Cells or Life

The Stem Cell debate centers upon the age-old question of "When does life begin."

I believe it starts when the "spirit" enters the body, and death occurs when it leaves.

But....when does that occur. We don't know. Some believe it is at conception, some believe it occurs at first brain waves, some at first heartbeat. I for one, believe it occurs at first brain activity.

But....Who of us that are walking this earth today really knows when? There are over 1200 different Christian religions, and there are many different ideas on this.

The Presidents point is that the Stem Cells "might" be alive. His point is since we don't know; let’s err on the side of life.

See my first post "The Definition of Life" for yet more on this subject.

Reparations or No Reparations

While most of history is filled with Slavery, from the Hebrews to Africans, the question is whether there can be any justice with or without Reparations.

If my great, great, grandfather had slaves, then logically he is the one who should have to pay for any damages, just like any other civil court case. But not me.

I don't even know if any of my ancestors had slaves. But If they did and If a descendant of a slave, who was owned by one of my ancestors, were to take me to court, I doubt that any jury could morally or logically hold me responsible for what my ancestors did, any more than I should pay for what King Tut did or didn't do.

If our government does what the civil courts cannot do, then the taxpayers of this great country are being forced to pay for what someone else did or didn't do. That is not justice, that is injustice.

We cannot look at a government handout for Reparations as money from the nebulos entity called government. We are the government, and any payments will come out of our pockets, those of us who had nothing to do with the injustice that was done in the past.

We of the present should not be punished for actions by others in the past. Plain and simple.

The Real Cause of Inflation

While I voted for Bush, I also am disappointed in the Border Issues and with his big spending.

With Bush's big spending comes consequences. One consequence is Deficit Spending.

With deficit spending comes an increase in the money supply. With an increase in the money supply comes Inflation.

A government in deficit, (spends more than it takes in), must either borrow the money or sell bonds to the FED Open Market Committee. It will usually get the extra money by selling bonds. The process is rather complex but suffice it to say, In so doing, it causes an increase in the money supply.

With this it is important to be prepared for the FED to raise interest rates in an effort to do a "Slight of Hand" to appear to try to curb inflation. In order to better explain I will discuss inflation....

The classical definition of Inflation is "Too many dollars chasing too few goods."

Notice how there are only two components to Inflation, First Money, and Second Goods.

Armed with these two components, it becomes possible to construct a mathematical formula for inflation that my Econ professor was very impressed with.... .

...................Delta M2
Delta INF = ------- .
...................Delta GNP

The symbol Delta cannot be published, so I had to use the word instead. Most should recognize that the symbol delta stands for "a change in", so to read the formula, we would say...."A change in Inflation is equal to a change in the M2 money supply, divided by a change in the Gross National Product.

Now with this formula we can apply any situation. If the GNP rises faster than the money supply, then we will see the inflation rate decrease. While on the other hand, if the money supply is increased more than the GNP, we will have inflation.

The typical GNP increase, (If my memory serves me), is around 3 percent per year, so as long as the money supply is held to only increasing 3 percent or less, then we will be in good shape.

Notice that big business cannot cause inflation by increasing their prices.

It is all about disposable income.

If Gas prices go up, then we are left with less money to spend on something else, so overall the price of Goods remains the same.

I could go over a great deal of other scenarios, and many of the myths of what causes inflation would be easily exposed. If labor gets an increase in pay, then the company has less profit to use on things. Neither of the previous examples changes the money supply or the total GNP.

Have fun with the formula. Any questions?

It's About "Marriage Restrictions" Not "Rights"

The battle over "Gay Marriage Rights" is a battle that is misnamed. They should be honest and say they want "Less Marriage Restrictions."

When you ask their side why they want to redefine marriage, they have two responses. Let's examine both.

(1) - First response of Gay Rights Activists: "We want the same rights as you have."

Comment: "You do. You have the same rights by having the same restrictions.

You have the same limitations on marriage as I do. I cannot marry a 7 year old. I cannot marry someone who is already married. I cannot marry two people at the same time. I cannot marry a person of the same sex. We have exactly the same rights, by way of having the exact same restrictions.

So, what you really want is to remove the restriction to be able to marry a person of the same sex. So, let's be honest, you don't want the same rights, you want more rights.



(2) - Next response of Gay Rights Activists: "You can marry the person you love, why can't I?"

Comment: "You again have the same restrictions that I have. What if I loved the 7-year-old girl next door, or the married woman next door? I cannot marry just anyone I happen to love, and neither can you. Again, we have exactly the same restrictions."

So, tell us again, why you think you have a logical reason to redefine the basic family building block that has been used for centuries to pro-create the blood lines of the future?

And please be intellectually honest, and don't say..."I want the same rights as you have", and please don't say..."You get to marry the one you love, and I don't."

Please give us a more honest reason. Tell use the real reason...."I want to redefine marriage, because I have these unusual desires that I want to be recognized as normal."

That's the true reason. You want to be able to say..."I am married" whenever you are asked if you are. You don't want to say, "I have a partner" because it sets you apart from the norm. Otherwise there are contracts that you can enter into with your "partner" that will give you every "benifit" that married couples have, except for perhaps a few and those are government sactioned and reserved for those who under normal circumstances can pro-create.

Most people don't want the government to recognize and sanction "all partnerships" as being the same as "married partners" because it is obvious that they aren't.

That's why we have restrictions.

.

Liberals and "Values"

The left in this country think that "the values" voters cost them the election, so they immediately set out to try to set forth their version of values.

Notice that when they espouse their values, it has everything to do with entitlement, (Robin Hood / Socialism), programs such as "Socialized National Health Care."

Values should be about principals, not about agendas. It's about what principals are correct and not about how their "feelings" are channeled to the poor and needy by using O.P.M., (Other Peoples Money.)

The Terms "Left" and "Right"

Government is all about “Force.” To Quote George Washington one more time…

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Many of the “Universal Opposites” can be placed upon a Mathimatical Horizantal Axis, with the two extreams placed upon opposite ends of the line.

For example; The concept of Force vrs. Freedom is applicable to this principal. On the far left we find the Maximum amount of Government or Force, and it is called Totalitiarism. On the far right of this spectum we find the least amount of force or Government, and it is called Anarchy, or no government.

Totalitairism_________________________________Anarchy
Left________________________________________Right
_________Liberal______________________Conservative
Communism
______Socialism
Wahabism/Radical Islam
____________Democracy_____________Republic


Notice that Liberalism is not all the way to the left and Conservatism is not all the way to the right.

Socialsm, Communism and Liberalism fall to the “Left” side of this line because they are for more interference in our lives, while our “Republic” is found more towards the far right since the founding fathers believed that the government should be the least intrusive as possible.

Notice I said “Our Republic” and not “Our Democracy.” Ever here of the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy?” How about “and to the Democracy for which it stands?”

In a pure Democracy, might makes right and the majority pushes around the minority, while in a Republic, the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority by way of the “Bill of Rights.”

There you have it straight from my Political Science professor. Left for more government and right for less government.

Ever notice that with Orwellian “Double Speak” the left uses such oxymoron terms such as “Right-Wing Dictatorship.” A "Dictator" is by definition for Maximum government control which is "Far Left."

There can not be a reason for such a term, except to try to kill the proud term of “Right Winger.”

Are Jews really Christians?

In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to perform animal sacrifices. They were to give up their “best” of the flock. The purpose of these sacrifices was to insure through ritual that the message that God was going to sacrifice his “best” as a “savior” or “Messiah” for them was not forgotten.

When Jesus was sent to become this “Messiah”, the Jews did not accept him as such. They were taught that when he came he would set them free in two ways by fulfilling two promises; first save them from their sins, and second, save them from bondage by becoming their King. They were told that this would take two visits. They only looked forward to the visit where they would be set physically free and not the visit that would set them spiritually free. The Jews had been given countless prophecies about his coming, but when he continually refused to proclaim that he was the "King of the Jews" and that he was there to govern them, they in large rejected him.

Since as a people the Jews were constantly persecuted and even captured and used as slaves, they looked forward to the day that their “Messiah” would lead them out of captivity and become their King.

They had forgotten that the “Messiah” was going to need two “visits” in order to fulfill both promises. We as Christians know that he will return a second time to fulfill the second promise yet sometime in the future.

So, in reality while the Jews are waiting for what they perceive as his first visit, and we are waiting for his second, we both are waiting for the same “Messiah” or Christ. Therefore, perhaps Jews are really Christians, and they just won’t know it until he shows them the nail marks on his hands when he returns.

FAR Background

Radical Islam and the Bible

Purpose of Our Earthly Existence

Those of us who believe in the Bible will recognize the purpose of our being on this Earth. We are here to learn the difference between Good and Evil and to progress and be judged upon how we chose. Sometimes we learn the hard way, which is by not always choosing "Good." When we fail, we not only learn from our mistakes, we actually progress as a person. Gen 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

We learn by Experimentation.

In order for us to make choices, we need to have what has been called "The Law of Universal Opposites." This Law says that for most things that you can think of, there are anti-things. Right-Left, Right-Wrong, Good-Evil, Win-Lose, Up-Down, Hot-Cold, Totalitarianism-Anarchy, Force-Freedom, etc. In order to know Hot we must have available Cold. In order to know Left we must have available Right. This is why God allows evil to exist. We need it to have a choice, which is essential to our progression.

Because God wants us to Learn and Progress, he realizes that we must have the freedom to fail, so he gives us Free Agency. If he were to force us to do good, we might learn from the act, but we would not progress.

There are some who think that "Causality" prevents us from being responsible for our choices, but that is ridiculous. We learn from Cause and Effect, but it does not make the choice for us. For example, we see that if we touch the hot stove, we will get burnt. No one forces us to touch the hot stove; we make the choice ourselves.

Liberals want us to believe that most situations are grey or situational. This way they absolve themselves from being critized or of having any responsibility for their actions. If we become unclear about right and wrong, then they can say that they merely made a "mistake" instead of "doing something wrong."

We also learn by Interacting with others.

There are only two fundamental philosophies that attempt to fully explain our existence in this world. One is the "Dialectic Materialism" of Communism and the other is the "Creator of the Universe by a Supreme Being." While Darwinism incorrectly tries to explain the creation of species, it does not try to explain the rest of the world.

In the Marxist and the Socialist world, they are mainly concerned with who has the material things, and at the cost of freedom and humane treatment. The end justifies the means. They will attempt to be Robin Hood and say that taking (stealing) from the rich to give to the poor is a noble thing. They forget, that stealing is never right.

Redistribution of the Wealth is not a "just" function of a government. Taking from one who has earned it to give to one who hasn't can never be considered fair. Let the one who has it, give willingly to the one who doesn't and he will receive the blessing. Have the government do it, and no one is blessed.

The point is that if one person steals from one who has earned it, and gives to one who hasn't, the morality of the act is clearly wrong. But the act loses it's moral clarity when an organization such as the Government does the same thing. If we vote to "take and give" then we are just a nation of thieves because we are using the force of government to commit "legal plunder." See an overview of the book "The Law" at http://unix.dfn.org/printer_af_FrederickBastiat_theLaw.shtml

By using Force we are robbing people of the blessing of progression. Radical Islam believes that their God wants them to "Force" everyone to their version of religion. God will never force anyone to Heaven or to join a particular religion. He teaches that we must choose to follow him "choose you this day whom ye will serve." Jos 24:15.

While most of us want to be free to make our own decisions without the interference from others or the government, as long as we don't tread on the freedom of others, there are those who feel that only they know what is best and must make many important decisions for us. They forget that Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is similar to the Golden Rule and the Elites should recognize that "Government knows best" is counter to this theme.

Man's inhumanity to man is prevalent throughout the Bible and so is Government's (Kings and Pharaohs) inhumanity to man. The Founding Fathers of this great nation recognized this fact and set up our form of Government to keep us as free from interference as possible. George Washington said"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Radical Islam would have us all under an Imam, or Theocracy, with many less freedoms than we all now have. The Liberals would have us become Socialists with their "National Health Care" and other entitlement, (Robin Hood), programs. While both should be feared, we must remember that the Radical Islamic terrorists want to kill everyone that is not Muslim, while the Liberals just want to take away our individualism, which in effect takes away our freedom. Being equal is not the same as having rights. We cannot have equality and still have individualism. They are diametrically opposed.

If you think about it, even liberals agree that everyone should not get an "A" grade in school. We must reward superior effort, or we will cease to have the capacity to provide for those who don't. Therefore we all discriminate when we choose our friends, or a political affilitation such as the Democratic Party, or Republican Party.

It is a good thing to discriminate in our choices.

Discrimination has become a dirty word, not to ever be used. Since when do we want everyone to be the "same." We want equal treatment for equal behavior, but not equal rewards for un-equal behavior. That is Marxism! It has never worked and it never will, because it goes against the nature of man.

Many humans will do as little as possible to get by, and if they can get someone else to provide for them they will. This is one of the reasons for stealing. Get something for as little effort as possible. Poverty isn't a "cause" of stealing! Rich people also are known to steal. Gaining wealth doesn't make someone more moral all of the sudden.

People act the way they act because that is the way they want to act.

Up or Down Vote

May I answer the question about where it says “An Up-or-Down” Vote in the Constitution for the esteemed Congressman, (Robert Byrd), from the wrong-wrong side of the Isle?

Article II of the Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" Dot-Dot-Dot.

It doesn’t say “Advise and Consent of the Committee” or more specifically, the Judicial Committee!

In order to have the Senate do the Advising, the nominee must make it to the Senate floor!

Therefore Mr Byrd, you have just been Shot down in Flames!