The Minimum Wage Fight (and How To Fight It)

In the last segment of his latest edition of the Southern California Political Round-Up (Sept 28), radio host John Stammreich discussed the minimum wage fight as the "Third Rail" topic.

John Stammreich

 

Referring to his guest on the Sept 21 episode, recently-elected mayor Suzanne Fuentes of El Segundo, Stammreich expressed dismay that few Los Angeles area mayors challenged LA Mayor Eric Garcetti's plea to raise the minimum wage to $13.75 an hour or more.

Then he criticized Republicans for ignoring this issue, for refusing to talk about it.

Last of all, he remarked that a number of local cities in the South Bay didn't throw huge celebrations because of Garcetti's policy move against hotel franchises in LA City.

Because the costs of running a hotel will increase with the minimum wage, and the charges which will pass on to the clients, the smaller cities who are not raising the minimum wage will gain extensive increases in business from travelers going in and out of LAX.

El Segundo will definitely benefit, and is planning on expanding their hotels in the city.

Yet the question remains: why do Republicans, conservatives, and limited government advocates avoid refuting the minimum wage talking points on the Left?

On its surface, what could be more cruel than suggesting that individuals should work for the minimum wage? Who would not support seeing American workers making more money for their labor?

The reality is that Republicans do not want to see workers struggling under stagnant wages. Yet with all the government interventions in the economy, the unintended consequences of statist policies like raising the minimum wage do not burst forth immediately.

Yes, the individual employee finds himself taking home a little more money right away in the paycheck, without doing anything more to earn it.

What the community does not see, what the liberal economists do not take into account, what the general public never follows on, are the following:

1. Businesses end up hiring fewer people.

2. Higher-level workers usually do not receive a similar pay increase, inducing them to leave their jobs or put pressure on their employers for a commensurate salary increase.

3. Employers and businesses which do not want to endure a shortfall in their profit margins will pass on the costs of this increase in the price of the goods sold. In some cities, the regulatory burdens have forced businesses to charge a distinct tax to cover those costs.

4. With the rise in employee costs, businesses not only can freeze hiring, but they can close their businesses for a final sell-off, laying off workers, and move operations to another city (or country).

Explaining the devolution of a business in a sound bite is not an easy task.

Another part of the problem lies in the language employed by liberals, by the left on the minimum wage.

"Raise the minimum wage" is misleading. Governments, laws, politicians do not raise anything but taxes, spending, and the costs of doing business.

When legislators or city councils enact laws requiring a higher minimum wage, they are in fact forcing businesses to make difficult, costly decisions. The politicians are not paying anyone, since the salaries do not come out of their pockets.

Margaret Thatcher

Republicans need to relearn the lesson mastered by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

Define the terms of debate before your opponent.

All this rhetoric about "raise the minimum wage" is a false premise in itself, as far as governments are concerned.

“Forcing the minimum wage” is more accurate, and puts liberals in a less pleasing light.

Also, these minimum wage agitators have reshaped the argument to “living wage.” As if? Entry-levels jobs are that: entry level. They were never meant to be the ongoing wage on which any worker survived.

On one hand, conservative can gleefully agree with their liberal opponents: "I support raising the minimum wage!"

But how? They can then explain their plan: allowing individual businesses to profit and hire employees, and granting those employees the opportunities to further their potential through promotion and education.

Then Republicans follow up with inquisitorial questions:

Why are you making it harder for young children to get a good education, a good job, and better themselves?

Conservatives can then recite liberals' resistance to school choice, vouchers, internships, plus the regulatory burdens which hurt businesses and thus individual workers.

They can also shame liberals' profound ignorance about economics with a question:

 How are you going to raise the minimum wage of working Americans? Are you the one paying them?

Once again, the brutal fact about government interventionism is that the law does not create wealth, but merely redistributes it by force.

The Republicans can declare: "You want to force the minimum wage. You can't raise anything!"

This kind of rhetorical shift will put away the notion that Republicans, conservatives, etc. want to keep people poor, and instead shift the blame denounce the bullying nature of the left toward ordinary Americans, including Mom-and-Pop small businesses, because liberal politicians are preventing Mom-and-Pop businesses from making their own decisions and help their communities.

Republicans should revisit another piece of advice from Prime Minister Thatcher, who reminded her Conservative peers:

 Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.

The moral argument is missing for Republicans. While Republicans insist that Democratic policies don't work, Democrats attack Republicans with personal invectives, invoking a war on women, minorities, gays, etc.

Instead of a dry economic treatise, Republicans have to call out minimum wage agitators on the truth, but with emotional appeals:

1. They believe that people are too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to rise above an entry-level job.

2. They want to see poor and minority youth at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to job-training and resume building.

(In other words, it's a racist policy to force (not raise) the minimum wage.)

3. They have never run any business, but want to run businesses into the ground or out of the state.

More dramatic assaults may be necessary. If US Senator Elizabeth Warren believes in a higher minimum wage, why doesn't she start by practicing what she preaches? If Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) wants to force the statewide minimum wage, why doesn't he start by paying his interns? Why not cover the costs with his own money?



What? I have to pay
their wage increase?!

 

In a striking example of this liberal hypocrisy, philosophical reporter Jan Helfeld exposed a younger Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who had failed to follow through on the minimum wage rhetoric with her own Congressional staff, many of whom she paid nothing. Republicans could have a lot of fun shaming minimum wage agitators on their own greedy duplicity.

 

Congresswoman Bachmann Blitzed Sanders on the minimum wage issue

For a strong example of debating this issue, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann superbly slapped down Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders' class warfare diatribe about the minimum wage in one debate. First, she pointed out that Australia, with its $20 an hour minimum wage, also has high unemployment. Then she personalized the subject, discussing the plight of a single mother who wanted a good job, and better education to get a better job in the future. She even had the foresight to call out the "Democratic War on Women" because of the terrible economic policies under President Barack Obama.

Other novel responses can include success stories of individuals who started out on the minimum wage, then worked their way into prominence and prosperity in their respective professions. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has done a phenomenal job of relying on individual success stories in his state following the economic reforms he implemented.

These moral appeals are more effective than economic arguments.

Republicans need to employ these offense-as-best-defense tactics in the minimum wage debate. Out of fear or lack of knowledge, conservative politicians skirt the subject or push it aside quickly with an economic explanation, one which never wins the hearts and minds of voters.

A change of mind, an aggressive push to define the debate,  one depicting the liberal agenda in its true light, and Republicans can end liberals' minimum wage agitation, which hurts businesses and deprives good workers of better opportunities.

Breitbart Fail: Fung Opposes DLs for Illegals

Andrew Breitbart led fight
against corrupt media

Breitbart.com has become one of the leading voices in the New Media.

While the mainstream media wasted weeks covering the private prejudices of a basketball owner, and the overblown, soap-opera lawsuits which followed, the conservative website exposed the illegal immigrant youth crisis amassing along the Southern Border. While the mainstream media has given a pass to the Obama Administration’s floodgate of scandals, websites like Breitbart have attacked the corruption with an unwavering assiduousness.

Reporters have even written about the Republican surge in New England, where liberal Republican Charlie Baker has polled twice with a slim lead ahead of Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, Still smarting from her 2010 election loss to Scott Brown,

After reading his piece on Charlie Baker, I reached out to Matthew Boyle, and told him to report on Mayor Allan Fung’s gubernatorial run as well. He was enthusiastic and appreciative, because up to recently he was not paying attention to the Rhode Island race. Looking at the statistics and the demographics, there are enough reasons why conservative reports would ignore Rhode Island: small state, almost hidden in New England under Massachusetts and behind Connecticut, with a liberal Democratic legislature in power for over eight years.

Those dynamics may change this year, though, if the national unrest against Democrats hits the Ocean State. Other local activists in Rhode Island have signaled to me the importance of national attention on this race. In a deep blue state, when a Republican gubernatorial candidate is running neck-and-neck with a Rhodes Scholar pension reformer, party heads should turn.

Republican Mayor of Cranston Allan Fung -- Opposes DLs for Illegals

Boyle’s latest piece, however, contained one error:

In Rhode Island, Cranston's GOP mayor Allan Fung is running slightly less aggressively than Baker or Brown on the issue of immigration, saying that he supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. But he has made clear that he opposes the efforts of the administration to use Rhode Island as a spot to place illegal aliens as part of the border crisis, and according to some recent polling data is within striking distance of Democratic nominee state treasurer Gina Raimondo. Rasmussen's latest survey had him just seven points back—a pretty impressive feat for a Republican in a state as blue as Rhode Island.

The statement that Fung supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants is untrue. In fact, he and his former primary challenger Ken Block are on record opposing the policy:

Block and Fung said they would advocate for immigration reform on the federal level and indicated they oppose driver’s licenses for undocumented residents. They each pledged to restore the state’s use of eVerify background checks for state employees, a program that Chafee abolished on his first day in office in 2011.

Part of the reason politicians left and right should champion this stance against illegal immigration is as a nation of laws, every person living here legally should have access to these privileges, simple enough, but not those who have entered the country illegally.  Allowing law-breakers any legal privilege, like driving on American streets, only enables more illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, some Republicans are caving in on this issue, like California Republican gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari. While explaining that compassion and open borders would not solve the illegal immigrant youth crisis, he still supports drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

CA GOP Kashkari supports DLs for Illegals

"They can’t stay here, but while they are here, they can still drive."

Confusing and contradictory polices like this one are turning off voters in California. How does this kind of pandering help the Republican Party win Hispanics votes, and elections in the long-run? Besides, DLs for illegals ends up trapping states into sanctuary status. Why should illegal immigrants leave when one can get away with driving legally and not worry about getting deported if pulled over?

Supporters for this controversial policy will contend that allowing them to drive legally will create safer roads and reduce crime. The exact opposite has occurred in San Diego, and other states enacting this policy. Fraud and human trafficking have become commonplace in many locales, too.

I contacted Mayor Fung and Matthew Boyle, who had written the story about Fung. The mayor affirmed his opposition to DLs for illegals, but Boyle has not yet gotten back to me.

In this Internet-driven media market, misrepresentation of a politician’s stance no longer goes unnoticed without immediate responses. While mistakes like the one mischaracterizing Mayor Fung may be more common because of the rapid increase of news production and consumption, readers and commentators can take direct action to correct those stories when errors arise.

Ernst Surges in Iowa: Implications

Iowa Republican state senator Joni Ernst is running for the US Senate seat vacated by progressive Democrat Tom Harkin this year.

For the past five months, following a crowded primary, Ernst was steadily running neck-and-neck with her Democratic challenger Bruce Braley.

In the past week, however, the Iowa pig farmer (who is tough with the knife, and strong on military issues)  is posting a six-point lead in two latest polls on the Iowa US Senate Race, with a composite gain on her challenger.

The sources of the latest polls? Not Fox News, not Breitbart, not the Huffington Post or Politico. . .

State Senator
Ernst

1. The Des Moines Register, the same newspaper which has endorsed Democratic candidates for years (until 2012), the same liberal publication which had promoted Tom Harkin term after term, and the same paper which had called the race for Braley by 75%.


2. Quinnipiac, which as a custom has been more partial to centrist or left-leaning candidates in the past.

In politics, a month can be an eternity, and  in that incredible short yet consequential period of time, things are looking better for Ernst, and election day is closing in.

This trend is abounding across the US Senate map, where otherwise swing state US Senate races are swinging toward GOP contenders, putting incumbents at greater risk, and open seats out of range for Democrats, diminished by their unpopular commander-in-chief President Obama.

Once considered unlikely at best, Lieutenant Colonel Ernst is prepping for an upset in the Hawkeye State, and the Democrats area all upset that one more federal office will fall into GOP hands, and take their control of the upper chamber away.

Ernst's rise into the general election offers some political food for thought for other Republican candidates, too.

Unlike more bitterly contested primaries (and in redder states), Ernst combined the support of the Tea Party Movement, pro-life groups, and the Chamber of Commerce to end double-digits ahead of her other Republican contenders. Strong on family, military, and fiscal issues, the state senator's political experience and grassroots appeal combination have created the well-rounded candidates which Republicans have sought for the past four years, with some hits and misses along the way.

How did she coalesce these three conservative interests so squarely behind her for the win? The last time a Republican candidate joined family, finances, and foreign policy so conveniently, ran for President and won two terms by the widest margins in US History. (Answer? Ronald Reagan).

If Ernst wins in November, could she make inroads for restoring the ideological coalition of life, liberty, and the individual pursuit of happiness which united the Republican Party before?

Bruce Braley

Like another Great Communicator, Ernst knows how to message her campaign and catch people's attention.

She made significant media gains with her "make them squeal" campaign ad.

She fights negative attack ads with positive affirmations from fellow combat soldiers and war veterans.

And voters like her candor and honesty:

"She's the veteran. She seems to have common sense."

Here's another clip from a war veteran.

In contrast to Ernst's direct appeal to voters, her opponent, trial lawyer and Congressman Bruce Braley, has become the Democratic Party's Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle.

He disparaged farmers, and Senior US Senator Chuck Grassley:

If you help me win this race, you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice — someone who’s been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years in a visible and public way on the Senate Judiciary. . Or you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary. Because if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary.

When members of an audience said: "We're farmers", Braley did tried to ingratiate himself: "So am I. . .  So am I." Braley argued twice, affirming that he is a farmer, when in fact . . . he isn't.

Braley also made disparaging comments about a Democratic neighbor of his following a dispute about chickens crossing into his yard:

What's so strange about this story is it's an example of where, when somebody else's animals are in your yard, you're the bad neighbor.

Braley's response was overblown, complaining to the resident homeowners association.

Another quote which will give Braley trouble, from 2007:

Let's give a warm Iowa welcome to my new best friends, Senator Barack Obama.

Obama now has a 38% approval rating, and he is taking down Democrats across the country, including BFF Braley.

Ernst's compelling life-story, professional and political experience, plus her savvy with key conservative groups and grassroots voters are paying off, and paving the way for a more likely than before GOP US Senate takeover. Her example could help future candidates unify otherwise fractious elements within the Republican Party, while reaching out to undecided, Independent, and even disaffected Democratic voters.

Could there be a President Ernst in the United States' future, too?

Reflection: Wisdom, Yes -- Will of People, No

Dr. Ben Carson (Presidential Candidate in 2016?)

Dr. Ben Carson's latest appearance on Fox News Sunday was underwhelming compared to the bold speech he gave at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.

Rather than condemning Rev. Al Sharpton's role in advising President Obama on Eric Holder's replacement, Carson offered that Obama needs to listen to a number of opinions.

Granted, there is some good advice, but where was the discussion on Sharpton's prior, heated rhetoric which has escalated race-based conflict rather than elevating the discussion on poverty and cultural problems America's inner cities.

 As for his biggest complaint against the now resigned Attorney General, Carson said that the chief law enforcement office is supposed to be blind in choosing which cases to take up and which crimes to prosecute. Holder, in Carson's opinion, had a partisan, ideological agenda.

Ya think?

His comments about the role of the government and the people in determining the leadership and direction of the country were noteworthy, not just for the necessity of wisdom in our leaders (a good point), but the argument that politicians need to represent the will of the people as opposed to the will of the government.

The United States Constitution does not establish a populist democracy, but a republican, representative democracy, in which the will of the people is expressed, certainly, but not the determining goal of the federal government.

The Preamble of the US Constitution summarizes the role of the federal government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The federal government does not enact the mercurial will of the people, but is supposed to ensure the blessings of liberty: a common defense, peace at home and abroad, ensuring the rule of law based on natural rights.

Majority rule, yes, but with minority rights, checks and balances, and a healthy respect for the fallible nature of man: all of these aspects define the design of the federal government. Appeals to the will of the people are common, yet dangerous, especially in light of populism's frequent and terrifying turns toward government tyranny (The French and Russian Revolutions, Nazi Germany).

Regarding wisdom, this leadership trait is a much-needed yet sorely lacking commodity in Washington. A biblical principle which respects eternal verities and honors the truth instead of custom and agreement, wisdom exceeds intelligence as well as experience.

President Obama, for all his academic accolades, is not a wise man, does not listen to others, and certainly does not consider diverse opinions. This habit of academic autism defined his college and professor days before running for office in Illinois.

Dr. Carson's key contribution to the political discussion is the reassertion of Biblical principles into the national discourse. Not Bible-thumping, as secular alarmists would contend, but the deep respect for Jude-Christian values revealed in the Bible, which have withstood the tests of time and human ambition. Second President John Adams was clear: "The United States Constitution was written for a moral people."

We need a respect for that morality once again in our country. In no other cultural reality does anyone find definition and recognition of human rights as God given, unless they originate in a benevolent Creator as opposed to an abounding bureaucracy.

Dr. Ben Carson: Government Designed with the Will of the People in Mind

Dr. Ben Carson

On his latest appearance on Fox News  Sunday with Chris Wallace, Dr. Ben Carson vetted a few questions as a potential presidential candidate.

After reminding the audience of his friendship with Carson, and their prior discussion on the subject, Wallace suggested that Dr. Ben Carson does not have the required experience to run for President:

After looking at Barack Obama, and what's happened with his lack of political experience over these last six years wouldn't putting Ben Carson in the Oval Office be akin to putting a politician in an operating room and having him perform one of your brain surgeries?

Carson disagreed with the comparison, citing the examples of the Founding Fathers, who were not politicians, but citizen-statesmen, who returned to their professions after serving in Congress or in the White House.

I don't think so. I think what is required for leadership is wisdom and the ability to assemble an appropriate team, the ability to listen, and the ability to make wise decisions. And we also have to recognize what I said a little bit earlier: our system was designed by our founders with the people in mind and with the will of the people in mind, not with the will of the government.

If you want the will of the government, yes you need people who spend their whole lives in politics, and they are  much more like to be able to impose the will of the government. But I don't think that's what we need. And Jefferson said, that when things would actually get so bad, the people would make the correction. I think it's time to make that correction now.

Dr. Ben Carson rose to conservative stardom following his open speech on the political climate at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast. His frank criticisms of President Obama's  policies and the partisan gridlock earned him immediate as well as ongoing stardom among conservative activists and Tea Party affiliates. A growing movement is petitioning for Carson to run for President.

Such questions like Wallace's will become more frequent and forthcoming, especially after the November elections.

Dawkins' Bitter Idolatry: Misogynist

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” -- Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins

"God hates women."

Really?

Let us consider the creation of the first woman:

"21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2: 21-23)

 

The woman was created out of man, a picture of Jesus Christ and the Body of Christ: all who believe on Him for redemption and life.

 

Formed from the rib (not the foot, nor the head), woman was on the same level with man.

 

Different, yet regarded with equal respect.

 

Aside from Biblical accounts, and in countries where the Gospel is preached, women fare very poorly in the world.

 

Very poorly.

 

What else would lead Dawkins to call the God of the Bible a woman hater?

 

"16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22: 16-17)

 

If a woman slept with a man, but the man would not marry her, he had to pay the father for defiling her. In other countries and cultures, where does one read about women being treated with such respect?

 

Also

 

"28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22: 28-29)

 

In the New Testament, women are regarded with honor, and to be treated with the same.

 

Jesus honored many women, including Mary, the woman who bore Him into the world.

 

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (Luke 1: 28)

 

About Mary Magdalene:

 

"1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." (John 12: 1-8)

 

and then

 

"Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." (Mark 14: 9)

 

Whatever women-hating God Dawkins is referring to, no one will find Him in the Bible

 

There are other passages which ungodly critics have attempt to wrest and distort, too, regarding the status of women in the Bible.

 

Paul never once despises women, but honors them, as he informs all of us as children of God to honor one another:

 

"1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour." (Ephesians 5: 1-2)

 

Before doing anything, Paul takes great pains to explain our new standing, our glorious resurrection in Christ.

 

Then come the directions regarding love and submission:

 

"8And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:18-21)

 

Paul first encourages submission among believers to each other.

 

Then he speaks to married couples:

 

"22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5: 22-24)

 

Contrary to critics' estimation, God does not hate women at all. Dawkins' charge of divine misogyny is completely wrong.

Dawkins' Bitter Idolatry: Ethnic Cleanser

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” -- Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins

The argument that God determined that certain races of people should be wiped out has given the false impression that God is a demented Holocaust perpetrator, doing everything in His power to put away entire races just because.

The first instance of this widespread wipeout occurs in Genesis.

Let us consider the entire context of the account:

"1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6: 1-7)

 

These "mighty men" were mutants. They were no longer human beings, but corrupted offspring, half-fallen angel and man. This eruption of angels in the seed of men was all meant to prevent the Savior from coming into the world and redeeming (and promoting) mankind into the Greater Glory of Christ Jesus.

 

God was able to find only one uncorrupted man, Noah:

 

"8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth." (Genesis 6: 8-10)

 

Despite the wicked distortions of Hollywood and Academia, God did not target the entire world of man for destruction, but rather intended to wipe out the corrupted half-angel mutants, or "might men" born of fallen angels.

 

These mighty men have been discovered in ancient sites all over the world, yet these discoveries have been routinely suppressed. Here are photos and charts detailing the existence of this race of giants, now wiped off the face of the earth.

 

Other calls for the Israelites to wipe out cursed races of people are again specific targets against these demonic race of creatures.

 

Now, regarding the Holocaust of Jews -- why did God "do nothing" to save them?

 

The one work which God invites to the whole world, including the Jewish people, is to believe on His Son Jesus.

 

Throughout the Old Testament, revealed in the New Testament, God offers His gift of righteousness by faith to the world.

 

The Jewish leaders during Jesus' earthly ministry rejected this gift:

 

"37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matthew 23:37-39)

 

Pastor Joseph Prince has submitted, and I agree, that Jesus envisioned the persecutions which the Jews would endure, from the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 to the Holocaust during World War II.

 

Yet the Gospel never stopped spreading, and Jews as well as Gentiles have believed on Jesus, receiving His life, power, and standing in the world. In fact, many Jewish Christians survived the Holocaust and have shared their testimonies.

 

"Herein is love perfected among us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4: 17)

 

The argument that God target ethnic groups in the Old Testament then neglected the Jewish people in the modern world is unfounded and unjustified.

 

Once again, what God is Dawkins referring to, because the God he bitterly denounces as an "unpleasant character" does not exist in the Bible.