an indication of the weakness of the Democrat Party and their State-Controlled Media position.

RUSH: Now, want to go to this Republican debate September 22nd, Orlando. Here is the gay army soldier — his name is Steven Hill — asking former Senator Rick Santorum the big question.

HILL: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job. My question is: Under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

MAN: Boo!

MAN: Boo!

RUSH: Okay, what is one or two boos? They’re booing his question. If they were going to boo him, they would have booed him earlier when he identified himself as a “gay soldier.” They were not booing a gay soldier. I know it sounded like two people. We don’t know who these people are. We don’t know anything about them. So, in addition to the Washington Post trying to make hay out of a nonexistent story involving a deteriorated rock at a hunting camp in Texas, now we’re treated to them trying to keep something alive that happened at the Republican debate September 22nd. A gay shoulder gets up and asks a question that takes, oh, I don’t know, 19 seconds, and there are a couple of people booing. Listen to this one more time and listen to this and see if you hear any boos when he identifies himself as a gay soldier.

HILL: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job. My question is…

RUSH: Stop tape! Stop tape! Stop tape! Any boos? Anybody heard any boos yet? No? No. He just identified himself as “a gay soldier,” and there are a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes supposedly in the audience, and not one boo when the soldier identifies himself as gay.

HILL: … Under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

MAN: Boo!

MAN: Boo!

RUSH: What is that, one or two people? One or two people. Now Herman Cain has joined this. Herman Cain is saying, “I should have defended that gay soldier booed during the GOP debate.” So what is it about the lead that some people cannot handle? Cain ends up being launched into the top tier as a result of his performance in this debate and now his whole demeanor changes. He’s gotta weigh in on all this stuff. He acts like he’s reached the top tier, and now he has to act like what he thinks a top-tier candidate would do. That is really misreading this. Here’s Matt DeLong, the Washington Post: “Obama Blasts Republican Candidates for Failing to Defend Gay Soldier –

“Speaking at an event hosted by a prominent gay advocacy group, President Obama on Saturday night chastised the his GOP presidential rivals for failing to speak up when some members of the audience at a debate last month booed a gay soldier.” Okay, I read that, no comment. I’m gonna read it again with comment. “Speaking at an event hosted by a prominent gay advocacy group, President Obama on Saturday night chastised the his GOP presidential rivals for failing to speak up when some members of the audience at a debate last month booed a gay soldier.” After 20 years of listening to the rantings of his Reverend Wright and failing to defend his country …

WRIGHT (screaming): Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! [snip] Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger! [snip] Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky!

CONGREGATION: (cheers)

WRIGHT: He was riiiiding dirty. [snip] In white America, US of KKKA: black men turning on black men. [snip] I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. [snip] Not God bless America, God (bleep) America! It’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people, God (bleep) America! [snip] (screaming) And now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards!

CONGREGATION: (cheers)

WRIGHT: America’s chickensssss are coming home … to roost!

RUSH: So Obama goes out and milks the gays for this boo at the Republican debate, and yet he sat in that man’s pew for 20 years.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

Andrew Breitbart, BigGovernment.com, is reporting he’s got new pictures, new photographs obtained exclusively by his website, BigGovernment.com revealing that Obama appeared with and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in March of 2007. Now, fine and dandy. The president as a candidate can march with whoever he wants. He sits in Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years while Wright is spouting utter vile hatred for this country. Obama said, (imitating Obama) “I didn’t hear it. I was there, but I didn’t hear it. Moochelle didn’t hear it, kids didn’t hear it, nobody heard it.” Everybody’s heard it except Obama.

So you have this event at the Republican debate, which has been totally misrepresented and is being lied about by the media. Two people in the audience were not booing a gay soldier; they were booing a question he asked. Obama knowingly lies about this, goes to a human rights group dinner on Saturday, which is a gay and lesbian organization, he milks them for all that they’re worth, fundraising and this, that, and the other thing, and then perpetuates the lie. And yet here he is soaking up Reverend Wright’s hatred for 20 years, marching with the New Black Panther Party in 2007, and somehow a couple of people at a Republican debate booing a question becomes all newsworthy. Of course it’s all newsworthy because Obama right now is landslidable. Obama right now is in deep doo-doo in terms of his reelection chances. Internal White House polling is disastrous. If you know who to listen to and you know how to listen to what they say, top Democrats are even admitting this. Let’s listen to a little bit more of Obama on Saturday night, the Human Rights Campaign dinner.

OBAMA: We don’t believe in a small America. We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders, one of whom could end up being the president of the United States being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them be silent since. You want to be commander-in-chief, you can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.

RUSH: Holy cow, this became the standard line. “Republicans believe in a small America,” that became a standard line at that fundraiser stump speech. And if there is anybody who believes in a small America it’s Obama. If there’s anybody who is presiding over one it’s Obama. Obama is happily presiding over an America in decline. But anyway, you see how this non-event at a Republican debate is being jacked up here into something that it wasn’t. And I have to laugh, Obama, “Start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States”? Oh, you’re the standard-bearer for that, Mr. President? You’re the guy that stands up for the men and women in uniform? You and your Democrats, you love those people, right? You know, Obama wants a big tent. Pro-life Democrats are not even allowed to speak at their conventions. He wants a big tent? He’s talking about all these people that must be involved, we’ve gotta accept all these different ways that people speak and different ways that they live and so forth. This is the most restricted bunch people, the Democrat Party, that purports to be something else I’ve ever seen. Here’s the next bite.

OBAMA: We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America, a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America that values the service of every patriot. We believe an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding, E pluribus unum, out of many one, and that includes everybody. That’s what we believe. That’s what we’re gonna be fighting for.

RUSH: Oh, listen to this. He finally comes filled with energy at this place. Again, this is at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. It’s an association of gay, lesbians, and transgender people. It was in Washington, DC, on Saturday night. So big America, tolerant America, where pro-lifers are not allowed to speak at the Democrat National convention, an equal America? This is the party that considers conservatives and Tea Party members to pose a greater threat to them than terrorism and terrorists around the world. Where’s Obama’s tolerance of rich people? Where’s Obama’s tolerance of successful people? Where is Obama’s tolerance of those who achieve great things? Where’s Obama’s tolerance of the Tea Party? Wasn’t it Obama who described and defined for us the bitter clingers? Basically you, people that cling to your guns and your religion when people like Obama get power and start taking everything away from you. Yep. The tolerant Democrats. They are the ones…….”

The above is part of a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio show yesterday.

Obama, Senator Durbin in Bank of America Heist……They Show no Shame!

“Nice Bank You Have Here…

…a shame if anything should happen to it! The Democrats took gangster government to a new level today with attacks on Bank of America by Dick Durbin and President Obama. The attacks arise out of the Durbin Amendment to Dodd-Frank, which, as we wrote here, directed the Fed to fix the fees which banks can charge for debit card transactions. The rate set by the Fed is inadequate and will take something like $14 billion out of the pockets of major banks. So a number of banks, including Bank of America, have announced that they will replace the lost revenue by charging a monthly fee for debit cards; in BoA’s case, $5. Even though this was entirely predictable (and was in fact predicted), it has enraged the Democrats.

Speaking in the Senate, Durbin encouraged customers to desert BoA and go somewhere else:

Bank of America customers, vote with your feet, get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.

It is unprecedented, as far as I can recall, for a government official like Durbin to urge customers not to do business with a particular company because he doesn’t like that company’s pricing policies. If another bank offers customers debit cards for $3 and there are no compensating advantages at BoA, it would be reasonable for a customer to shift its business elsewhere. But businesses are entitled to price their products and services however they choose. It is up to consumers to decide which company’s offer they want to accept, if any. The Democrats are such inveterate bullies that they refuse to acknowledge this simple proposition.

President Obama also attacked Bank of America:

Barack Obama blasted Bank of America’s plan to charge $5 a month for debit card purchases.

“This is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up that is ready to go,” Obama said. “This is exactly why we need somebody whose sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening. … You can stop it because if you say to the banks, ‘You don’t have some inherent right just to – you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers – are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently.’”

The President said this in an interview with ABC.

Actually, of course, BoA’s pricing is perfectly transparent–$5 a month. If you can find a better deal somewhere else, you are welcome to take it.

Obama’s ignorance of economics is impressive in its comprehensiveness. We need a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to “prevent this kind of stuff from happening.” What kind of stuff? Banks charging money for their services, like everyone else does? Banks “don’t have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit.” Of course not. It is only government that is entitled to your money, regardless of how well or poorly government serves you. But banks certainly do have an inherent right to charge prices that are set by them, not by a government agency, as long as those prices are not collusive.

2012 can’t come soon enough.”

The above article was written by John Hinderaker at PowerLine.

 

Sociopath, Kleptomaniac Michael Moore Seeks ‘Some Form of Justice’

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/03/moore_the_rich_are_out_of_control_kleptomaniacs_sociopaths.html

Ray Stevens Asks “Mr. President, Mr. President…..What are you going to do?”

Click below for the Ray Stevens’ investigation into President Obama’s plans to recover from the Obama dilemma of a vacuous presidency…..”Mr. President, Mr. President…..What are you going to do?”

http://www.raystevens.com/

Click below for a  previous  Ray Stevens production reviewing the Obama political program for America: 

“Come to the USA”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE

 

 

Dennis Prager Examines Obstacles to Becoming a Better Person

Thirteen Obstacles to Becoming a Better Person

by Dennis Prager   at dennisprager.com    and Patriot Radio,1280 AM, 11AM to 2PM, M-F in the Twin Cities

“This week, for the fourth consecutive year, I am conducting Jewish High Holiday services. Though not a rabbi, I spent 12 years studying in yeshivas and 35 years teaching and writing on Judaism. The following is a summary of the Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) sermon that I gave this past Wednesday night.

The purpose of the High Holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) is moral introspection: What kind of person am I, and what kind of person can I become? So, every year, Jews meditate on the issue of becoming a better person.

But how many of us do become better people the next year?

This question has bothered me for many years, and I have decided to finally address it. Why is it so hard to become a better person?

I have — unfortunately — come up with 13 reasons.

1. Most people don’t particularly want to be good.

The biggest obstacle to people becoming better is that you have to really want to be a good person in order to be a better person, and most people would rather be other things. People devote far more effort to being happy (not knowing that goodness leads to increased happiness), successful, smart, attractive and healthy, to cite the most prominent examples.

2. Confusion exists about what goodness is.

Goodness is about character — integrity, honesty, kindness, generosity, moral courage and the like. More than anything else, it is about how we treat other people.

Not everyone agrees.

For thousands of years, more than a few religious individuals have regarded goodness as being more about sexual behavior and religious piety than about character and the decent treatment of others. And while sexual behavior and religious piety are important, they are not as important as simply acting decently toward other human beings. That is what God wants most (see Micah 6:8, for example) and what we should want most.

At the other end of the spectrum, to modern progressives, goodness is all too often about having the correct political positions, not about character development.

3. Goodness is not about intentions.

Very few people have bad intentions. Even many people who commit real evil — such as true-believing Nazis, Communists, and Islamists — have good intentions. But as an ancient Jewish dictum put it, “It is not the thought that counts but the action.” Good intentions alone produce good people about as often as good intentions alone produce good surgeons.

4. We don’t learn how to be good.

Even if you want to be a good person, where is the instruction manual? Where are the teachers, the coaches and the schools? People spend years studying how to be good at everything — from sports to medicine to plumbing — except how to be good people.

5. We think too highly of ourselves.

Self-esteem frequently runs counter to goodness. Raising children with self-esteem sounds great, but when unearned — which it usually is — it leads to bad results. In fact, it is people who do not have particularly high self-esteem, people who feel that they constantly have to prove their worth, who are more likely to act good. And it is violent criminals who have the highest self-esteem — ‘I am better than others and can therefore do whatever I want.’

6. We think we will be taken advantage of.

Many parents have told me that they fear raising their children to be “too” good, lest they be taken advantage of.

People confuse goodness with weakness. It is weak people, not good people (goodness demands strength), who are taken advantage of.

Yes, bad people take advantage of others. This is why it is so important that good people surround themselves with good people. They allow us to be good and they make us better.

7. There are few personal models.

It is very difficult to grow into a good person without good models — whether a parent, a sibling, a friend, a clergyman, or even good characters in literature and film. That is why it is so important for all adults to try to be good models — not necessarily friends — to all young people.

8. We don’t believe that there are rewards for being good.

In general, people do things well if they believe they will eventually be rewarded. That’s the major reason people work hard. But many people don’t believe that goodness is rewarded.

In fact, however, there are rewards:

– Good people have far more inner peace.

– You will trust other people. The cheater never trusts anyone because he thinks that everyone is like him — out to cheat everyone. Not being able to trust is not a pleasant way to go through life.

– People will like — and even more importantly, respect — you more, just as you like and respect good people more.

– You will make more friends. And life is incomparably better with good friends.

– And finally, God will reward you in the afterlife. It isn’t fashionable in our hyper-sophisticated and secular age to speak of the afterlife, let alone about ultimate reward and punishment. But if there is a just God, there is ultimate justice.

9. We have to battle our nature.

To be a good person, most of us have to battle our nature. Among many other things, we are naturally preoccupied with ourselves. Yet, to be good, we have to constantly think about others and how we are treating them.

For many people, there is an additional battle they have to wage — with their natural tendency to be angry. One prevalent example is the angry mother or father who poisons his/her children against the other parent after a divorce, thereby often irreparably damaging both the children and the other parent.

10. “I’m a victim.”

I suspect that more people than ever before, in our society and in many others, walk around thinking of themselves as victims. Victimhood status is actually cultivated.

Now, the truth is that most people are victims. Very few of us have been entirely fairly treated by life. The problem, however, is that people who see themselves primarily as victims will rarely do any good, and many will do evil: “I’ve been mistreated by others,” the thinking goes, “so I don’t owe anybody anything.”

11. Few people were raised to be good people.

Parents raise children to be good students, good athletes, to have high self-esteem and with myriad other goals. But few parents put character first. For decades, I have asked parents whether they would be angrier at their teenager for smoking cigarettes or for cheating on tests. You can guess the overwhelming response.

12. In our formative years, the least impressive are rewarded.

In our high-school years, which kids seem to be the most rewarded? The ones with the best character? The kindest? Of course not.

During some of our most formative years, we see the best-looking, the most athletic and the coolest kids get the rewards. We see unimpressive guys getting the prettiest girls, and the prettiest girls getting the most attention — irrespective of their character. And the kids in cliques seem to have the most fun.

Little do we know that these traits won’t be rewarded forever. But it leaves a lasting impression.

13. We have psychological blocks.

As if the first dozen obstacles were not enough, there is an additional one that seems insurmountable for many individuals — psychological issues.

But the operative word here is “seems.” Even those with psychological problems (and who doesn’t have at least one or two?) can and must try to be better people. And the way to begin doing so is purely behavioral: Act better toward others even before you solve your psychological problems. Otherwise, you will never be a better person, since those problems may never disappear. And here’s the good news: The better you act, the better your chances of also improving yourself psychologically.

The sad irony is that while goodness is the thing that everyone wants most from everyone else, few people want it most for themselves.

Readers interested in obtaining the recording of the sermon I gave on this subject should call 800-225-8584.

(Comment:   I have no argument  regarding the 13 of the listing Dennis offers his readers.   However,  Dennis comes from a different generation of Americans as I do…….a generation less anarchic…..neighbors more in tune one with another.   

 Reflecting on my own parents’ generation, and members of our larger family of my cousins, aunts and uncles, I don’t think I can come up with the name of an  ungood person.   Becoming ‘good’ was the primary goal according to the messages from my church, parents, and their broader family as well as many of my  old maid public school teachers.   Controlling ones personal behavior was an order of the day.  

To become closer to God demanded greater understanding of our world, ourselves and everything in between that is possible to know.    “You cannot deceive your God”, meant much to me in my daily thinking until adulthood.   Being polite, controlling temper, amassing knowledge were tools to control “the wild and uncivilized” in us.    I was made keenly aware that I couldn’t hide from the wrath of God.

Not everyone rebelled from these pressures.   Not everyone experienced them in the same way……we were, after all, also individuals.   Nor was my own family much different from others in our neighborhood, none of whom were fanatical or otherwise in your face about God-matters…..except Muriel Peterson, a revolutionary Baptist living at the end of the block.   

I never heard of anyone, young or old, consider themselves as victims.    My own mother often had a “poor me” attitude toward our lack of money, but nothing in the world of victimhood came from her mouth.

My mother ran the household.   My dad was always pleased with anyone and everyone.   He was born to like people.   Neither were knowledge oriented unless knowledge was needed to save money……such as wall papering, sewing, painting, floor sanding, landscaping, anything in redecorating or repairing.  

The most important ‘law’ in family and church was “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.   How we behaved was what counted……first and foremost.

Movies helped.   Crime never paid.   The Legion of Decency had a lot to do with that. 

We children and our parents were allowed to have heroes…..even those outside of Bible studies.   George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, U.S. Grant,  even Robert E. Lee, Daniel Boone, Kit Carson……the Fench fur trappers, Father Hennepin and Albert Einstein.

We had a pretty good idea what goodness was…….It was classic, meaning whether in King David’s time or our own, GOODNESS is the same…….as is EVIL the same.   It never changes for the individual.    I was taught that every thought of my life stirs the possibility of good or evil and much inbetween.   I had to choose among them.

Most of the effort in the 1930s and 1940s  was devoted to avoid doing wrong.   Little was available beyond observing others in your daily life, regarding how one became a better person.

Unfortunately, as Dennis lists among his 13, we  miss once in a while…..and once in awhile, if we are lucky,  we discover how that happened.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers