Our Liberty continues to disappear!

This nation was founded upon "Individual Rights" and the concept is analogous to “inequality.”

The very concept of “Equality” is incorrectly tied to meaning everyone is the same economically and “thinks alike.” Hence the problem with “Politically Correct Speech.”

The thought police are out in Force. Notice what happened to “Miss California” when she merely expressed her opinion, (It happened to coincide with Mr. Obama’s, but then she wasn’t the Pied Piper of Washington), and so she is vilified.

I remember a Russian Immigrant speaking in Portland, Oregon several years ago and was questioned about Liberty in Russia. His response was that we here in America have lost sight of what Liberty really is….he said in Russia he could get on a soap box and say whatever he wanted, but the only thing was that the following week he would somehow loose his job and be told he was being moved into a different apartment, one that was somehow not as big or as nice. Notice what happens when one group finds out that you voted for prop 8? Some have lost their jobs because of speaking out by expressing their right to vote.

Individual Rights means being able to be “different.” Not just different, but different the way you want to be different as long as it doesn’t take away someone else’s right to be different. And yes, even if it offends others! There is no right to not be offended!
(And please don’t say that gay’s are not allowed to be different…. Neither Straights nor Gay’s can marry someone of the same sex, so there is no loss of freedom by Gay’s and they are allowed to be Gay!)

Which brings me to my biggest point about loosing sight of why we are loosing our Liberty….

We are letting “Group Rights” be the focus! Group Rights destroy Individual Rights!

When we allow any Group to dictate to another group, then we are truly living in a non-free society. A Democracy is where one group, (51%), dictates to another group, (49%), and thus we have the situation where the minority is told what to do by the majority. It is just as oppressive when the minority tells the majority what to do.

We are being lead down a path to where one group is telling the other groups that we all should be “equal”, meaning equal in terms of economics. They do not want to have a multi-class society, they want everyone to be “Upper Class” which is not possible, so we wind up “redistributing the wealth” of the Upper Middle Class to the Middle Class and Lower Class.

The true Upper Class will always be able to find loop holes to stay wealthy. Do you think Ted Kennedy will ever not have his opulence? John Kerry his opulence? No!!!!

The way to accomplish this transfer of money from the Upper Middle Class to the Lower and Middle Class is by taxation.

Equality of opportunity is what should be the goal, not just “Equality.” In a truly free society there must be “winners and losers” in every phase of life. It is through competition that we all grow our society to become wealthier as a whole, not by taking money from one group and giving it to another.

But there are many who don’t want anyone to ever loose, so they build safety nets in every area of our lives, and in so doing, destroy the very essence of what makes us free...the right to succeed only is there if we have the right to fail!

If everyone is the same, we can’t choose to be something different, and loss of choice is loss of freedom.

Today is my 65th Birthday

Well, not much happening today...just chillin....

I am still alive and kicking, so no complaints.

I hope everyone else is as blessed as I am. I have a wonderful wife, 3 wonderful children, a really terriffic little dog, 7 grandchildren and a roof over my head.

Did I mention my computer that allows me to visit the Blogosphere?

Prop 8 Battle

The prop 8 battle may very well wind up in court and if it does, I somehow doubt the people who will be there defending the "Yes" side will be able to recognize the proper way to defend against the other side. Here is the statement that they should use that can't be refuted.

Their argument is based upon "gays" not having a right that "straights" have. It is called the "Equal Protection Clause" in the Constitution.

I don't think they can articulate that position when they stick to that premise.

If they try to say that they can't marry who they love, then the argument is not about equal rights, but that one group wants to change the definition of marriage, and that is not what their "legal" argument is.

It is based upon "Equal Protection" which suggests that "straights" have "more" rights. They don't. Straights have the same "rules" of marriage that gays do. Neither can marry the same sex.

There is no denial of rights! And this is the proof:

If a "gay male" and a "straight male" both want to marry the same guy....(The same gay male), both the straight male and the gay male have equally the same rights and same restrictions. They both are not allowed to marry another male.

This and only this statement should be argued in front of the judges. Normally the other side will try to change the subject or just attack the statement, but the "Yes" side should stick to this one and only one position because it completely refutes their argument that there are rights being denied to the gay person that the stright person has under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the California Constitution. THIS IS JUST A LIE!

Try to show how one side can marry the same sex, while the other side can't marry the same sex! What if a straight male wanted to marry another straight male just to get the benifits of the marriage contract? They are denied the same as if two gays want to do the same thing.

Therefore under the "Equal Protection Clause" there is no need for a change to the Constitution, and Prop 8 was properly voteded on as an "Admendment" and not a "Change."

I challenge anyone to show how gays are being denied a "right" to marry the same sex and the "straights" somehow are allowed!

Who are the “Absolutists?”

There is a great deal of hubris in those who are so “positive”…. so “absolutely sure” of things.

Question One: Is Evolution Random or Directed?

Group One “knows as a surety” that Evolution is Random and Undirected.
Group Two “believes” that it was “directed” and not random…that the “Cambrian Explosion” should bring doubt to any reasonable person.

Which group “shouts” that the other is wrong without any doubt? The one that merely “believes” or the one that says it is not possible for them to be wrong because “science” says they are right? And science has never been wrong before…correct? One group says that science has got it “mostly” right, but there are still some “missing” details that are yet to be explained such as perhaps “macro” evolution may require intervention and direction.


Question Two: Is Man Made Global Warming a “closed case?”

Group One says that there are "no" credible dissenters because they are "all" biased by money, and therefore they "all" have "no" valid points. (Notice the absolutes?)
Group Two says that most of the “grant” money is on the side of the “sky is falling” group and there are credible scientists who don’t have any “dog in the fight.” And that government money is just as valid of a reason to doubt as corporate money because they both can corrupt.

Group Two says that man may be contributing to Global Warming, but what is the exact amount and is it really a cause for "fear mongering?"

Which group is again the one that “shouts” that the other is wrong without any doubt…. the one that says there is Global Warming but they are skeptical about just how much is man made, or the “chicken little” side that is “completely convinced” with no room for doubt? That they "know" that no matter what man's contribution, they "know" that there is no room for doubt that the consequences are known as a surety....that there "will be" catastrophic events. ( Note...not that there "may be", but that there "will be.")

Question Three: Is the other political view “ALWAYS” wrong?

Group One says that the other group is not just misguided but is stupid and malevolent and “never” has a good plan or policy.
Group Two says that the other group is not malevolent and not stupid, but they think that the other group is usually just wrong. Group Two is willing to listen and have a dialog.

Which group is it that is so unreasonable to say that the other group is “ALWAYS” wrong? Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn by accident.


Question Four: Is there a God?

Group One says they are “sure” that there is not one. They are not just “agnostic” but are “sure.” They “know” that there is no God.
Group Two says they are not sure but that is why they have a “belief.” They believe that faith is by definition without proof.

What is ironic is that Group One is the group that usually says, “There are no Absolutes”, which by definition is wrong because the statement itself is an “absolute” statement.

Group One would have us believe that “everything” is relative, even morals and ethics.
Group Two says they believe that there are absolutes and one of them is morality.

So, which side uses the term "belief" with a great deal of regularity, and which side is often hostile to the very mention of the word?

A Brief History of the Universe

Below is my understanding of the first 6 days of the Universe starting from the big bang. My understanding is based upon peer-reviewed science and traditional biblical commentary published by noted M.I.T Physicist and Theologian Gerald R. Schroeder in his great book “The Science of God.”

It begins with the concepts that Albert Einstein published around 1904 in which he said that Matter can be made from Energy, and that the flow of time is not a constant. Or, time is relative based upon the position of the observer.

It is with the relative time concept that I am fascinated with as it begins to explain one of life’s greatest questions…”Is the Earth Six days old, or Billions of years old?” And the answer based upon peer-reviewed science by Professor Schroeder is….”Yes!” It all depends upon your point of reference.

Time is relative, and once we define some timeframes we will discuss the mathematical concepts behind his answer:

The following definitions and charts are adapted, (not quoted), from Dr. Schroeder’s Book “The Science of God.”

Cosmic Days – This is based upon the first day of the big bang looking forward in time with each cosmic day being relative in that each cosmic day gets shorter based upon the Cosmic Background Radiation, (CBR), temperature.

Cosmic Earth Years – This is the number of Earth years that are passing as the Universe is forming.

Earth Days – This is based upon the first day on Earth looking backward in time using our current 24-hour clock.

Adam Years – The number of earth years before Adam, based upon the current 24-hour clock.

Click Chart to Enlarge:
The timeframes are based upon the cooling of the Universe. At the time of the big bang the temperature of the Universe was it’s hottest and it has been cooling ever since. The current temperature of space is 2.73 degrees Kelvin, approximately 270 degrees Celsius.

The age of the Universe has been revised upward constantly and in 2003 it was revised once again. From Space.com…“In a study published today in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old.
Most estimates in recent years have ranged between 10 billion and 15 billion years. Last year, data supplied by the Hubble Space Telescope led to an apparently refined estimate of 13 billion to 14 billion years.”

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html


Some estimates are made using visual readings such as through a telescope, they are sometimes called “red-shift”, or “blue-shift” depending upon the method, and then others using math and the C.B.R. as Dr. Schroeder has done.

What is even more interesting to me is how the authors of the Bible “guessed 100% correctly” on how evolution progressed through these Cosmic Days of Creation. (They couldn't have known, they must have guessed, right?)

For example, the bible says water occurred before any life, and that the first living creatures were in the water, next reptiles and then winged animals, then humans. I wonder if Darwin and others looked at the sequence in the Bible to figure out the sequence of Evolution? (tongue in cheek) See the next chart below: (Click Chart to Enlarge:)

The above is presented as something to contemplate. I know there will be some who will take it as some kind of affront to their worldview and summarily dismiss it, and probably attack it as well, but that is to be expected since one of the laws of the Universe is that there needs to be opposites so we will be able to have choice.

Now whether God had a hand in fine tuning Evolution, such as "sprinking" some new life forms from time-to-time, such as the "Cambrian Explosion", well that is for another post.

Hitchens vs. Religion

Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man. In most areas he is a clear thinker and has a mind like that of Michael Medved in that he seems to have thousands of facts at his instant recall. But, he has at least one giant logic flaw in his new best seller “god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

The biggest flaw in his logic is the assumption that because many people do bad things in the name of Religion that we therefore can paint with a broad brush that Religion is to blame. It is almost as bad as those illogical thinkers who profess that "poverty" is the cause of crimes. So....rich people don't commit crimes? How ridiculous! The rich also have their own challenges they must conquer. Morals are not a function of how much money you have.

What a horribly flawed statement Hitchens makes! It is like saying that people don’t have anything to do with what they perpetuate, it is the madness behind their thoughts that is to blame. The murderer is not to blame for his acts, it was the beers he drank, or the flawed childhood is to blame. No, we all have bad influences in our life and we still have to choose as to how we react to our challenges. How we respond to adversity is what defines us more than anything! When the “going gets tough, the tough get going.” But the choice is there to be made.

PEOPLE ACT THE WAY THEY ACT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT REALLY MAKES THEM HAPPY! - FAR. If they don't like the way they are acting, they have the capacity to change. When I smoked, I liked smoking more than I liked to not smoke, even though I told myself that I didn't like the fact that I smoked. I was lying to myself! I wanted to smoke more than I wanted to quit! PERIOD!

The Devil doesn’t MAKE people do IT! God doesn’t make them do IT! They choose to do it because that is what animates them to “feel good!” To have purpose.

Let’s assume for a moment that his silly premise is on the right track. What if we could blame a particular type of thinking on the actions of men, (and women), for evil acts? I would then propose that it would be two things and possibly three that are above Religion on the "reason ladder."

First, and foremost, is "FORCE" and particularly when coupled with the drive to try to create a man made utopia on earth is at the 20,000 foot level, which is above Religion.

FORCE is evil, FREEDOM is good!

Mao, Pole Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the "people" running the Inquisition, the "people" trying to "force" Shira, the idea of any type of heaven on earth that is “forced” upon mankind is the driving ideology behind most evil, not religion. It is the men with their goals of making others better through their ideology instead of by doing it one person at a time….starting with themselves. Those who want to use their “idea” of a better world, by “forcing” it on others is the key to evil, whether it be Socialsm, Communism or Shria.

Second, the idea that a group is a victim of society as a whole, or a victim at the hands of some other group is the next big driving force behind evil acts.

The feeling of being a victim of some other group can “justify” all kinds of immoral acts as it is a way of having their “justice”, or by getting “even”, as they suppose.

And finally, it is "Rationalizations." If my memory of my study of human psychology is still in tact, the mind of a person who lives in his left hemisphere creates a reason to “rationalize” all acts.

The mind has three hemispheres, a right hemisphere that always tells the truth without a worldview filter based upon facts it has amassed. A left hemisphere that always says that your heart is always right, and the middle hemisphere that gathers information from the other two hemispheres to make a final decision.

Many people want to listen to the side that says, “if your heart says it is good, then it must be so!” This is the emotional side of the mind, that ALWAYS says your heart is right, and the other hemisphere is the “logical” side of the mind.

If you believe in God and Satan, then you can understand the statement that "Satan doesn't ALWAYS lie. If he did, he would be easy to discover. He tells us that both Good and Bad are alright. He says "Everything is alright!" Which makes him right in many cases.


More people do evil by listening to the emotional side and then “rationalizing” rather than listening to the “logical” side.

There you have it. Hitchens, you are so filled with your “emotional” dislike for Religion that you are listening to the wrong side of your mind and therefore your logic on this point is greatly flawed!

God has nothing to do with what “some” people do in the name of their ideology, whether it be “Socialism, Communism, Nazism, or any religion-ism, i.e., Catholism, etc. It is all about their methods of “imposing” their view on others. There are good Atheists, good Baptists, good Catholics, good Muslims, good Methodists, good Buddhists, etc., and there are bad ones as well. Their Religions/Ism's teachings stand on their own. It is the flawed humans that are the problem.

Since 90 percent of the planet believes in God, it is only natural that much evil is done by those who believe in God. It is not their belief in Religion that animates them, it is their belief in “forcing” their “better world” on humanity that drives them, which includes many Socialists, Communists, Secularists, etc.

God’s main theme for those who truly study him is the concept of “Free Will.” This has been stated by most religious people in the saying of “God will force no man to heaven.”

This is why God seldom directly interferes in our existence. The religious say that he is “all powerful”, but yet he doesn’t “force” us all to obey his commandments. He leaves it up to us to figure what is truly "right."

Religion is not flawed. People are flawed, and since they are, they cannot make a utopian world no matter how much they try to “force” it, (Socialism, Communism, Religion, etc,) on others.

Confrontation or Cowardness

Let’s suppose you live in a city where there is the rule of law, but a gang of thugs overruns a neighboring city and they are threatening to spread to your city next.

What should your city do?

1. Do nothing. Who cares about the other city?
2. Send in your police to help. It is the proper thing to do, and we want to stop them before they grow big enough to harm us.

Those are really the only two choices…do nothing or do something.

The real problem is the other city has no real rule of law, and how do you handle lawlessness? The problem is not that your city is an “Imperial City” because it wants to do something to help stabilize the lawlessness.

How do you handle a bully?

If you ignore him because you are “against violence, (or war)”, then you are just allowing the bully to continue his acts of violence against others and he only will get stronger.

If you confront him and try to stop him in order to bring stability to his area of control of lawlessness, then that is the only thing that will help the situation.

People who say we should “stop the war” are really being naïve, since they are thinking that by “running away” from the lawlessness, they are “stopping” it.

By ignoring or not confronting a bully, especially when he is in your area, you become a coward and the bully grows stronger.

When I was in High School I was “picked on” by a bully. He only stopped “picking on me” when I confronted him and had a fight with him. After that he not only stopped bullying me, but he left my friends alone as well.

Again only the naïve believe in pacifism when there is lawlessness next door, and they look like cowards when they do it.

It is easy to be a pacifist when there is a proper “rule of law” in your area, but what do you do if you begin to have lawlessness in your area? Hide? Bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away?

The Problem of The Illegal Immigration Bill

The more laws we have the more the Government tells us what to do by definition. As we as a people continue to believe that every time a problem arises we must turn to Washington to “fix” it through social engineering or “forcing” behavior in some way, the less freedom we will have.

Most laws are of the flavor of “Thou shall NOT” or “Thou Must.” This is the opposite of what freedom is all about.

Our Founding Fathers believed that our Congress should be very judicious in the passing of new laws. They correctly reasoned that any new law by definition has the effect of decreasing our freedoms. So, our Founding Fathers said that the “wheels of Congress should turn slowly and finely.”

It also has to do with the idea of “Compromise Pollution.”

“Compromise Pollution” says that if two sides cannot agree on how to fashion an agreement whereby not only will both sides win, as in the win-win slogans we hear all the time, then they should not pass it until both sides are adding good instead of bad to the solution.

Suppose one side of the Congress wants to make a law where 80 percent is horse dung and the other side has 20 percent oatmeal or some other good food.

Compromising so that the side with the 20 percent gets more oatmeal, say 40 percent instead of 20 percent, still leaves a preponderance of bad food.

This is why the current proposed bill in Congress should not be passed even with some of the good amendments proposed because the overall effect of this bill is still bad.

Here is what we need in a good bill on Immigration.

Any people here illegally should not be given citizenship in a special path as they do now. If they are to become citizens, they should be put in the same line as everyone else. They should come through the “front door” not a “back door.”
All people who are here working should be granted “legal status” as a “Resident Alien” but not put on any guaranteed path to citizenship. If they are put at the back of the current line, the same as someone from China or Japan, then we will be treating everyone fair and not be giving someone who broke the law an advantage over others who don’t happen to live on our borders.
We need to finish the double wall that works so well in San Diego across the entire 700 plus miles at least.


Because one group in Congress views the immigrants as potential voters, it is willing to put them on a special path to citizenship, and the other group wants cheap labor, so some of them will go along with the other side and produce a bad bill.

“Compromise Pollution” is always a bad thing since over the 200 plus years of our Nation, we have forgotten that the job of Congress is to insure every bill is a good bill, and that we are not paying them for the amount of bills they pass. Here in California my understanding is the typical legislator in California sees over 200 bills a day cross their desk.

We are allowing the “Compromisers” to bring down our values and continue to decrease our freedom by churning out bad law after bad law.