Free Agency Rules

Is Health Care a Right?

2009-09-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

The real issue can be properly stated this way, (and both sides will be correct if their main premise is correct, so it is crucial to get the main premise correct!)

Liberal Main Point: "Health Care is a right as much as the Police Department or Fire Department is!"

Conservative Main Point: "Health Care is not the same as Police or Fire protection because in those cases we are not talking about 'TRANSFER PAYMENTS', but instead we are talking about people DIRECTLY getting a SALARY to help whoever needs it and there is no need for competition.

We don't have competeting Fire Departments or Police Departments for good reason...we all agree that there is no need to have competition to keep the price down of those programs, but when it comes to health, we don't all have the same level of need, and therefore it is more like Car Insurance, we get to choose our level of coverage because ONE SIZE DOSEN'T FIT ALL like fire and police.

And most importantly....WE GET TO VOTE ON THE BUDGET for these things and if they are getting out of hand, we get to complain and actually do something about it.

So, in other words, we don't need to say that "We want to use the government to force our neighbors to pay for our Health Insurance, because we want to keep that decision to ourselves.

There are many things we could do to lower health insurance costs:

1. Allow interstate competition that is currently forbidden by this Administration and all others previous to it.

2. Give the tax break to individuals and not companies and make all insurance portable, with provisions for "break between jobs" provisions of various lengths that could be purchased as desired for increasing amounts and/or vouchers/tax breaks.

3. Make basic "Catostrophic" insurance so desirable that you get a rebate check if you show continous coverage for the previous tax year.

4. Allow for Vouchers that give an instant cash rebate if used to purchase a years worth of "Catastrophic Insurance" for the 50% of Americans that don't pay taxes.

5. And so on!

Also, Policemen and Firemen don't spend 10 years of their young lives and $75,000 to $100,000 getting the education and training so they can make a very nice living. If we remove the incintive to allow the best doctors to make the most money, then we will be dooming ourselves to "average" doctors at best!

And finally the "Government Option" will by it's very nature drive all other options out of business because no one can compete with an option that can print money and can therefore operate at a loss.

Competition is what lowers cost. High prices are the only cure for high prices in a competetive marketplace, because someone will always take less profit to make a profit that they were not getting before, and that by it's very nature makes the competition work harder to find ways to cut costs so they can get back the profit they lost.

This one fact is lost on the "do-gooders" in Washington who only care about winning votes by passing a law that "sounds good" but always fails. Have you ever heard of a $500.00 hammer? Only people in D.C. would purchase/pay for a $500.00 hammer but it happens in every bureaucratic department because there will always be waste and corruption when there are votes and other peoples money involved.

This administration is in bed with big pharma because it is once again all about the money!

Will Obama Attack Iran?

2009-07-30T16:02:00.000-07:00

Obama may attack Iran within the next 12 months if I am reading things correctly. There are two main reasons for this possibility:

1. Obama is frustrated that he has been unsuccessful in negotiations with Iran and with Europe in his quest for other countries to help us fight the Talaban in Afganistan and in other places around the world. Other Countries such as Germany and France have told him to "bug off" when he has asked for help. Consequently he needs to boost his "savior" status by doing something on a grand scale that will get "world" attention and really do what others will see as his being able to cement his place in history as "the one" who started us on the path to "World Peace." Not to mention pick up his sagging poll numbers here in the U.S.

2. Obama is worried that if he doesn't do something soon, Israel will attack or bomb Iran in an attempt to stop the production of Nukes. Obama knows that if that happens Iran will seal off the Straights of Hormuz and this will cause China and Europe to panic and will push them into the deepest depression ever concieved because the price of oil would go up by several orders of magnitude. And China and Europe are telling him this and he is listening with the ear of a savior.

Inflation is Comming - BIG TIME!

2009-07-21T10:01:00.000-07:00

About 20 years ago while in College, I came up with a formula for Inflation and my professor thought it was really good and very interesting and here it is....

Delta Inflation is equal to Delta M3 divided by Delta GNP.

Or in other words to simplfy the above formula....A change in Inflation is equal to the change of amount of money in circulation divided by the change in the gross national product.

This goes along with the classical definition of Inflation..... "Too much money chasing too few goods." Notice that there are really only two components to Inflation....Money and goods.

The pied piper of washington is going to ruin this country with run-away inflation because of his spending plans. When ever there is a deficit, there are three ways for the government to get the money to pay for it...

1. Taxes - He wants to just raise the taxes on the rich...but the truly rich have their money protected! Also raising taxes can often lead to less revenue because of the "Laffer Curve." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
UPDATE: 7-29-09 Actually the correct way to use taxes for the government to have more money to pay for it's spending is to lower taxes since this creates more profit for companies because people will then spend it and hence more taxes and more revenue.

2. Borrow - Borrowing money just makes more unemployment because it means less money for the private sector.

3. Inflation - Put more money in circulation - which has the effect of taxing all of us, rich and poor, because the price of everything goes up, (or more correctly the value of our money goes down.)

Value or Cost is equal to Demand over Supply.

Welfare Health Care ( Also known as Oboma Care ) will raise the cost of health care beyond belief.

Lets say that there are 100,000 doctors in this country and 70,000,000 people in the health care system. Now, all of the sudden we add 30,000,000 more people into the system with the same number of Doctors.... Value or Cost will be More demand over the same supply....

Volia - Much higher costs. Perhaps even double or more. It amazes me how Oboma doesn't acknowledge this very important fact. Either he doesn't understand or know it, or he is being dishonest to suit his goal of the "end justify's the means", meaning as long as everyone has health care, it doesn't matter the cost to the taxpayers, as long as they think they are getting taken care of.

This President will go down in history as the worst President we ever had because he will destroy our health care and our economy and even perhaps our freedom.

There you have it...math to prove my points. Of course proof is subjective. Proof is only what a person belives to be true, not what is true. Hence the same facts presented to a Jury, and often half of the Jury will see it 180 degrees from the other half.

Our Liberty continues to disappear!

2009-05-09T03:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-11-15T17:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T14:08:00.000-08:00

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?”

2007-08-18T06:36:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-18T16:11:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-11T20:05:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-11T05:32:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-28T19:22:00.000-07:00

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.

What is Evil?

2007-04-20T10:24:00.000-07:00

This is a very deep question because it has so many people confused about the real difference between a “sinner” and an “Evil” person.

A sinner can make bad moral decisions that may or may not harm others.

If we steal a pencil from work, we are a sinner, but we would not be classified as an Evil person.

If we look at the dictionary definition of Evil we find things like “1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.” – American Heritage Dictionary

When we are born, we are all born with “free will” or as my moniker says with “Free Agency.”

I choose the word “Agency” because it shows that we are free to “choose” good or bad. I also choose it because I always want to point out that “others” don’t make choices for us. “He did what he did because others bullied him, so it wasn’t really his fault.” Baloney! He made the choice. Nobody “made” him do it, not even the “devil!”

As we journey through life we are moving toward a preponderance of morally good decisions or one of mostly bad moral decisions.

(Update - Added the words intentionally - FAR )
If those decisions intentionally continually do significant harm to others, or if they only once intentionally do the ultimate harm to many, (murder), one might classify them as an evil person.

At one time I thought, (and even blogged on it), that we should never hate anyone or anything, and after further review, I need to correct the stance that we should never hate. We should never hate people or a person, but it is O.K. to hate evil.
(Update - Maybe better word(s) than hate would be "fight against" - FAR)

Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. – Ps. 97:10

The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. – Prov. 8:13

Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph. – Amos 5: 15

We have to recognize that some people are truly Evil and we need to stop making victims out of them because they didn’t get their spinach when they were little, therefore they must be looked at as what they are, Evil.

If there is Good, there must be Evil. There are quarks and anti-quarks; there are protons, and anti-protons, the ying and the yang. Anyone who denies that there is Evil, is deluding himself or herself that there is balance in the world.

Note update on the word "hate."

"Biblical Hebrew lacks the necessary language to exactly define the comparative sense, i.e., 'more than' or 'less than'. Instead it tends to express two things which may be comparatively of different degree like 'first' and 'second' as extremes such as 'first' and 'last'. In this way love and hate whilst appearing as opposites may in fact be related but lesser terms such as 'love more' and 'love less'. " See Hebrew Studies - http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm

So, perhaps we should say we "dislike" evil instead of saying we "hate" evil. - FAR

NBC Got it Wrong!

2007-04-19T15:35:00.001-07:00

Anyone who has raised children or studied psychology understands the concept of positive reinforcement or positive feedback.

Whatever you reward, you get multiplied or continued. Whatever you give consequences for, will get diminished.

NBC decided to air the video of this Monster that was in a human body. It can’t be measured but the above truism says that this monster will be copied because there will be others who see that he got just what he wanted…. air time to be famous and voice his grievances as a “victim.” More evil has been done in the name of victim hood than any other excuse I can think of.

Some will say he was mentally ill and therefore we should feel sorry for him.

It has been well established that all of us have had many painful episodes in our life and we do not react this way. Even Jesus had a very painful life.

Only a person who has no understanding of the moral consequences should be pitied, not the person who has psychological difficulties. In my view he clearly knew he was doing something that was wrong, but as most monsters, he justified it by seeing himself as a victim. And that, many feel, gives them license to do evil to the innocent.

Some will say we should “forgive” him, as Jesus would do. This statement shows the ignorance of those who think they have read and understood the bible, but as the bible says, if you don’t have the proper spirit when you read it, it will not be understood. They will see it as “foolishness.”

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor. 2: 12, 14 “

We are to forgive those who have wronged “us”, but only those who have been wronged by this monster can forgive “him”.

We should be seeing the pictures of the true victims on NBC, those wonderfully innocent 32 school children who were taken in the prime of their life, but instead we see video and pictures of this monster.

Why do they not show a person at a football game that runs on to the field to get “face time?”

Because they really do know that rewarding him with just what he wants will only encourage others to follow in his footsteps.

NBC is not going to feel complicit for any copycat episodes, but they should. Shame on them!

A confluence of views that conflict.

2007-04-07T14:58:00.000-07:00

I have been having a nice conversation with a fellow blogger named Truth Or Consequences who has made me realize what might be a common misconception about people who happen to share a worldview that is similar to mine, so I decided to blog on that misconception.

I will start by saying that I have many views that happen to conflict in one or many areas and that makes those who read my positions on my views to think that I look for things to confirm my "preferred existing views" at the expense of one of my other views, when in reality, I look for things to try to “solve” the conflicts that exist in my “multi-faceted” worldviews without trying to prove or disprove any of them. Most people will accept any position that agrees with theirs without much thought, and summarily dismiss an opposing view without much inspection.

I usually find that just because there are some "missing links" in my views that I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The preponderance of data or information is good enough until something else comes along. But on the other hand, if something comes along that completely shoots down one of my views, then I change. I have even changed religions because of that very thing.

First Example, I believe in God. The reason that I believe in God can be summed up in the statement above about the preponderance of data or information that makes sense to most people in the world. There are too many things that can't be explained by science because they are not in the part of this Universe that we can measure. Science will tell you for example that they may be other dimensions, such as suggested by "string theory", but we just don't know yet.

How is it that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people who have had “out of body” experiences, especially near death ones, and in almost all cases they related almost, if not exactly, identically experiences. Hovering above their body…. moving toward a light…etc, etc. Read the book "Life After Life" by Dr. Raymond Moody, for the inspriation of your life about this concept, (if you have an open mind or are inquisitive.)

The concept can be further investigated in the question..."What is a mind?" Is the mind the essence of life? Is it the intelligence within us, or the spirit or soul of man/woman?

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. There is just too much information on the metaphysical side to ignore, so why not investigate with an open mind.

I also believe in Evolution but also believe that Man was created in the image of God. This view has a built in conflict, so I look for opinions or facts where possible that might give me a better handle on what might make “more” sense than what the current view I hold presents. Such as what the book “The Science of God” by Gerald R. Schroeder did for me in this wonderful book that I could not put down until I finished it. One of the top Ten books I have ever read!

Another example is I believe in Physics and for a long time I had a problem with the conflict of the notion that the Universe being created in six days, yet my logic and science told me it was Billions of years old. So, again, I looked for views that could help me solve that conflict, but not to prove anything one way or another. Again enter Dr. Schroder and his book above.

But to an outsider, it would appear that I was looking to “prove science wrong” in order to prove the other view right. Nothing could be further from the truth. My core view is that both Science and my other conflicting views must be in concert as the truth and facts must agree.

I also believe in Global Climate Changes, but I also hold the view that there are those in the world with agendas that wants to make us believe that man is bad and especially modern man and his excessive use of resources.

And so they look for ways to force their assumptions to arrive at the conclusion they desire. It is well known that the scientific mind wants to be able to “explain the world around us” and that we all have bias.

If a scientist holds a worldview that man must be causing the Global Climate Changes, then he will begin his Hypothesis with that assumption. Everyone knows that Conclusions are arrived at by way of the opening assumptions. Make the wrong assumptions and you arrive at the wrong conclusions.

So, to those who truly have an open mind, they will seek out dissenting views that may or may not fit the current “majority view” since the press and those in academia generally hold anti-conservative views and thus will try to “force” their agenda and views to fit their desired outcomes.

For those who believed that the world was flat, it was rational not to sail to far or they would fall off the edge of the world. But today, if you go against the mainstream views, you are acting irrational. Once the minority view is found to be true, then the whole paradigm changes, but today if the “majority of scientists” say something, then it “must be correct.” After all how can the majority ever be wrong?

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming a new Religion?

2007-04-06T18:53:00.000-07:00

From “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – Wikipidea

“The concept of anthropogenic global warming has developed into a modern religion, with sceptics treated as heretics and labelled as "global warming deniers", in order to equate genuine scientific scepticism with holocaust denial. Retired university professor Tim Ball says in the programme that he has received death threats because of the sceptical statements he has made about global warming.”

Search on Google for the One and a Half hour video as I am doing at this very moment. Search "The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - Full Version."

The summary of the documentary is on Wikipidea as mentioned above.

The programe mentioned above is a documentary made by British Televison Producer Martin Durkin at Channel 4. Britian television Channel 4 is far from a Conservative right-wing propaganda source. However to be fair it is made with the intent of being polemic, but that should not disqualify it.

For those who blindly accept the “majority opinion” on matters for the sake of saying that the majority must always be right, are missing the point that often it is the dissenting view, such as the world is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth, that gets the label of hertic and is supposed to just shut up and go away.

Seekers of the truth appreciate and read both sides of an issue so as not to be lead to the “might makes right” bombastic shrine and do not just read the press or reviews of their great leaders from academia who try to stop the bleeding by taking things out of context and giving false conclusions about the books or movies by those terrible heretics.

Everyone knows that the Globe is always changing it's temperture, but is it conclusive that the cause is mostly man-made or that there is anything that can be done about it without making someone a very nice profit, or by getting some very nice grants? Follow the money.

There Ought to Be a LAW

2007-04-02T03:21:00.000-07:00

Which group makes this cry daily? They are so blinded by the need to control everyone else's lives that they are taking away everyones liberty.

Laws are for the purpose of "forcing" people.

FORCE is the antithesis of FREEDOM.

The next time you here this cry, remember that each law we pass, we will in almost every case "take away freedom."

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington, 1732 - 1799)

IT IS FORCE!

Science and Religion. Zeus and Thor versus The God of Abraham

2007-03-17T15:03:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite claims to God being a myth is the one comparing him to Zeus or Thor. Sam Harris predictably makes this comparison.

While trying to say that the God of Abraham is comparable to the Greek Myths of the past is like trying to compare the “Sears Tower” to a three story apartment building….

Consider:

While there appears to be concensus that Jesus actually existed, is there any agreement that the “Son of Zues or Son of Thor” actually existed?
Did anyone ever have a “Son of Zeus” cause so much attention as to have the very calendar we observe honor him?

While over a Billion people, (Jews, Christians, and Muslims), believe in the same God of Abraham, (they might understand him differently, but they all claim he is the God of Abraham), is there any comparison to those who believe that there might be a God named Zeus?

For the past 2300 years or so up to the 1960’s, the scientific community has believed that the Universe was Eternal. Einstein even thought he had proven it, but the Bible has always claimed that the Universe had a beginning. “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen 1:1

Now if time did not exist until after the Big Bang and since cause and effect requires a “before and after sequence”, then therefore there could not have been a “cause” to precede the “effect.” Or, in scientific terms, without the existence of the “Laws of Nature” prior to the Big Bang, there could not have been a “Quantum Fluxuation” to cause the Big Bang.

The reason we have had such a divide between Science and Religion is the fact that the Scientist goes into depth in his field and only has a superficial understanding of Religion, and vice versa. For example, in the Book of Genesis we read two statements that to the untrained and unscholarly seem to be an inconsistency…first God tells Adam that if he eats the fruit, he will die that very day, but then Adam eats, yet lives to be 930 years old.

The Scholar knows that the Bible is full of passages that talk about different time frames, (sometimes a day means a year, and sometimes it means a thousand years and then somethimes it means 24 hours). For example, right after the Big Bang there were two time frames to consider, the Cosmic Time measured in Billions of years and God’s time measured in a day being a thousand years, (see 2 Peter 3:8), and therefore Adam lived less than one of God’s days. So in Cosmic time the “six” days are in Billions of years, but in God’s days it is in 6 thousand of our years. Time is relative based upon the position of the observer.

So, now that the scientific community has come around to the correct position on the Universe having a beginning, most Scientists that have a Scholarly understanding of the Bible, such as Gerald L. Schroeder, have very few differences between the two different areas left.

Science and Religion both want to be based upon truth and Wisdom. My definition of Wisdom might be stated as “the sum of scholarly learning through the ages, or the proper understanding of what is true.” Facts have a way of changing over time because they can be wrong as well as be improperly interpreted, so that is why I am saying wisdom.

For example in the sixties, I was told that it was a “closed case” that we were in a new “Ice Age.” Most scientists had come to that consensus. I was also told that we would run out of oil by the year 2000, and that was also a “closed case.”

Not to mention that in the past the earth was thought to be flat, and the Sun revolved around the earth and both were treated as if they were fact.

True facts are true regardless of whether they are scientific truths or religious truths, and they cannot disagree or one is not true by definition.

Some of the theory of Evolution is true, while other parts of it may or may not be true since we are not able to produce the fossils that might “prove” the missing links in those very fossil records.

But regardless, even Darwin in his Origin of Species says that God had a hand in evolution. “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

It is quite easy for many of the religious to believe that “animal species” are evolving, while it may be possible that the “human” is one species that has not been part of that evolution. (I am not saying that it is so, but merely saying that there are possible scenario's that could allow for what appear to be differences.)

Now, if some say that it is “impossible” for the human to be outside the Theory of evolution, then they are guilty of having a closed mind if for no other reason than the fact that they themselves believe in something so mathematically improbable that it defies logic, (the universe and life beginning by random chance), while not allowing the same probability on the above statement.

The old saying…”If you can think it, it is probably possible”….makes those who react to any challenge to their worldview with the knee-jerk statement of…”That’s impossible!”...seem to be intolerant and close-minded.

Facts, Conclusions, and Lies

2006-11-18T10:40:00.000-08:00

Facts are true by definition. Conclusions based upon facts may or may not be true.

Example: A Ford has 4 wheels, has a steering wheel, it has brakes, it has thousands of parts and sub-assemblies, (building blocks), that are just like a Chevy. Facts!

Therefore the Ford and the Chevy are from the same parents or maker. ( Conclusion - False )

That is the problem with people who say, “These fossils are very similar to these fossils, and therefore they both are from the same parents.”

No, it is the part after the “therefore” that many have a problem with.

Just because my DNA and a Gorilla’s DNA are very similar, (Fact), that does not necessarily “force” the “conclusion” that we have the same ancestors, it just means we are made with many of the same “building blocks.”

The plain truth that I just explained will be totally ignored by many who are so blinded by their hate and their "belief" in their world view, that their brain will not even allow the entertainment of the possibility that my statements make sense.

Many conservatives believe in the “facts” of Evolution, the fact that there are fossils is indisputable for example.

The problem is that many conservatives don’t believe in some of the “conclusions” about Evolution such as MacroEvolution or biological evolution.

“Survival of the fittest” seems to be a logical conclusion, as the idea that there can be evolution “within” species. But the “conclusion” that there is evolution from one species to another “could” be a “false conclusion.”

There are those who will lie trough their teeth and accuse people who don’t support “all” of the “conclusions” of evolution to be people who are stupid or people who don’t acknowledge science or facts. They are being deceptive by using false logic to lie by saying that if you don't believe in "all" of the conclusions, then therefore you don't believe in any part of Evolution and therefore you also hate science.

Those accusations are coming from people who “claim” to be “fair minded” people who are “always” interested in the “minority” or divergent views, but evidentially not when the divergent views, (conclusions), are conservative or who's views don’t coincide with theirs.

The Death of A Giant

2006-11-17T17:23:00.000-08:00

A tribute to Milton Friedman.

Back in the 1950’s, the prevailing thought about Economics was that Keynesian Economics was the correct one. It was what was taught at the Universities and most of the Elite in this country, ( and in most others), was the Left leaning, semi-managed economics of “a little bit of inflation is a good thing.”

Keynes had this theory that if you increased the money supply, it would stimulate the economy in basically the same way that a true increase in demand for goods would.

Keynes thought that by having more money in circulation, there would be more initial demand on goods, which would then stimulate sales. His thinking was that about 2-3 percent was about right.

He also said very emphatically that there could not be a “stagnate” economy and an inflationary economy at the same time. If my memory serves me, in the 1980's we had "Stagflation" and Kenyes was in trouble.

Along about 1962 Milton Friedman wrote a book called “Capitalism and Freedom.” See excerpts here.

This book and the Universities that began to recognize its importance, has been a major factor in “freedom” loving people around the world understanding the connection between “true freedom” and economics.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan were both big supporters of his. Once their success became widely recognized with the precepts found in Friedman’s books, Russian began to see the light and started to experiment with them.

Now even China has recognized that not only was Socialism a failed Economic principal, but its little brother called “Keynesian Economics” was too.

It is all about “Competition” setting the value of goods and services instead of some nebulous governing body, that can almost never guess the value correctly. The guesses bring shortages and black markets without fail.

Russia found that until they allowed farmers to “manage” their own farms and keep some “profits” that for some reason until that time there was never enough food, but with competition and ownership comes supply and often abundance.

Not only has Russia been moving more and more towards a “competition” based society and away from socialism and communism, but China has as well.

But alas, even with all of this proof, there are those in this country that want to go in the opposite direction. From Competition towards Socialism.

We have never had true "Capitalism", nor have we ever had a true “Free Market” system, but the basic principals are there if we ever recognize that moving more toward them is the right direction and not toward more government management of our Economy.

History will and has not only honored Milton Friedman with the “Noble Prize” for Economics, but with a great eye opening of the principals of the connection of freedom with the free market principals of competition, and also with the removal of government interference within that marketplace.

Congratulations to the Democrats

2006-11-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

First let me say that I am an American first and a participant in the political process second. Translated, I put my belief in the American system of government before any political party.

So, having said that, the Democrats have won a victory in securing both of the houses of Congress and they did it by the voting process. They did not “Disenfranchise” any voters, they did not “hack” into the voting machines, they won fair and square and I respect their right to gloat.

We, the ones who were defeated, will do self-examination and introspection to determine how to better convince our fellow voters that we have the better message. We will blame the people who deserve blame for not winning…us…. and try to do better.

Congratulations Dems.

Why I no longer Vote Democratic

2006-11-02T13:24:00.000-08:00

Note: In most of the descriptions below, when I am talking about the Democratic Party and the Dems in general, I am mainly talking about those in power and those in positions of influence. There are a great many voters who sincerely believe in the Democratic Party, as I did in the JFK days, but are being mislead by their Elitist Controllers in Washington.

Our way of life is under attack. Mostly from radical terrorists who want to “force” their view of religion/politics on us and the rest of the world. It is also partly under attack from those on who are in the Republican Party that believe the government needs more police powers without constitutional protections, and partly from those in the Democratic Party who would think you can negotiate with people who don’t want compromise. While I object to being "forced" to convert to a religion, I always welcome those from a church who wish to tell me about their "good news" (Gospel - means good news) without any force for me to join, only gentle persuasion.

Of the three above I worry about the radical terrorists the most and then the party who would love to see us lose in Iraq so they could try to appease them instead.

Not only does the Democratic Party think we can win the war on terror by abandoning the main front in Iraq, but they believe by turning tail and running, we can some how win by loosing. Again the war on terror is a very broad front, with Iraq being the main theater. I did not agree with us going in to Iraq, but I am even more opposed to us leaving before the Iraq people can defend themselves.

Everybody knows the terrorists want us to leave Iraq too soon, that should not be debatable unless a person is more interested in spin than truth. Here in this article, "Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat", from World Net Daily we can see that the Terrorist openly wish the Democrats would win the Congress. Does anyone deny that the terrorists are doing their best to send us home with our tail between our legs? I am sure there will be someone who says the terrorists wish we would stay and therefore we should vote Republican, so go ahead and see how silly that argument will sound.

The Old Media, NBC, ABC, CBS and most papers across the USA are without contradiction full of people who have liberal/Democratic bias and the honest ones will even admit it occasionally. While the talk radio shows openly admit their bias, Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. I am sure that since it is the Leading Cable News Network that the Liberals will contend that Allen Combs and the other Liberals on that Network don’t really exist or that they are by far in the minority, but I think that could be debated and they might have some points.

The left cannot stand the Military. They often will claim they don’t but then why do they fight so hard to keep the recruiters off of their strangle hold they have on College Campuses? Why did John Kerry say that I and my other Viet Nam Vets were all baby killers, “millions of them” that were created by the US government? Why did he say our Soldiers “terrorize women and children” during the middle of the night in Iraq? Why did Dick Durban say our soldiers were as bad as Pol Pot?

It is no secret that the Dems see themselves as champions of the “victim” class. Those people who need their help because they are all incapable of competing in the market place of ideas, in college, or in business without their help. They see all minorities as inferior people who must have their help. The Dems must give them daily handouts or they would not be able to make it. They quickly dismiss that their party was the party that was for Slavery. They forget it was the Republican Christians who for the most part operated the underground railroad, (unless my memory or facts are faulty.)

It is no secret that the Dems usually think with their heart instead of their brain and the proof is in the irrational belief and agenda of trying to convince us that there is no difference between men and women. Larry Summers was kicked out of Harvard for daring to suggest that men and women might actually think differently. The Dems worship science and almost a year doesn't pass that I don't read about a professor of biology that doesn't say that men and women are indeed different in so many ways that we had never realized, but the Dems never mention those professors.

I heard today that in New York there is now a law that men may choose to use a Women’s bathroom if he feels more comfortable than using the Men’s room. Which party again is “off it’s rational rocker?”

I think the Republican Party is still the closest to Conservative values, even though there are many instances when it is clear they have strayed toward the left, such as they have with their giant spending programs. But having said that, I remember the line from “Die Hard With a Vengeance” when Samuel L. Jackson said to Bruce Willis, “I don’t like you because you are going to get me killed!”

That statement about their plan to let the terrorist have Iraq as soon as possible, and their disdain for the Military along with their desire to blur the distinction between men and women, destroy traditional marriage, (they must not think it is very important because if they had their way, any two people should be able to get married including two brothers), then it must not be about raising a family, but rather just material, legal and other benefits.

Remember marriage is not about rights but about “government sanctioning” and benefits. It is “licensed” by the several states and therefore by definition each state can define the “limits” it places on that License. It defines limits such as two people instead of three or more, age limits, single adults, etc. So, it has never been about anyone being able to marry whomever they wanted. But not if you listen to the Dems.

Most of Americans cannot see the truth.

2006-10-27T09:30:00.000-07:00

The great majority of those on both the right and the left have lost their ability to see truth. Both sides have lost their perspective because of falling for “talking points” instead of thinking logically without emotion or the fear of having your worldview turned upside down.

This has led to the lack of being able to use rational thought. One blogger told me that he could not think of one good point on the conservative side. Does that really sound like rational thought? Can he really be objective when he thinks the world is so simplistic that he can reduce it to a binary “black and white” solution? Dems are right and Repubs are wrong on ALL POINTS?

The radical left does not want what is best for our country. They only want to punish the Republicans because they believe they are evil. The rhetoric on both sides is “They can do no right!” and “They have no values!”

The Left has a special way of turning off the debate in this country by just picking a conversation destroying word from the following list…. Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Bigot, Intolerant, Xenophobic, and then they think that they have won and the discussion is over because they have put you in a box and in your place. They think with their heart instead of their brain.

In reality, both sides have their values, but only a person who realizes that the first part of honest discussion is to “tell the truth” and then state your opinion is really the only one who is thinking rationally.

Both sides are being forced to choose between good values. For example, having to choose between the value of “Free Speech” and the value of “Equality.” Campaign Finance Reform is a good example of destroying “Free Speech” in the name of “Equality.” The left falsely thinks that telling the voters that they “shall not” be able to give the amount of money they wish to a candidate of their choice, is a way to provide equality, but it really stifles free speech and insures that only the rich will be able to get elected, because the rich can put as much of their own money into an election as they wish. Only someone with an open mind will be able to see the truth of what I just pointed out.

We are also being forced to choose between “Freedom” and “Safety.”

But when it all comes down to it, the side that is most right is the side that is for “Competition.” The left is for destroying competition but their brain will not let them see this important truth. Unions, Transfer Payments, Redistribution of Income, Welfare, Welfare Health Care, and Affirmative Action all are forms of destroying competition. Economic “Equality” is not a good value; it is a barrier to economic prosperity. You cannot have success without failure and the left refuses to allow anyone to fail. When someone gets “fined” in a Court of Law it is easy to see that taking someone’s money against his or her will is a form of punishment, but when it is unfair taxation, most on the left cannot see that it is a form of punishment.

The single most important reason that this country is so rich and successful is because people are allowed to compete. Competition lowers prices, and eliminates waste. As Winston Churchill once said, “There are no obscene profits, only obscene losses.” If profits are too large, then competitors will emerge and lower the profits. The Democratic Party is unknowingly destroying the Middle Class and the people who support it have lost their ability to see it.

The Patriot Act has some flaws in it; (See Conservative Judge Andrew Napolatono’s book about the flaws), the Presidents plan of holding enemy combatants for military tribunals without habeas corpus is a crushing blow to keeping the government from wielding too much power. The law is too broad, with no sunset provision and no distinction of citizens or non-citizens. At least the accused that is a U.S. citizen should be allowed to have habeas corpus, (an immediate arraignment to determine if one is being “lawfully” imprisoned), and full rights granted to those who are U.S. citizens. These are all good points that the Democrats could argue, but instead they just want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because they cannot admit that the other side is doing ANYTHING right. Only those who have an open mind will be able to see these points.

Again, these things could be fixed if both sides would work together, but instead the party out of power will never give the other side ANY credit because it will mean supporting the other party’s power.

If the President would all of the sudden be for Gay Marriage the Democrats would all of the sudden be silent because they could no way say the Republicans were doing something that in their mind was right. Before long the public would have to say, “well the Republicans must be doing a great job, because even the Dems are saying so.” So what we wind up with is nothing but negativism about even good ideas from either side. And both sides will cheer their sides “Negativism” instead of thinking about the facts.

I was a Democrat during the John F. Kennedy days because I believed they were for the little guy. I still believe that “Giant” Corporations are Amoral and have way too much influence on all government actions, but the answer is not more government control, but rather to get rid of the legal entity known as a “Corporation” and only allow partnerships and family trusts.

Corporations have no personality or morality, while family owned businesses do. Family owned businesses might not choose to do business with the devil, while a corporation has no problem doing it. Democrats are fooled into thinking that Corporations are just for the Republicans, but in reality they are for both parties and donate large amounts to both sides so that no matter who wins, they will be taken care of. While the Democrats say they are against the rich, I would bet that there are more rich Democrats in congress than Republicans.

When the Democratic Party started down the road to “Socialism” by embracing all sorts of ridiculous anti-competition ideas, I decided to become a Libertarian. But because voting for a Libertarian means allowing an Anti-Competition Democrat to win, I must support the Republican Party.

Recognition of true Evil

2006-09-20T11:51:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest problems in the world today is the notion that True Evil doesn't exist, and people who commit evil are just "making mistakes" and that they were not really responsible for their evil.

All people are motivated by the desire to be happy. Even when someone is doing something for Altruistic reasons, they are still doing it because it makes them happy to help others. All actions are driven by character, not by others actions.

If you react to others, it is because you have a motive to react. You think revenge will make you happier, or make you feel better, etc. No one makes you do things that you have a choice to do.....by definition.

For example, if someone robs a bank, some will wonder...."gee, what caused him to do that?"
Nothing! He made a choice to do it!

When the terrorists, kill their fellow Muslims, some will say...."gee, what caused them to do that"?
Nothing! They had a choice to do it.

When people hate the United States, some will say, "gee what did we do to cause such hate.”?
Nothing! They have a choice to hate or like us!

This type of thinking ignores the fact that people generally act on things that they believe in or in things they believe will make them happy. People who rob banks believe that money will make them happy.

Terrorists who kill Americans in the name of God, believe they will be made happy in an after life, or in other words they do it because of what they believe, not because they are poor or we are trying to give them freedom, or we are in their country. They "hate" us no matter where we are because it is natural for evil to hate good.

"Where the hate is, there you will find the evil." We are supposed to dislike sin, and other evil acts, but those who are twisted in their thinking find it easy to "hate" those they disagree with. "Hate the sin, but not the sinner!"

While the correct view is to disagree with those who you feel are not doing the right thing, it is wrong to "hate" them. Hate is a tool for evil people. As one famous person once wrote, "hate will take you down the dark side", or words to that effect.

The reason why the Jews are so hated is because evil people and those without a spine think that someone who says that there is no moral relativism in the world, are afraid that they may be right. And that there may be a "reckoning" by someone who will say that there was a "higher standard" of right and wrong than they wanted to rationalize.

The Jewish Prophets would enter a town and preach the "truth" and more importantly, they would not just say it as their belief, they said it as a fact because they had spoken directly to God.

This brazenness of "fact" and not belief coupled with telling people how they were doing morally wrong acts, allow people to issue forth their anger and hate.

Today, we find those who are in the mode of thinking that people hate America because of something that we have done, when in reality, when you do good things and have a value system and economic system that produces the most wealthy people on the planet as far as numbers go, then you will have people showing their envy, hate, spite, etc.

South America has just as many resources as we do, but yet they do not have near the wealth. Why? Because you need competition and a system that allows success, (which must include the allowance for failure).

So, again, it is not our policies that has brought so much hate for us, it is the envy, and greed that has allowed people to do what they like to do.....Hate those who they envy.

Our wealth does not cause hate, people hate because it is what they want to do. The terrorists believe that they will be happy and will be doing God's will if they bring about Shira, or in other words, Political and Religious Law combined into one system.

If the world loved America, I would be worried. It would mean that we were just as immoral a nation as Iran, N. Korea, and others that hate us. I am glad those nations hate us, it means we are doing something right.

If you belong to a religion that eveyone loves, you better re-examine it, because the world will "persecute" the saints.

Evil hates good. The world hates the Jews because they are the choosen ones of God. If the world loved them, they should wonder if they are truely doing the things that God wants them to do.

Those that want to appease evil are doing more harm than they can imagine. Those with the....Neville "Peace In Our Time" Chamberlin Philosophy must have slept through high school history. You can not appease evil. Peace at any price usually means giving in to despots or tyrants and giving up your freedom. To Communists and Terrorists, peace means "no more opposition" to their system.

People are accountable and responsible for their actions. Neither the Devil nor circumstances cause them to do things. They have their ability to choose to do evil and to hate.

Never forget this...."People do things because of their wants and their character and not because of outside influences."

Influences build character, they do not cause actions. It is how we react under stress and hardships that define us, not how we act when things are normal or great.

"Where the hate is, there you will find the evil."

IMHO.

Fun with Dems

2006-07-17T02:59:00.000-07:00

Abortion Revisited

2006-06-24T23:07:00.000-07:00

Is Abortion Murder?

The short answer is “It all depends.”

Let us take a scenario and see how a doctor determines if a baby is alive.

A baby is on the gurney and a doctor arrives and someone shouts, “Is he alive?”

The doctor quickly connects the electroencephalogram to his brain and an EKG to his heart. After noticing that the baby has both, he will then answer most emphatically, “Yes!”

So, now armed with how doctors determine life in a baby, let us follow the pre-birth growth of a baby.

At the time of fertilization up until about the second week, we call the baby a zygote. A single diploid cell resulting from the fusion of male and female gametes at fertilization (sperm and ovum.) From on line medical dictionary

Next, the baby moves into the embryo stage. The developing organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of the seventh or eighth week. From on line medical dictionary

And then the baby moves into the final stage called the fetus stage. The period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy. From the on line medical dictionary

Is the fetus also a baby? From the on line Dictionary called Dictionary.com we find... Baby - ”A very young child, and infant.” And “an unborn child, a fetus.”

A baby is an Infant until it reaches about 24 months. The derivative of the word comes from Latin meaning the baby cannot yet speak.

Now since we have established that after the baby reaches the fetus stage and after it has brain and heart functions, it should be considered alive, and protecting it’s life should be the first priority when the mother is considering terminating that life.

Some will not allow entertaining even the thought that the baby might be alive because it is uncomfortable for people to challenge their rationalizations. It is just human nature to hate to hear the truth unless it is located in the realm of our worldview so when even the suggestion that the baby might be alive is made, it is swiftly removed from their brain, lest the pain is too great.

So, is Abortion Murder? No one knows for sure, but shouldn’t we err on the side of caution since we don’t know?

What we do know is how doctors determine life, and it should be obvious to an open mind that the baby is alive once it has brain activity and heart beat.

Making Value Decisions

2006-06-21T03:40:00.000-07:00

There is a big debate in the world as to the existence of the opposite of good. In other words, the question of the day is not just is there a God, but just as important is the question of is there an “Anti-God?” Some would call him Satan or the “Devil.”

If you believe in the idea of the “Ying and Yang”, or balance in the world, that is for every major topic that you can think of there are “equal and opposite sides”, then you will easily see my points that follow.

Again, if you can not see that you can not have hot without cold, up without down, left without right, good without evil, etc, then you are doomed to live in a world that makes no sense and the reason is that you will be fooled by the side of the balance that wants you to believe that there can be good in the world without evil. One side will refuse to even let their brain entertain the idea that evil exists.

So many people in this world refuse to admit to themselves this one fact, that since there is good in the world, there must be evil. Not only can you not “have” one without the other, you cannot “learn” the difference without both.

Now, for a moment, let us assume that there is not only a God, but also a Devil.

If there were such an “Anti-God” force or being, his job would be to teach us to do the wrong things instead of the correct things, or Wrong instead of Right, Incorrect instead of correct, etc, etc.

How would he do that?

First, he would recognize that there is a struggle going on between a man’s inner self that is between his “carnal self” and his “spiritual self.” The carnal self wanting to do whatever the flesh desires, and the spiritual self wanting to do whatever may be good, and those two things will often conflict.

Next, he would want to deceive us into believing that what we think is good, will actually be wrong or evil by using our carnal desires to fool us. Carnal desires are closely tied to “worldly” things, so as soon as our brain begins to think in terms that are philosophically good, he will “wake” us up by having us encounter the “real world.”

And finally, he will make us believe that our choices are clear and easy. Now, if you were him and you made the choices between good and evil easy, do you think there would be much evil in the world? Of course not! If it were easy, then almost everyone in the world would be like all of the great moral leaders in the history of the world, take your pick.

So, how does he make the waters muddy? How does he fool so many people?

He does it by making us make “Value Judgments” between two competing values; with only one of them the “best” answer. The entire key is seeing that the outcome is not the most important thing, it is the choice on how to get there is. Was the choice evil or wrong. He wants to make us think that the end justifies the means.

For example: Suppose you must choose between not lying and lying to save a life. That one is easy, most people would say that even though lying is wrong, the outcome of saving a life was worth it. So he mixes a right and a wrong.

But, Satan is much more cleaver than that.

He usually makes us choose between more difficult “actions” to achieve the desired outcome. A little better example would be self-defense. Many people will recognize that this is a tough choice. Taking someone else’s life in order to save your own. Many will say that we should just let the attacker kill us instead of defending our life by killing him. Many can see that point of view, but think that it is correct to want to protect your own life.

These are the types of examples that make it important to read a book like “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis because he makes it fun and interesting to see how a person could be manipulated by an evil force if there is one. It is a great study on the workings of the criminal mind. Understanding what makes people choose evil over good.

Because we are often placed in positions of having to make value choices like abortion, where the rights of the mother are pitted against the rights of the baby, and like the “The Patriot Act” where many of the provisions are making us decide between freedom and security.

Those with a great understanding of how the “Dark Side” really works can easily see that the reason why we even have “Conservatives” and “Liberals” is that often both sides have their values and often both values are by themselves good, (like security and freedom), but when pitted against one another, we must make the hard choice.

Welfare is another good example. Do we all love to help the poor? Of course, but the “devil is in the details.” The methods we choose can be ones that can make it seem like a tough choice to those with an understanding of how Satan works. Use the government to force people to help by taking tax dollars from everyone or let the individual people be responsible and be rewarded by their individual charity. To some on each side the choice seems obvious, but I submit, if it were easy, there would not be balance and there would be almost everyone on the same page.

Spiritual versus Carnal, Emotion versus Logic, etc, etc, etc.

We make value choices that are difficult, but Satan makes them look easy to each side. Once side is making the correct choice, but what happens to people is that once you start making these value choices, you get comfortable in that “zone” or hemisphere of the brain. If it is the Spiritual side, then you have chosen the side that is without the emotion of the desires of the flesh and often it will be the correct side.

The choice again should be directed by asking yourself, “Which is more important, the means or the end?” This is the key question, and Satan usually makes it difficult. Once we make enough of the wrong choices, our brain and our ego will be most comfortable continuing to make the wrong choices.

Everyone likes to believe they are a good person. Even Al Capone when asked if he was a good person, said yes, of course, I am. I never killed anyone that didn’t deserve it, and all I did was to offer goods and services to people who wanted them.

When we are deep in either side of our brain, we can loose our objectivity and just follow the partly line, because we are comfortable there. If we are not sure about an issue do we really give different views a chance, or do we look to Daily Kos, or National Review to see “how we should think?”

Most will brush off a worldview that conflicts with theirs and easily accept one that agrees with theirs. Human Nature.

But life's value choices are not so easy.

Two Worldviews - Thank God.

2006-06-18T15:33:00.000-07:00

Whenever a lot of people begin to write a term paper or thesis, they might start off with a very common method of organizing their thoughts. It is called a “Top-Down Outline.”

It can be like a pyramid, with the one or two major topics at the apex and then the supporting or minor points below that.

If we are talking about Philosophy, “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline, or the investigation of causes and laws underlying reality,” - American Heritage Dictionary, then we might start with what must be at the apex of wisdom and reality, and that would be the investigation of “how did we get here?”

No question has been more inciteful as far as trying to understand our existence on this great planet earth.

So at the apex could be placed the following, “God / No God”, “Design / Evolution”, “Creator / No Creator”, etc.

We might call these two conflicting positions, Worldviews. “The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world, or a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.” - American Heritage Dictionary

Everyone either consciously or subconsciously has a belief of their perspective of how they see the world. Their idea of the purpose of life or if life just is.

Notice that both are about beliefs, or “filters” with which we view the world. One view ignores God, the other doesn’t.

The thing that is most interesting about these two positions is that both worldviews have avid and often passionate supporters or followers.

If the answer as to which was right, and there is no doubt that if one is right the other is wrong, was easily discerned, then we more likely would see the application of the ever-present 80-20 rule.

But while there surely is one correct point of view, it is obvious that that worldview is not easy to discern. Just look at the split decisions, (somethimes 5-4), of the Supreme Court on questions that concern battles over which worldview is correct. We have the greatest legal minds in the country passionate about their side being right and no clear cut view.

If one was religious, one might say that “Satan is very clever and can easily confuse and deceive even the very elect, and most of the masses as well”, while those not religious will easily be led to the conclusion that “my side is clearly right, and the other side is populated with drooling idiots.”

I for one would not suggest that it is clear for most people and that is why it is important to be respectful of the other worldviews point of reference.

So, now to carry it to a conclusion of why the side with the worldview of God or a Creator is the one that is appealing to me and I am sure to others like me and it all has to do with carrying that worldview to it’s natural conclusion.

The conclusion is one that leads to Eternity, where this worldly existence is just a phase or stage that we go through. One where death is not the final phase or stage.

Now, the other worldview is one where death is the final stage. They believe that the conclusion is one of death, while the other worldview is one that leads to eternal life.

Now some would say that my worldview could lead to eternal hell. Well, that all depends upon which sub-worldview you adhere to. Some religions don’t think that hell is the place where you spend eternity even if you are judged to be evil.

Some believe that it would be unjust to have a father place some of this children in a final place that is really bad when they were being judged upon what they “believed” to be the rules, instead of what they “knew” to be the rules.

Anyway, we should all remember that those with the other worldview are still our fellow human beings and we should treat them with love and respect regardless of which side they choose. The side that believes in “death” might try to convince the other that "death" is the correct final conclusion, while the other side tries to convince them that “eternal life” is the correct final conclusion.

Again the two worldviews are meant to be hard to determine which side is correct wherever both sides are given an equal stage to show their side. It would not be much of a test otherwise.

That is just one of the many things that makes this such a great country. Freedom to have both sides presented with passion and tolerance.

So, let us remember no matter which side we hold that the other side deserves respect and tolerance. I for one would find it a dull world if there were no “Universal Opposites” or in other words no choices.

There are usually two sides to every story or issue, and while one side is right and the other is wrong, it is not an easy task to see clearly. Some are blinded by the craftiness of men.

For example, Is there "Global Warming?"

There seems to be, but the contention is in the sub topics within that major topic. Such as Gore's "belief" that a 20 foot rise in sea level will occur within a century, while others suggest 3 feet is more likely.

Another is "Evolution", there is some truth to it such as "Natural Selection." Once again, the contention is in the sub-topics like as to whether there are "Transitional Species" or if those such as the "Tiktaalik" are actually a seperate species.

Wikipedia says that Paleontologists "suggest" that it was an intermediate form, but yet the ones with a certian bias will want to "believe" they are transitional species, and those with the other bias will want to "believe" they aren't. Both sides are relying on "faith" when it comes to the sub-topics.

The old saying that the "Devil is in the details", is never more appropriate.

As for me if I were one with the other worldview of "death" being the final conclusion, I would hope that the other side was right.

Why Socialized Medicine Is Bad - Part 2

2006-06-05T16:16:00.000-07:00

Part 2 of 2

First let me say that we don’t have a free market health care system in the United States. One of the many problems with our system is the regulation and interference of the government.

The government involvement in the system causes the overall costs to be higher than they otherwise would be, by inducing distortions in the market.

Below are just some of those distortions:

1) The government subsidizes companies that pay health insurance to their employees. This effects the price of the services because a person who paid for the services themselves would be price conscious, but a third party payer levels out those types of fluctuations, thus killing price signals to a huge portion of the consumers in the market.

2) The AMA is the doctor's union, and it creates its own regulations. This means they control the supply of doctors, which our government allows by virtue of having licenses in the first place in the guise of “protecting” the safety of the consumers, which makes it sweet for them, and higher prices for the rest of us.

3) All non-profit hospitals must accept all patients in the emergency room regardless of ability to pay and all for-profit hospitals must accept all emergency room patients who are at risk of loss of life regardless of ability to pay. This also drives up prices we pay, since the government is mandating this to the hospitals.

4) The FDA extends the trial period of drugs by years because again under the guise of “protection”, they want to "protect" users of drugs for needless deaths from bad drugs. Well, what could possibly be wrong with that? The flip side of it is the delay keeps life saving drugs off the market for years and more years. The lives lost probably outnumber the lives saved. Europe manages a quicker drug approval process than us but do you hear of how they are concerned with defective drugs that kill.

5) Government paid Medicare subsidizes healthcare for the elderly, distorting market incentives. The government does not offer full reimbursement so this distorts the supply and demand pricing signals, causing the rest of us to once again pay higher prices and more taxes.

6) Government Medicaid is free for the poor, thus once again driving up the market price.

We do need real medical reform, but it needs to strike at the heart of the problem, which is too much government interference already.

As it is now, 18% of total federal outlays go to Medicare and Medicaid. We must stop these subsidies and mandates, and if we do, prices would plummet, perhaps enough to remove the need for health insurance altogether.

We also need to break up the government backed medical monopoly and decontrol drugs and delivery services. The Republicans don’t really want to do any real reform anymore than the Democrats because both parties get tens of millions of dollars from drug companies to keep the status quo.

Socialized Medicine, National Health Care, Welfare Health Care, whatever you want to call it, will always be plagued by shortages, and long lines. The long and the short of it comes from the need of government to hold back the temptation to just keep increasing taxes as the system balloons. These politicians realize that they must stop somewhere, so eventually they must restrict services and demand of customers, because otherwise they would not be able to stop the ever-rising costs.

Here is the Scenario:

Socialized medicine is advocated as the means of making medical care free or almost free, thereby enabling even the very poorest people to afford all of it that they need or “want.”

Unfortunately, when medical care is made free, the quantity of it that people attempt to consume becomes virtually limitless. Office visits, diagnostic tests, procedures, hospitalizations, and surgeries all balloon.

If nothing further were done, the cost would destroy the government’s budget. Something further is done, and that is that cost controls are imposed. The government simply draws the line on how much it is willing to spend. But so long as nothing limits the office visits, requests for diagnostic tests, etc., etc., waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer and longer.

Then the government seeks to limit the number of office visits, tests, procedures, etc., etc., by more narrowly limiting the circumstances in which they can occur. For example, a given diagnostic test may be allowed only when a precise set of symptoms is present and not otherwise.

A hospitalization or surgery may be denied if the patient is over a certain age.The above leads to the desire of the people to have private health care made available. People will naturally pay more to have problems taken care of better and faster, causing the good doctors who want to be paid well for their expertise, to naturally leave the welfare system and go to the private sector, thus exacerbating the problem to the point of doing what Canada did in 1984, (I think it was 1984), make private health care illegal. (Just recently Canada’s Supreme Court stuck down that law.)

The myths are that Canada's health care system works well and that Britain’s works well also, can easily be shown to be myths by many links that are available and I will be happy to provide some in the comments section. There are too many to list here and therefore I will not try.

Why Socialized Medicine Is Bad

2006-06-04T05:47:00.000-07:00

Part One of Two:

Whenever people discuss a problem and a solution, the entire exercise should be looked at from two positions, moral and correct.

First and foremost, the discussion presupposes that if a moral and ethical solution is sought, one side will be a moral one and the other side will not as there are gray areas in all of life except in morals and ethics since they are rule based by definition.

The correctness of an outcome may be debatable as to its being “the” right or wrong solution, if we are only looking at the result to judge the actions. This is KEY!

Let me begin by explaining the difference between three words; Correct, Moral, and Ethical as it applies to the word “outcome.” The understanding of the difference is about the old saying that "The end does not justify the means."

Correct outcome could be viewed as “the outcome was an or the desirable one, irrespective of the actions used being moral or not.”

Moral outcome could be viewed as “the outcome was based upon whether the actions used followed rules based upon an accepted set of guidelines that followed the concept of conscience as typified by what is known as The Golden Rule.”

Ethical outcome could be view as “the outcome was based upon whether the actions used followed rules based upon a professions' set of guidelines or a cultures' set of guidelines, irrespective of the actions used being moral or not.”

Let me give an example of an Ethical action, that is not a Moral one:

A group of Cannibals eat a visitor from America. Was this Ethical? Yes, because it followed rules of the Culture. Was it Moral, No, because it violated the principal of the Golden Rule since the people being murdered/eaten would not do that to the Cannibals.

People have a habit of confusing and falsely interchanging the above three words and can therefore arrive at a conclusion that is gray because they wrongly conclude that we don’t know if the outcome was a correct one, instead of focusing on whether each of the actions were moral or not.

Let me give another example: “A person must lie in order to save the life of another person.” Was the outcome a moral one?” No, but the outcome was a “correct” one, while the lie, (an action used to get the desired outcome), was an immoral one. By definition, lying is immoral.

People will wrongly assume that since the outcome was a correct or desirable one, then the actions taken might be gray. Wrong! The actions must be judged on their own if the judgment is whether the actions were moral or not.

So, when discussing right and wrong as they apply to morals instead of an outcome that might be right or wrong as it applies to correct or desirable, we need to be careful as we do not want to be lulled into believing that a combination of actions might be gray with respect to morals.

Judge the actions individually and the outcome separately. Whenever we look at a solution, it is important to look at the actions taken, since it is better to arrive at a solution by moral methods or actions than by immoral ones.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of looking at the core or foundation of solutions. Were the actions used moral or not?

Now, with that background, lets talk about the morality of Socialized Medicine.

We could discuss the infant mortality; the money being spent on the solution being greater in this country than it is in countries that have socialized medicine, but all of that is irrelevant if the actions used to fix the problem could be moral ones instead of immoral ones.

Suppose that you lived in a neighborhood and some in your neighborhood were poor and were in need of healthcare. Which is the best solution to taking care of the health of your neighbors, hiring a person to go from door to door and with a gun force them all to contribute, or to depend upon the charity of the neighbors to do it?

Now, before you jump off and say that the analogy is not fair or correct, please first answer which one would be best if the analogy was correct. Because if your assessment of the situation is wrong and in the end the analogy is correct, you will be beating yourself up for not being able to discern the truthfulness of the situation.

But, those will argue that taxing people is legal, and therefore it is moral. I say, that taxing people is only moral, (Golden Rule); if all of the people being taxed believe it is the right thing to do for the particular use of the tax money being “taken” as to the proper role of government. Others will argue that since the “outcome” is correct or desirable, then that trumps everything else.

Nope, there are many of my neighbors who object to Welfare, which is what Socialized Medicine is by any other name, and therefore based upon the Golden Rule of morality, it is morally wrong.

One could argue that there are only a few things specifically outlined in the Constitution that describes the “proper role of government” as it applies to their taxable powers, and surely a government that is powerful enough to be a provider, is powerful enough to be a tyrant.

If the Government exceeds its charter of protecting it’s citizens and uses the taxing power of government to “rob from Peter to help Paul” then they might as well be a gang of robbers. In fact one religion has a book that talks about these very people and it calls them “Gadianton Robbers.” They were socialists! It is morally wrong to use the police power of the state to redistribute the wealth of individuals.

Socialists rob from Peter to help Paul by way of using the taxing power of the state to “take from one who has earned it and give it to another who hasn’t” by way of saying that all taxes are moral and legal.

No, they may be legal, and that is debatable, but they are not moral just because they are legal or they might achieve some peoples sense of “social justice”, but I submit that the only moral way to help our neighbors is through voluntary charity given freely from the heart, not help given from the taxing power of government. For if the individual helps, God will reward him, but if he leaves the help up to the government, God will ask, why did you use robbery to help your brethren? Did you not know that some taxes violate the Golden Rule?

Taxes used to secure your life, liberty and property are moral, but most all others are not as they violate the justice of not plundering your neighbors property.

Perhaps "use" taxes are moral because those who use it are those that are paying for it and as long as we have a choice to not use it, then "use" taxes may also be moral.

One could argue the moral aspect of certain taxes and with the legality of them, but since there are usually two very good sides to most discussions, (there needs to be opposition in all things), I leave it to one’s conscience and hope for prayerful thought, and say that I respectfully disagree and that this is my humble opinion and that this, (the morality of the solution), should be the focus of all Socialized, (Welfare), Medicine debates.

In my next post, Part Two, I will show why Welfare Medicine does not work from a tactical and practical point of view, as far as being level-headed and efficient goes.

Stop the Bleeding at the Border

2006-05-25T16:55:00.000-07:00

That should be the goal of our "secure the border" policy and it also should be the goal of our immigration policy.

First and foremost should be “building a wall or fence.” For those who say “that won’t stop them, and so it will be just a waste of our money”, I say, “Would it be fair to say that keeping your garage door down helps prevent people from stealing things from your garage?” Some would also say, “If they want in bad enough, then they are not going to let a closed door or fence stop them.”

But, obviously if it makes it harder, then it should be done. Anyone can see that if everyone in a neighborhood leaves up their garage door, then they are inviting people to do the wrong thing. If we leave the borders unfenced we are inviting them in, especially when we don’t enforce the current law and send them home. If a “virtual fence” works, then lets take down the fence around the White House and have a virtual fence there. Does anyone really think that having a virtual fence around the White House would be just as effective?

Here is the thinking that really gets me….”We either have to send them all home or let them all become citizens.” Says who?

Why not let the ones here get a “Resident Alien” card that allows them to become legal, but not say anything about becoming a citizen. Let them figure that out and go through that process just like anyone else that wants to become a U.S. citizen. No need to even mention "citizen" in the law, just "legal resident."

Sending them home is impractical and would be too disruptive, both to the families of those here and the economy. So, just keep anymore from coming in illegally by building a fence and then let the others stay after paying a significant penalty, but don’t put them on a path to become a citizen, just make them “Resident Aliens” who can stay as long as they can find the work.

The fence solves the terrorist problem and at the same time stops the bleeding of illegal aliens entering the country to find work without getting the proper ID cards.

For those who like open boarders, I ask..."What if a Billion Chinese just wandered in, would that be acceptable?" "Would they pressure the Congress to become citizens?" That's a large voting block that they might not be able to ignore.

"Would that be a good thing for us black, brown and white folks?"

The Da Vinci Code - Fact or Fiction?

2006-05-18T15:23:00.000-07:00

The Da Vinci Code.

The effects of the book and movie are pointing out one of the problems that is associated with our current method of teaching students in our school systems,

They teach “information” instead of “how to think critically about information”, meaning we are teaching them “what to think” instead of “how to think.”

Notice the kinds of “lack of” critical thinking that people are using when asking about the “information” in the movie and book….

1. Do you believe Jesus was married?
2. Do you believe the Catholic Church is hiding documents?
3. Do you believe the Nag Hammadi Texts contain truths that have been hidden from us?
4. Do you believe Jesus has descendants in Europe alive today?

Notice that the kinds of questions that are being asked are about “belief” instead of asking about any historical “facts” that may be available to collaborate the claims in the book and movie.

Also, notice that Leonardo was never known as “da Vinci.” He was known as a name and a town similar to others in early history, Names like “Jesus” of Nazareth. He was known as Leonardo, “of Vinci”, a little town in the heart of Tuscany, Italy.

Mr. Brown’s book has too many errors and lies to mention here, but I will name a few:

1. On page 234, he tries to say that the Nag Hammadi codices that Brown mistakenly calls the “Coptic Scrolls” were suppressed by the Catholic Church so that they would not be released. There is no proof of this statement that I am aware of. He claims that he has a cache of “secret documents”, but that does not prove they are ancient or if they are forgeries. If they are readily available to Brown, why are they not available to others? A reference to these supposed documents from outside the collection would be needed to authenticate them.
2. On page 245, he tries to say that the “Dead Sea Scrolls” are the “earliest Christian records.” They are practically the only surviving Christian records from before the first Century, but they are not the earliest documents. A mistake or a Lie?
3. On page 234, he says the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in the 1950’s. They were first discovered in 1947. A mistake or Lie?
4. On page 248, he says Mary Magdalene was from “the House of Benjamin.” I am not aware of any other claim like this. What is his source for this claim?
5. On page 231, he says that more than eighty gospel accounts were “considered for the New Testament” by the early church. Nobody else makes this claim. He himself calls his book a work of fiction.
6. On page 233, he says Jesus was not considered divine but was “viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet..” This statement conflicts with all known accounts of Jesus that I am aware of, including the four Gospels.

These “statements” are never shown with references to back up his claim and in fact, many of his claims are refuted by historical external documents, such as the secular book by Flavius Josephus written in the First Century. Josephus was commissioned by the Romans to write about history and to include the account of the life of Christ. Josephus was a Jew who did not believe in Jesus and yet gives a very good account that is important in understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish history. See Wikipedia under Flavius Josephus.

Discrimination or Individualism?

2006-05-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

Is Discrimination always a four-letter word? Whenever we make a choice, we are discriminating. When a teacher gives us a letter grade they are discriminating. If we get an “A” and someone else gets a “B” there is discrimination involved. And so it should be.

We cannot be a nation of freedom loving people if our goal is “equality” in every sense of the word. As individuals we are striving to NOT be like everyone else. There are those in the world who want “equality for all” at the expense of individualism. We should strive for “equal opportunity for all” and not try to “force” equality, by punishing individualism.

The striking down of the “exit-exam” in our high schools is going to water down the significance of getting a high school diploma. If they hand them out to everyone, then they are of no significance. We might as well admit that everyone will get one whether they can read and write or not. I know, let's just give everyone a College Degree, maybe even give everyone a P.H.D., then there would be no discrimination. No need to work for it, after all, we wouldn't want to discriminate!

Those who complain that the test was discriminatory are correct. But, they are wrong to say it as if "discrimination" is always wrong. It is meant to encourage everyone to meet a standard. If you cannot meet the standard, then you keep trying until you can. You seek help with special instruction until you can perform.

These kids that are given a free pass are only being hurt by the act of not helping them see the need to perform in a society that rewards excellence and abhors failure. This is the way it was meant to be because in order to help others we need those who can provide for others to be rewarded for their efforts.

We need to allow people to express their opposition to things that they see are detrimental to society without fear of repercussions. For example, if someone says that stealing is wrong, we currently allow for that point of view without fear of being fired, but if we say that “sodomy” is wrong, we are labeled a “homophobe” or bigot and often get fired for expressing our opinion about certian behavior even when it is aimed at the behavior and not at an individual. Only by allowing peaceful dissent on all forms of questionable behavior without making it a personal attack, “hate the sin, not the sinner”, will we be able to help keep society from sinking to the lowest common denominator of behavior.

If we say that the exit-exam should continue to be used, we should not be labeled as being people who like to "discriminate" as if it is always some "four-letter" word.

Romney

2006-03-22T20:46:00.000-08:00

Are Unions Fair?

2006-03-06T09:12:00.000-08:00

When Labor and Capital, (business owners), work together we see synergy beyond belief, but when they are at odds, we have unfairness and usually at the expense of Capital.

For example: When employees get together to bargain with ownership it is called a Union, but if owners get together to bargain with employees it is called “collusion.”

Let’s take the Auto Industry. If the “Ford” Union bargains with “Ford” ownership, then there is fairness and equal power on both sides, but if the “Ford” Union gets together with the other Automakers unions and form a “giant” union and then negotiate with the individual Automakers, we have an unbalance of power that is slanted to the employees. The Automakers are selling competing products.

Next, let’s take the National Football League. The owners work together with the players to promote/sell the same product, called NFL Football. The players from separate teams have a single “giant” union that negotiates with the owners as a group. This seems to allow a balance, but if we look further we see that as in the case of other Pro sports, there is an imbalance towards the players. The NFL is selling the same product and are not competing for sales. They escentially sell to one buyer called Television.

If the players decide to abandon the union, or more importantly “threaten” to abandon the union and “decertify”, then the owners will not be able to work toward keeping the “League” together. They will begin to lookout for their own interest before the interest of the League and the “bigger market” teams will eventually be the only ones left standing.

If the owners try to keep the league from loosing its small market teams by working together with common fiscal rules, they will be brought down by our “big brother” government for “collusion.”

Baseball is a good example of how this is currently happening. The Yankees can spend as much as they want on player’s salaries and can compete for a championship every year by “buying” the best players no matter the cost….Because they can afford it!

I was an employee for 90% of my working life and had the same opinion as I do now as an owner. As an employee I wanted the company I worked for to be as profitable as possible as I saw that as being my best chance at being more profitable in my paycheck.

Why are there people who “love employees” but “hate employers?” Labor and Capital need to work together, not against each other, but there must be a “balance of power” and right now the government helps labor to have the upper hand way too often.

IMHO.

Current Supreme Court Makeup

2006-01-31T15:46:00.000-08:00

We now have 4 Conservatives, 4 Liberals and 1 Moderate on the Court.

This means if the next logical Justice to step down is the 85-year-old Stevens, then this will be the real key replacement. It is rumored that he will step down before Bush leaves office.

All this talk of the Court being dominated by the Right is not really true. Before we had two moderates with only three conservatives and four liberals. It is true however that O'Connor would "often" side with the Liberals and Kennedy would "often" side with the Conservatives, which would usually give the liberals a 5 - 4 majority.

However, if Kennedy keeps with his past, then he would now "often" give the court a new 5 - 4 Conservative majority.

I personally hope Bush names Judge Michael W. McConnell for the next seat.

If you think this nomination was rough, the next nominee will be vilified as Hitler re-incarnate no matter who the person is.

The Current Make up of the Court is as Follows: (Name - Age)

Moderates (1)
=============
Kennedy - 69

Liberals (4)
===========
Ginsburg - 72
Stevens - 85
Souter - 66
Breyer - 67

Conservatives (4)
================
Scalia - 69
Thomas - 57
Roberts – 51
Alito – 55

The Value of Life.

2006-01-24T19:59:00.000-08:00

There is a Hierarchy of life. Let us assume for a moment that there are such beings as Angels and there is a God. If so then the value of life would be as follows:

1. - God
2. - Angels
3. - Humans
4. - Animals/Mammals/Birds/Fish/Etc.
5. - Insects/Bugs
6. - Plants
7. - Other

Now, when it comes to the Human link in the Chain we must ask ourselves if some human life is more valuable than others.

Let us look at the following scenario:

A Bus is on course to run over a dog or a six-year-old child and you must run and grab one of them and carry them to safety. Which would you choose? Most would choose the child because a human is more valuable than a dog.

Next, it is the choice between Hitler and the child. Which would you choose? Most would choose the child again because a child’s life is more valuable.

Next, a 70 year old lady or Hitler? Yep, the 70 year old lady.

This is the basis of why Conservatives can choose to execute a murderer without a sleepless night and has sleepless nights when they read about abortion. Not all life is of equal value.

Some on the left will agree but will value an old person as less valuable than a young murderer. Euthanasia has it's values backwards.

The above is my humble opinion.

Separation of Powers

2006-01-15T11:08:00.000-08:00

When the Founding Fathers considered all of the problems associated with all forms of government, they found that the only way to protect the citizens from tyranny was to break up the normal power that governments wield.

There are three basic powers that governments have:

1. The Power to Make Laws.
2. The Power to Execute Laws.
3. The Power to Judge Laws.

The Founders set each function to different groups.

Make Laws (Legislative Branch) :
The ability to make laws was given to the Legislature. The Founders determined that just allowing one vote per state would not be totally fair to the Larger States, so they established a legislative body represented by two votes per state in the Senate and then had representatives based upon population in a state by having a House of Representatives and between them they would make the laws. Thus we have 50 States that have 100 Senators and 50 States that have 435 Representatives.

The House of Representatives is currently set at 435, but can be changed by Congress. To also address the problem of having people elected for life at the one extreme and having them elected for only one year at the other, the Founders decided to have the House seek elections every two years, while the Senate is for six years. Thus the House is said to be more responsive to the citizens while the Senate can be more stable by having longer terms.

Originally the Senate was elected by the State Legislators, which I believe was the better method because that makes it more responsive to our State needs and the State legislatures know who is doing the best job. As it is now, we elect the best-advertised person instead of the best person.

Execute Laws (Executive Branch) :
The President is charged with enforcing or executing the laws that Congress passes. He is also in charge of the Military as Commander-in-Chief. The power of the President is limited by only being able to carry out laws enacted and also by the budget when he is acting during wartime. He does not have any powers that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Executive Branch has been guilty in my opinion of grabbing legislative power by what is called “Executive Orders.”

Judge Laws (Judicial Branch):
The Judicial branch of our government is supposed to narrowly determine if laws made by congress are constitutional and to determine if cases brought to them are otherwise lawful. They were supposed to just vote “Yes or No”, and if the vote was “No”, then it was up to Congress to rewrite the law to make it right.

We have seen this branch of the Government be able to essentially write laws by way of instead of just saying that the law did not meet Constitutional Standards, they would issue findings that “explained how the law in question did not meet the standards” which by making an Abortion law unconstitutional and then explaining how the Constitution protected Abortion” it had the effect of writing new law by saying the Constitution had “implied protection” for abortion. This in turn allows abortion by default instead of by legislation.

Judge Alito had a quandary. There are over 100 cases that have ignored precedence and this means that Judges have been allowed to be “open minded”, but at the same time some at the hearings wanted Alito to admit that he should not have an open mind when it came to Abortion by declaring it to be “settled law.” The Constitution was never meant to be a “living document” when it came to the Judicial branch, only the Legislative branch. The Supreme Court is to narrowly apply the interpretation of the Constitution.

But, as you can see, we have the Executive and Judicial Branches making laws. This is eroding our Constitution protections from loss of freedom.

That is, in my humble opinion.

Slavery – Information Please.

2006-01-02T20:45:00.000-08:00

Now before I get myself set up as acting like an authority on the subject, I will begin by saying….”As understood by me”….and in my opinion.

“Slavery has existed on nearly every continent, including Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, and throughout most of recorded history. The ancient Greeks and Romans accepted the institution of slavery, as did the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, and Chinese. Europeans began importing slaves from Africa to the New World beginning in the 16th century.” - Encyclopedia Britannica

Who again did the "importing" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica? The "Europeans."

There have been both white and black slaves. The Hebrews were freed from Slavery by Moses in the "exodus" from Egypt.

In the Biblical times, there were two different forms of slavery. Involuntary Servitude Slavery, and Voluntary Servitude Slavery.

UPDATE 1-4-06

=============

It should be pointed out that Voluntary Servitude is not evil, where Involuntary Servitude is, even though both are a form of slavery. Because of what people have done to races like the Jews and the Africans, it is a delicate thing to even mention the two in the same breath as one is Racist as well as Evil, and the other is neither.

In Biblical times, when people would sell themselves to a rich person to be their "slave", it was not a bad thing because both parties were entering into a contract that was "directly" negotiated, with both parties freely choosing. To me this is a much preferred way to help the poor than to have society vote to have the poor helped by way of "indirect" taxation, as some people will be helping the poor without "freely choosing."

It would seem that everyone would want to help, but there is still an element of lost freedom in the process. It also has a way of allowing people to "cheat" the system much easier, such as the cases we have all heard of where some have "milked" the system for about $50,000.00 per year and have no physical disabilities.

There are those who cannot support themselves and deserve to be helped, (somehow/someway), but there are those on the public "dole" that can work, but refuse to, and those are the ones who have sold themselves to the public as a slave. And the truly sad thing is they are not even "working" for the public. Those that have chosen to help the poor with taxes are doing it with good intentions but the end result is a loss of freedom by those who are forced to help without a choice.

End Update:

===========

Only the Voluntary Servitude was looked upon as being not only legal, but also a way of helping others. I will not go into much detail on the quotes from the Bible, as I will leave that to the reader, but suffice it to say, there were several purposes to having or becoming a Slave.

First the Jews recognized early in history a sad lesson on the human condition. Some people value security more than freedom. People could not ask for the government to feed and clothe them back then, but they could sell themselves to a wealthy family and have all of their cares and needs taken care of for life. No need to worry about going hungry because you would be guaranteed a place to sleep, food to eat and clothes to wear for as long as you were a slave and in some cases for as long as you lived. Today it is those who want "cradle to the grave" security from their neighbors, the taxpayers, to take care of them. Some call it Socialism, or perhaps "Western Socialism" might be a better discription.

Thus the laws of Moses, Roman laws and others made provisions for both free and bond people.

There were four types of legal slavery under the Laws of Moses:

1. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (Temporary Slaves) – Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from others were allowed to become indentured servants. (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18) This way they could work within a secure environment until they could overcome their problems. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants.

2. The Voluntary Permanent Slaves – If people wanted the life of security, they could freely choose to be a permanent slave. (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate their acceptance of permanent subjection to a master. These were the people like those today that would rather be dependent upon others to provide their needs than to risk hunger and be free. These people today have chosen slavery to the government instead of a personal master.

3. A Thief or Criminal making restitution - Those who could not or would not pay the person harmed by their theft, were sold as a slave. “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.

4. Pagans could be permanent slaves – Since pagans had barbaric traits such as idol worship, human sacrifice, and other horrific practices, if the pagans were to see the beauty of becoming free by obeying the commandments of God, (if we are told that if we touch the hot stove, we will get burned, then if we obey the commandment to not touch the stove, are we not more free because of our obedience?), they could be released from thier agreement and become free men again.

The other method of slavery, (involuntary Servitude), was not biblical or part of the Law of Moses. In fact if a man had a slave that was forced into slavery, then he was treated as a horse thief was in the days of the Wild West, he was put to death for there were few acts worse than stealing a man’s freedom.

While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

The legal, or Voluntary Servitude aspect, is the reason that both the Old Testament and the New Testament talked about slavery in a "matter of fact" fashion. It was because it was a matter of law if the person had used his "freedom of Choice" to become a slave, or one of the other leagal options then it was accepted as a choice to be respected.

Jesus often critsized the poor treatment of slaves, but never condemed the legality of the practice because it was a matter of "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" or in other words, obey the laws of the land. (Much of the above about the 4 types of slavery was gathered from information by Stephen McDowell.)

Now, in the beginnings of the settlements in America, we found people practicing the non-biblical practice of involuntary servitude. This practice was seen as evil by anyone who knew his or her bible and by anyone who could understand the concept of the Golden Rule.

While in relative numbers there were very few Plantation owners who could afford slaves, from the time of the early beginnings of this evil practice in about 1610 until 1776, My understanding is that there were about 700,000 slaves in the Americas. I may have to look this number up again, but that is the number that sticks in my mind.

Now, who were in favor of this evil? Again, it was the Plantation owners and other rich white folks who had lost their understanding of the Golden Rule because of greed, vanity and racism.

So, who carried the torch for this evil practice? Well reluctantly those who favored States rights but were against slavery were in a quandary. Did they go back on their firm belief in States Rights or did they try to “force” federalism on the states? The founders came up with an ingenious strategy, since many territories were still awaiting statehood, but still under federal jurisdiction, the founders made laws that any new state must make slavery illegal.

Who else carried the planks of slavery? Which party was the party of the South? Yep, the Democrat Party was. "The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. " - David Barton

"The original Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks – six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans. The Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position and defended slavery, even warning that “all efforts of the abolitionists [those opposed to slavery]. . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and . . . diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.” The next Democratic platform (1860) endorsed both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision; Democrats even distributed copies of the Dred Scott ruling to justify their anti-black positions."

In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.” – Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 32-33. - David Barton

For more info on the history of the Democratic Party see here.

Today, the Democrats still like having people dependent upon them. If they promise a chicken in every basket, and a free lunch, and free health care, they will find willing slaves that would rather have security than freedom only instead of selling thier freedom to a master, they sell it for help from the benevolent masters in Washington D.C., the "free lunch" great society. Insted of "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and feed him for life.", they want gratitude and votes every election for thier "give away" programs that keep voters beholden to them. So they "give" them a fish every day so long as they "obey." (No husbands, or "if we find a man living here, we will stop your welfare check because we are the master.")

Most of us will never know what the people who had to put up with the most evil practice on the face of the earth, (involuntary Servitude), or forced slavery, had to endure because only if you are non-white could you ever know what it would be like to face discrimination because of the color of your skin.

My wife’s mother is Half Mexican, (my wife's grandmother was full Mexican and her granfather was full Italian), and she tells me all the time about her discrimination and what it is like, but I still cannot imagine. May God bless all those who have had to put up with Bigots on this planet.

Again, I know there will be opposing views on this as it is part of God's plan that there needs to be opposition in all things, so for those who disagree, fire away as I respect most all opinions because we all believe in our worldview, and who am I to say "who" is right, I am only concerned with "what" is right, and of that, I am only sure that all of us "believe" we know, but since both sides cannot be so, it will be up to the readers to ponder in their hearts.

All I ask is for respect by way of "just present information" and not vanity by saying "who" is wrong and "who" is right. Make it about the information or message and not about the messenger, please.

What’s wrong with Socialism?

2005-12-31T02:51:00.000-08:00

The following is partly fact and partly my opinion. I will leave it to the reader to determine which is which and if in doubt, please ask.

Our great Country used to have the free enterprise system as a basis for economic freedom, which many including myself believe, is one of the two cornerstones of Liberty. There is good reason that the words “Free Enterprise” have the word “Free” in it. Much to my chagrin, we currently have a combination of Socialism and the Free Enterprise system.

Social Freedom and Economic Freedom are both necessary for true freedom. Socialism, Communism and other Authoritarian forms of economic and political interaction, all deny the freedom for one to choose his vocation based upon his desires and abilities.

A Russian friend of mine back in the late 1970’s once told me, “You Americans don’t really understand freedom. You come to my Country and see us going about our daily lives, people standing on soapboxes, complaining about various things, going to the store to buy things, etc.”

“What you don’t realize is that those on the soapbox will find that tomorrow they have been reassigned to a different factory in a different town and a much worst apartment as a punishment for daring to speak out. Their shoe rations have been cut, and they are on a ‘watch list’ from that day on.”

“This happens in China as well. When we go to the store to by food, we find that we cannot always get what we want because of government interference in our businesses. The social and economic planners and their “5 year plans” can never react quickly enough to the market needs. This causes Black Markets and crime.”

The key to understanding Economics and their theories is the understanding of human nature and not the understanding of mathematical theories of “economic equilibrium and the static state.”

The main failure of Socialism is the elimination of the need for the entrepreneurial function. With Socialism the productive are punished and the non-productive are rewarded. This is the main reason why all Socialism and Communism systems will always fail. It is the worst form of discrimination, it is discrimination based upon productivity. When all are paid whether they work or not, too many will choose to not work. We see it everyday in our welfare system. Why work for ten dollars an hour, when you can stay at home and get by on the sweat of others brows?

The second reason socialism doesn’t work is because of the problem of establishing the value of goods. While the free market system establishes value by way of supply and demand, which can be dealt with using math, i.e., V = D/S, that is to say Value is equal to Demand over Supply. (In other words, we can say the bigger the demand relative to the supply, the more the value.) In Socialism there is no mathematical formula for value because the value of production is based upon some nebulous number based upon wants and needs that either produces shortages or excess of a given product. Ludwig Von Mises calls this “The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism.”

In the year 1620 William Bradford and other elders wrote an extraordinary charter called the “Mayflower Compact.” The original contract that the pilgrims who settled in New Plymouth, Virgina, had with their sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common storehouse.

This attempt to practice socialism had very poor results and Bradford wrote in his Journal why it failed, he said, “For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice.”

Of course it was considered unjust! It is a form of economic slavery. Humans all naturally want to find the most pleasurable jobs, that is to say the ones with the most relaxed atmosphere. This means very few want to do the “difficult or more labor intensive” jobs. Who wouldn’t or who hasn’t wished for the job of the supervisor or manager. According to many, most people perceive manual labor as a form of pain. “No pain, no gain” is just as true in economic sense as it is in physical exercise.

So, Bradford assigned each family a plot of land to work and manage for their own benefit. He then wrote, “This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

It is natural for people to hope to “get ahead” or to have a more “pleasurable” life, one of leisure if you will. They do this by working hard to save for their future. When under Socialism they find that any extra work goes to someone else, they tend to do just enough to get by.

The story of the “Little Red Hen” that I grew up with has great moral value and wisdom. It tells of human nature and the problems we as a nation are facing in the years ahead. For as soon as men get a little authority they immediately begin to unjustly dominate others.

Sometimes they believe that by doing what is called “Social Engineering” they can use this power to mold others into better people. This is a form of “forcing others to become what they perceive is best for society.” The problem lies in “who” gets to become the enlightened class or who gets to do the molding or forcing. At the moment that distinction belongs to those in Washington and in the Social Elite. No matter their motives, their methods involve “force.” Socialism can only exist if it is “forced” upon a society either by a tyrant or by a vote of the majority.

Socialized medicine is just around the corner. Our great country was built upon principals of freedom. We cannot really be free under Socialism. Socialism requires people to work for others without just compensation. Some day we will learn the lesson the pilgrims and Russia learned, but we will learn it by even a harder lesson, for we will have lost the most glorious system of government ever devised by human minds.

True freedom requires both social and economic freedom. Socialism is economic force. You are forced to work partly for your neighbor without just or fair compensation. Those that get ahead are punished with a fine or fee we sometimes call a “progressive tax.”

At the moment almost half of the Budget for the U.S.A. goes to three main categories, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This percentage will only continue to grow as we move toward even more socialism. National Health Care will ruin our economy and our great founding principals of Freedom. (In my humble opinion.)

UPDATE 01-01-06
===============
Since I am very close to being a libertarian in many areas, (use taxes as the fairest tax, and free market), I thought I would add a new piece of infrormation from a site that I visit often called Lewrockwell.com.

Here is a link to a very good article on the evils of Socialism, specifically "African Socialism" and it's founder Julius Nyerere from Tanzania. Here is a qouote from the article about the dismal failure of all Socialism projects, "All these different forms of socialism not only implied huge economic waste, inefficiency and poverty but also great centralization of political power. As a consequence, African leaders gave themselves and their parties great influence. "

And finally he says, "To sum up, the rich world exported the ideas of Karl Marx instead of Adam Smith to Africa. The ideas of Marx haven’t worked anywhere and apparently they did not work in Africa either."

"Nyerere left Tanzania as one of the seven poorest countries on earth, despite receiving the highest per capita foreign aid."

Again Socialism brings "great centralization of political power" and it never works.

Holiday Best Wishes - Libs and Conservatives

2005-12-28T09:15:00.000-08:00

From Phil in Maine.....via Geoff Metcalf

To My More Liberal/Democratic Friends:
====================================
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms.

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

For My More Conservative/Republican Friends:
=========================================
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !

Strife and Contention

2005-12-25T19:00:00.000-08:00

The following is my Opinion.

One of the reasons that we as a country find ourselves in such a divided nation is because of two actions that are an offshoot of competition. Those actions are “Strife and Contention.” While competition is good, it can have harmful by products.

The dictionary defines “strife” as: strife (strºf) n. 1. Heated, often violent dissension; bitter conflict. 2. A struggle, fight, or quarrel. 3. Contention or competition between rivals. 4. Archaic. Earnest endeavor or striving.

The dictionary defines “contention” as: con·ten·tion (k…n-tµn“sh…n) n. 1. The act or an instance of striving in controversy or debate. 2. A striving to win in competition; rivalry. 3. An assertion put forward in argument.

Lets see what the Bible tells us about “strife” and “contention.” Notice that a debate happens to fall into the definition of contention, and contention is used as a part of the definition of strife.

There are 38 references in the Bible about strife and 9 about contention. Most of them talk about how bad it is to participate in both.

In my opinion the reason that it is bad is that it can foster what is called “false pride.” Here is what my opinion of the difference between “pride” and “false pride” is:

Pride is being able to say to ones self or to someone else things that compare your results with what “you are capable of doing.” For instance one might say something like this, “I ran the mile in 4 minutes flat, and I never thought I could do that well.” There is nothing wrong with pride, only false pride.

False pride is comparing your self “with others.” For example, one might say something like this, “I ran the mile today and I beat all 17 participants. I was so much better than they were, it isn’t even funny.” False pride lifts us up at the expense of someone else. Winning awards where there is competition sometimes gets us in trouble because it can “lift us up” in others eyes and in our eyes to where we think we are better than others.

Now for some quotes:

“Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.” – (Prov. 13:10)

“A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife.” - ( Prov 15:18 )

“Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.” – ( Prov 22:10 )

“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” - ( 1 Cor. 3:3 )

This is why I prefer for people on the Blogosphere to post information that is their opinion and for others to disagree in a way that does not cause strife and contention. In other words not as a debate, and not in a way to “prove the other person wrong” as that can instill “false pride.”

Try things like, “I see your point, but I disagree with you and here is why.”

Or, something like this, “Well my opinion is a little different, it is this….”

I don’t think there is many people on the Blogosphere who do not exhibit rational thought and have some points that are worth consideration. We may disagree with them, but when we start to feel like they have no points worthy of merit, we are only fooling ourselves and beginning down the road of “false pride.”

Well anyway, I am guilty of sometimes breaking my own rules and each time I do, I find myself in deep remorse, and shameful of such actions.

So, I would like to ask all of you to help me remember this post and the message within.

It may even be good advise for all to ponder.

Fun with Communication

2005-12-22T22:20:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer – In any of my posts, I am stating my opinion, or others opinions, unless I specifically state that I am stating fact.

Update: Yolo Cowboy reminded me that there are actually 8 different meanings instead of the 6 I posted this morning, so I added the other two.

In my last two posts the subject of understanding of sentences in the Bible and what they really mean came up several times. A fellow blogger – “Three Score and Ten or More” commented about semantics and the ability and inability for humans to really understand “words and their meanings”, so I thought I would post on the subject.

Let us examine a single sentence and how many ways people could mean it when they said it, and how many ways others could take it.

“I never said that Robert was a thief.”

Can eight words produce eight different meanings?

1. - “I” never said that Robert was a thief. Somebody else may have said it, but “I” never said it.

2. - I “never” said that Robert was a thief. Not yet anyway. I might say it tomorrow.

3. - I never “said” that Robert was a thief. I might have “implied” it, but I never “said” it.

4. - I never said "that" Robert was a thief. I said the "other" Robert was a thief, not him.

5. - I never said that “Robert” was a thief. I said “Bob” was, not Robert.

6. - I never said that Robert “was” a thief. I said he “is” a thief.

7. - I never said that Robert was "a" thief. I said he was "the" thief.

8. - I never said that Robert was a “thief.” I said he “stole something.”

Have fun!

Posting Religious Beliefs.

2005-12-21T09:22:00.000-08:00

Whenever someone, (anyone), posts about their beliefs and in particular what they believe that the Bible and other Scholars teach, there will be people who will say, “that is false” and “you are wrong.”

It is not possible to defend your position because so many people can pick and choose their favorite passages or they can find some passages that “seem” to conflict. Many will point to lots of passages in the Bible that “seem” to have very clear messages, but yet conflict. This is one of the reasons why we can’t “prove” any religious beliefs.

So it has been my hard lesson learned to not attack others beliefs because once you have them on the defensive, they are done and this is not being fair to their beliefs.

Well I posted on my understanding of the “Laws of Moses” where I thought some might find it interesting, and I got “attacked” as being “wrong” and teaching “false concepts.” Something I did when I was young and zealous.

I should have known better than to fall for this trap again. I was trying to use the Bible and other resources to show, (not prove), what “some” of the material that I thought supported the position that I had both studied on my own for decades and had some of my favorite scholars present as their findings.

For example suppose I was Catholic and I posted my beliefs about what I thought was interesting about my particular beliefs that agreed with my religion. No sooner would I post it and I would have lots of people posting at least six direct quotes from the Bible that people often use to “prove” that the Catholic religion wrong. My wife was Catholic when we married and she used to tell me about how others would “attack” her religion and how she was “sick of it.” Because of this, I realized how wrong it was to attack other religions or others beliefs by trying to "prove" them wrong and especially by using scripture to attack and making them defend by using scripture. The person on the offensive will always seemingly "win."

I won’t list those six seemingly black and white passages here because again I don’t believe in attacking anyone’s beliefs. It is the spirit of contention that Satan uses to bring down the love of our neighbors. I don’t believe that anyone should try to quote scripture to “prove” their position one way or another, which is why we have so much bickering between religions in the world today.

There are about 2 billion Christians in the world today and about 1.2 billion Muslims, but of those each belief system has many, many different sects because they each interpret the Bible and the Quran differently. They all believe they are “right”, but yet logic says that they “all” can’t be, so is there one true religion? That is up to us to figure out and if we think we have found it, then we should use gentle persuasion and just suggest ideas, and not attack others by trying to "prove" our belief, especially by trying to prove theirs wrong!

I had to write this post because I started finding myself getting frustrated and I am sure it showed in my responses, as I was not my normal composed self.

I love to discuss different religious positions but I do not love to “debate” them as debate evolves into contention and contention is wrong.

So, in closing, if any of you find me posting quotes from the Bible or any other religious scholar, please remind me that I am on the defensive and will never be able to “show” a different view to anyone who has a different religious view unless they are open to consider that they might not have the correct view in the first place.

This is because some people who belong to a religion are comfortable in that religion and don’t want their belief shaken by anyone with a different view. Their brain will not let them acknowledge any good points made. Everything presented will be seen as "wrong" no matter how good the points.

Here is to understanding others all have good points about their beliefs, as we all are capable of choosing the religion that "best fits" our beliefs, and thank God we are not all the same. What a boring world that would be.

Old Testament Justice

2005-12-17T09:34:00.000-08:00

Update: 12-20-05 -----
The information below is my opinion based upon 40 years of Bible Study using such wonderful references as Dr. Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary and other great works. In no way is it intended to be stated as fact other than what others have said are fact, such as Dr. Clarke's findings about Jewish law and Customs.

- - - -

Since Capital Punishment has been a hot topic lately, I thought I would post on clearing up something in the Old Testament that has been getting a bad rap.

First a little background on Gods Laws.

The Gospel, (the good news that there would be a Messiah who would be sacrificed and enable anyone who would repent of their sins to be forgiven), was originally given to Adam and passed on down from generation to generation.

It was very lengthy and very detailed. It included some laws and also some rituals, which were to remind them of the sacrifice that God would make through his Son Jesus Christ. In fact the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri) was set aside by the Lord as the annual Day of Atonement. Modern Jews call this day “Yom Kippur.” While there are two significant things that occur on this day, one of the things was the ritual of oral confession of all of the sins of the whole people while the leader laid his hands on the head of a goat they called “the scape goat.” (See Leviticus 16:21) This was also a reminder that Jesus was going to be the scape goat for all mankind.

There were two basic sets of Laws in the Old Testament; The "Gospel Law", and “The Law of Moses”, in which a new set of Laws called the “Carnal Commandments”, or as the Apostle Paul called them "the carnal ordinances", were added.

The Book of Exodus begins with the birth of Moses and ends with the building of the Tabernacle. At the moment the Tabernacle was finished, the children of Israel started to receive the Carnal Commandments.

These Carnal Commandments were meant to be temporary and to be a “schoolmaster” to bring Israel to Christ, or “The Messiah.” Once the Messiah came, they would be fulfilled. Paul makes this clear. He points out that they were “added because of transgression” (Galatians 3:19), and that they included the laws which “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” - (Hebrews 9:10 )

In other words, until the Messiah came.

The Carnal Commandments can be grouped into three categories; The Laws of Purification, The Dietary Laws, and The Elaborate System of Sacrifices and Offerings.

The Laws of Purification contained the following; The Sin Offering, The Burnt Offering, The Peace Offering, The Wave Offering, The Trespass Offering, The Meat Offering, and The Drink Offering.

The permanent part of the Gospel Covenant could be grouped into four categories; The Ten Commandments, The Simple Sacrifice, (to be replaced with the Sacrament), The Laws of Preparation and The Policies of Justice, Generosity, Liberty and Equality for All.

This Gospel Covenant, which existed from the time of Adam, was to be just the “floor” of the Gospel, not the ceiling. Jesus wanted his disciples to use it as a minimum and then add to it things which are of a higher plane.

While people have a right of “justice”, God will reward us more if we resist the urge to retaliate. Jesus was teaching that people should rise to the highest possible capacity for tolerance, love and forgiveness.

While it was clear that a group such as the Jewish government or leaders was not to provide charity for the poor, love one’s neighbor; be honest in business dealings, etc. It was to be done by individuals by obeying principles of the Gospel.

Update: 12-20-05 ------

Of course the jewish leaders were also individuals and were suppose to be bound by the same standards. The Jews took these responsibilities upon themselves and did not pawn them off to their government as far as I know. Perhaps someone can show me where the Jews collected taxes to help the poor?

------------

The part of the Law of Moses, often called the Law of the Covenant by some, had a genius for achieving justice and equality that is unmatched by any other ancient code. Hammurabi’s Code for instance incorporated special privileges for certain classes and the application of the law depended upon the class to which a person belonged. Other codes such as Confucius, Menu and Zoroaster also had many great weaknesses.

Let’s now examine how the Law of Moses was generally misunderstood as being very harsh, when in reality it wasn’t.

First the old saying “an eye for an eye.” If some one deliberately put out someone’s eye, it was necessary for the guilty party to provide “satisfaction” to the victim, or lose his own eye. In other words it was the threat of losing his own eye that was the reason that the offender would desperately extend himself to the victim to make things right. It was also a way of showing that the punishment should fit the crime.

In most cases this “satisfaction” was in the form of money. If the person didn’t have any money, he could sell his services for up to six years to pay off the debt. Today we do the wrong thing by sending people to prison where they are separated from their family and instead of the injured party being compensated; either the city, county or state is paid money and/or society must do the “paying” by supporting the offender in prison.

The purpose of the Law of Moses was to balance the scales of justice with the victim, not the state. In modern justice we penalize the guilty, but we do nothing for the victim, which robs justice. In fact we are penalizing those who are not guilty with taxes to pay for the care of those who are. The Law of Moses was much more fair and there was no prison. I don't know of any references in the Bible for a Penal System.

The “satisfaction” was not only to restore, but also to give back more to make up for any inconvenience or fear to which he had subjected his victim. For example, the penalty for theft was to return twice as much as had been stolen. (Exodus 22:4)

Now for the main subject, Capital Punishment under the Law of Moses.

While a great many crimes carried the death penalty, only one carried a compulsory death sentence, and that was first-degree murder. (Numbers 35:31)

On all other offenses, where the maximum penalty was death, the person had two alternatives. One was to “be cut off from among his people” and the other was to “make satisfaction.” A person could be cut off from among his people by self-exile. From “his people” did not mean “all people.” You either made up for your bad behavior to preserve a wholesome society or you went to a society that had lower standards.

This shows that the Law of Moses was not a “Lex Talionis” (Law of Retaliation), but a Law of reparation. The object was equity and justice, not revenge. The object was to restore the victim, not to destroy the offender, by making the offender do the restoring.

With respect to the death sentence, the accusers had to “throw the first stone.” Then the leaders of the community could carry out the sentence. If the accusers refused then it was assumed that there was something wrong with their testimony.

Next, the idea that there were many other “death sentences” for seemly much less serious crimes will be addressed. For example, take the dealings with a dissolute, disobedient and obstreperous son. While it would seem backward to say the least to impose the death penalty because a son was out of control, remember the offending person had the option of self-exile.

First, the sons of Israel were very obedient because they knew that the parents had the backing of society with legal authority over their very lives if they became too rebellious. Next, the parents were required to exhibit the utmost patience with him to try to work out their bad behavior before they could declare him anathema.

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place: and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn, and rebellious, he will not obey our voice…” (Deuteronomy 21: 18-20 )

At this point the parents had to pick up and cast the first stone. It is no wonder we don’t have any record of this ever happening. Parents, no matter how provoked would not likely do this to their children. They would probably suggest self-exile if the son was not willing to obey, but the psychological value of having the ultimate consequence of not obeying ones parents, of either getting killed or imposing self-exile made children very obedient.

This may be where the Muslims get the concept of “Honor Killings.” Remember they obeyed the Laws of Moses at one point also. They probably just forgot that the offending party should have the choice of self-exile of where they would have to leave the Muslim society.

And finally, the offenses against society where there is no need to “make satisfaction” to the victim. These offenses were dealt with by “public whippings.” The maximum amount was to be forty lashes.

“And it shall be, if the wicked man be worth to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his [the judge’s] face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not to exceed: lest, if he should exceed and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” (Deuteronomy 25: 2-3)

Under the Law of Moses, once the offender was whipped he was released. They could not put him in a dungeon, starve, mutilate, or torture him, as was custom in the non-Jewish societies in those days.

So, there you have it. God is a loving God and there are very few recorded instances, (they maybe translated incorrectly), of the death penalty being carried out for some of the offenses that carried the death penalty other than murder in the first degree under the Law of Moses. There was to be an alternative of self-exile for all the other crimes. (Update: 12-20-05 - This paragraph has been edited to accomodate possible exceptions to this rule. Thanks to Kt4JC for pointing out what might be at least one exception.)

Maybe we should consider the victim as much as the Law of Moses did instead of the “state” getting the “satisfaction” and the taxpayers paying to have a person be separated from his family for things like theft that could be handled by the focus being on victims and justice instead of jails and fines for the state treasury.

Are Conservatives "Statists?"

2005-12-11T01:27:00.000-08:00

A very interesting article on the support for our Country has some serious flaws, but again is a very interesting read for other reasons.

First a preface on the proper priorities that people should have in their lives. I will state them in two ways, first for the non-theist and then for the theist because that includes everybody.

The first priority for a non-theist should be “His standards of humane treatment of others.” Next should be his family and then his loyalty to his country.

For the Theist it should be almost identical, it should be God, Family, and Country in that order. I also believe if you gave those three items to most Americans and asked them to prioritize them, they would do it in the order I believe is prevalant in this country which is the one of God, Family and then Country.

Now, with that preface, lets analyze the article.

The author starts off with a fallacy in his statement that “If our average conservative happened to be an Iraqi, he would be a cheerleader for Saddam Hussein.”

People always get into trouble when they paint with a broad brush, but lets talk about those he is defaming.

This statement overlooks entirely the order of priorities in most Conservatives, Libertarians, or Liberals that I know. An person who has his priorities straight, as most Americans I know, would not support Saddam just because he was born there, because he would be agreeing with Saddam’s practices of Murder, torture, and rape of his citizens.

No Conservative I know thinks for a moment that those actions are what God would want us to do. And since over 95% of Conservatives believe in God, I think that is a fair statement.

His premise that many people in general would support their Country blindly is probably a true statement, but I don’t believe that even an American Socialist would support Saddam’s actions if he just happened to be born in Iraq. Or as the author puts it “an accident of birth.”

I happen to believe that there is no "accident of birth." We are born where we were supposed to be born, as God put us where our personalities dictate we should be born for proper progress toward our spiritual goals. But then lets examine his article without my beliefs that babies already have individual personalities when they are born and people are not born with "blank slates" for personalities.

The notion of “My Country right or wrong” is ridiculous and ignores the priority of principals over blind obedience. Not all people in Iraq supported Suddam, and I contend the people who had principals didn't support Saddam, and those are the very people who if born in this country would be fine Americans with principals above patriotism. People who supported Saddam, either were too scared to speak out or had no moral compass.

I don’t know anyone who believes “My Country right or wrong.” Or stated more explicitly, "My Country is ALWAYS right." Do you? Ask anybody if they believe that "Their Country is always right." If they do then they have a warped sense of right and wrong and a warped sense of priorities.

Most Americans, let alone Conservatives, believe in principals before patriotism, which makes his assertion incorrect.

Next he thinks that imposing freedom in Iraq is/will be a disaster. Since I am an Isolationist I happen to agree with some of his points about being in Iraq. It is true in my view that “nation building” is in general a bad idea.

However, if you look at Japan, and South Korea, you find that changing them into democracies had positive results and both of those cultures were not normally inclined to democracy and the Administration’s view that having Iraq a Democracy will have lasting benefits may turn out to be correct, but I just happen to think we are on shaky ground to dispose of Saddam the way we did.

A small Commando team may have done it much easier if regime change was the goal. Now that we are there, I don’t want to leave until the job is done, but I was against going to war initially and I respect others for their views prior to the war. Now that we are there we should be united in support of our troops mission so as not to bolden the enemy.

So are Americans Statists? No. Are Conservatives Statists? No. We as a Nation have principals we place before party or Country.

If his assertion were true, then when a liberal was President, all Conservatives would go along with whatever direction he took us because we all blindly follow our Country/leader, even when we disagree with his policies. What nonsense!

Is “Free Enterprise” Fair? Part 2.

2005-12-08T11:57:00.000-08:00

There appears to be some people with the position that “Free Enterprise” is unfair. One or those in particular is a blogger known as “Stalin the Shark”.

We got in this discussion by me implying that transfer payments were the same as “legal theft.” Well, since that phrase is an oxymoron I agreed that it may be legal and therefore it can only be immoral, and not really stealing per se.

But, taking from one group or class of citizens based upon income, and transferring that to another group or class of citizens may not be theft, but it is without a doubt immoral or unjust because it is unjust discrimination.

He cannot say that discrimination based upon income is somehow moral. He will not be able to go there. Liberals love to say that discrimination is unjust and unfair, so his brain will not let him admit that fact because it will make him inconsistent.

Now, back to his position that owners “steal” from their employees.

The fallacy goes like this…”The workers in a company produce all of the value, but they only get paid a part of that value, therefore it is unfair or the owner(s) are really stealing from the workers.”

The fallacy lies in the first part of the statement that “assumes” that only those who actually do the production produce “all”, or the “only” value.

Let’s examine the silliness of that position.

Leave the workers completely alone without any tools and without any capital what so ever and see if they can truly produce what they were producing by themselves.

Help Mr. Owner, I need some supplies. Well, go buy them. Help, Mr. Owner, I need a new spray gun, the one I was using broke. Well, go by one. Help Mr. Owner, we don’t have any customers to sell this product to. Well, go advertise. Help Mr. Owner, we need to pay ourselves and we lost money on the last job, so we don’t have enough to pay ourselves. Well, go borrow some money. Help, Mr. Owner, we keep loosing money on all of our jobs, we need to have someone who can figure out what we are doing wrong. Well, hire someone who manages full time to do the sales and the figuring out why you are always loosing money.

You see, the problem with the thought that a business can operate at all with only producers is incredible shallow thinking and says to all business owners, they should fire all of the managers and support help that are needed to make a business run. Also what if the owner is doing most of the management and support help? Does he deserve some of the value for his contribution? How about his capital contribution? How about value for his risk for even starting a company that 90% of the time fails in the first year?

So, the fact is the following: “The company produces more value that just what the non-owners produce.” That appears to me to be indisputable.

I really think sts knows that as he seems intelligent and he just likes to be challenging.

Where the real battle is between Freedom and Force, and he has admitted, and I have admitted, that this is were the real battle is, so since there are 16 different definitions of “Force” in my dictionary based upon it’s use, I will correctly define Force and Freedom where they apply to our discussion.

Freedom in a government setting should be defined as…”The unrestricted ability to make choices so long as those choices don’t affect others ability to do the same.”

Force in a government setting is therefore the opposite and should be defined as…”The coercion by someone or some group to restrict choices that would otherwise NOT harm someone else or society.”

Now, having said that let me make sure that we understand that having consequences for our actions is not using force by others. If someone robs a store they are choosing prison. They are making a choice that results in consequences so “they” are limiting their ability to make future choices by their own actions.

Workers can choose to start their own business or to find another job if they think the job offered is unfair, they still have the same choices as before, whereas transfer payments are not part of individual choice.

In the case of welfare, we choose to have our government protect us from unjust taxation, meaning we as a country don’t like socialism, where the government gets to enrich one class of citizen and punish another class of citizen in doing so.

When the majority vote to have “socialism” programs, they are restricting the choices by way of majority rule, i.e., might makes right. And everyone knows that might does not always make right.

Transfer payments may be legal, but there is no doubt that they are discriminatory and therefore unjust.

So, whenever you vote, make sure you are asking the question, “Am I supporting an action that is “forcing” the will of the majority unjustly.”

Am I favoring Freedom or Force? Socialism by its very discriminatory nature is Force.

Am I in favor of eliminating all forms of subsidies or transfer payments? Yes, corporate welfare is just as bad. Am I in favor of someone being able to do other stupid things like smoke weed? Yes, as long as those choices don’t limit the choices of others, then they should be allowed and they should be a States Rights question not a Federal Question or decision.

But is it Fair?

2005-12-06T20:36:00.000-08:00

A blogger I have been discussing fair taxation with, appears to have a position that the Capitalistic system is unfair. Since True Capitalism is based upon the oldest form of enterprise known to man, called the “Barter System”, I thought it worthwhile to discuss it in a post.

When you go to the store and buy a can of beans for $2.10, is the price that you paid “fair?” Yes, it must be, because you paid it.

Lets examine the transaction. You voted with your dollars that you would rather have the can of beans than the $2.10. That is what establishes the value of the can of beans. If enough people don’t buy the can of beans, the price will be lowered until enough people vote for that price.

When you show up to ask for a job, you listen to the work required and then usually you are told that the job either pays “x” amount or you are told it is based upon experience.

Now, you can either just accept their offer, if one is made, or you can ask for more. The trick is to know how to ask for more without it sounding like a demand. Usually I say something like this, “I was hoping for a little more…say “x” amount?” It never hurts to ask, but most people feel too intimidated. Only ask if the job is offered, but don’t hesitate to ask. The two most advantageous times a person is in a good barter position for their wages is “going in, and going out.”

There are two components of a “free market” society. Capital, (money), and Labor, (Workers.) One of these two components is more valuable than the other, and the one that is more valuable is Capital. So, why is Capital more valuable than Labor?

Let’s suppose you want to go into business for your self. You usually need a few things to get started. First, you need something to sell, as every business sells something, be it service or a product.

The next thing you need is usually “seed” money. This is money to invest in your “sunk costs” or “float costs.” Sunk Costs are those that you have to make in order to have a business. They are things such as Office Furniture, phones, etc.

Float Costs are the amount of money you need to have as a “cushion” or “emergency” funds, such as when you don’t have enough sales yet to pay all of your bills, because the “fixed costs”, things like house payment, car payment, etc. that are always there, need to be paid even when you are loosing money. And most new businesses fail, so the owner gets to loose all or most of his investment. That fact also makes the Capital side more valuable.

So, now how do you get this initial money to start your business? You save up, borrow, or seek additional investors.

If you saved up so that you can have 100% of the business, then you have deprived yourself of current gratification for future gratification. Since this is a difficult task for most people, it is the main reason that people get ahead in life. They learn the value of saving and the multitudes of benefits it brings.

In any case, funding is the difficult part. There are always people who will volunteer to work for you at whatever they feel is a fair wage. Will a President of a Company work for $10.00 per hour? No. Will a Finance Officer work for $10.00 per hour? No. Each position has an established “market value” based upon the single most important item in a Laborers toolbox, and it is called his “skill set.”

This is the most important part of this post for all to understand, and that is this, “The only Job Security anyone has that works for others, is his “skill set.”

A person should be trying to figure out what he or she can learn or what inherent skill he or she has that will always be valuable to an employer. Also becoming more versatile also makes you more valuable.

What makes a persons “wage” fair is the amount of effort that the person applying for the job has spent in improving his or her skill set. That perceived skill set is what the business is bartering for. The more effort put into your skill set, the more you can ask for during the bartering session.

Back in the 1980’s I was offered a Job as a “C” Programmer for $25,000.00 and I said that I was hoping for $40,000.00 and they said, “O.K.” In my mind I said to myself, wow, I should have said $50,000.00, but needless to say, I was very, very, happy.

My goal was to eventually make a six-figure income. I asked around how could I do that and was told in my profession, A Software Engineer, I needed to go into consulting. It would need to be as an owner or work for a consulting company.

I eventually felt I was skilled enough that I applied to many consulting firms and eventually was offered a job. I told my boss that I didn’t want to work there unless I was guaranteed the ability to earn six-figures was available. He said that he had two other Software Engineers working there with that income. I asked him for the criteria, and he told me. Initially I turned down the job because it was only $35.00 per hour, and he kept upping the offer $5.00 per hour at a time, until I could no longer refuse. This was in the early 1990’s.

So, there you have it. A socialist will say that the Capitalist is living off the fruits of others, but in reality, a business is made up of a team and each has something to offer to reach the goal of the team. Some contributors offer more to the enterprise and therefore they rightfully get more in return. The ones that have more invested also have more to loose.

Is the Capitalist society a zero sum principal? No. If people produce goods with their labor, then sell it; they have increased the wealth of the nation. That is why the GNP goes up most years. In a zero sum society, a person only gets richer by making someone else poorer and the GNP will always be the same. It is easy to prove that it doesn’t happen in a Capitalist Society, but I will leave that to another post.

My philosophy is to have a really great profit sharing plan so that the employees can do well when the company does well, and when the company doesn’t do well, then it doesn’t pay any bonuses. This gets the employees to do their best to help contribute to the bottom line as it directly benefits them.

So, what is a “fair” wage? It is whatever two consenting adults decide is fair, which is usually somewhere around market value for the given skill set.

Want more money? Make your skill set more valuable to your employer. Simple.

Is Capitalism fair? You bet it is. See Matt 20: 1-13 as an example of Christ saying essentially this very fact! When the laborers found out that some were paid more for less work, he basically says, "Your deal is your deal, and someone else’s deal is their deal. You were happy when you made the deal, or else you would not have made it, so be happy now."

The State of The Nation

2005-12-05T03:50:00.000-08:00

As a country we are indeed at a crossroads. We have people on the Left who actually believe that those on the right are “forcing” their brand of morality on them, when in reality they are “forcing” their brand of morality on the right.

Notice I am not saying Democrats or Republicans, as there are left and right in both parties. Once we get into the foolish notion of saying, “all Dems are bad, and all Reps are good", or vice versa, we have lost sight of the real battle for the soul of this nation. The real battle is in the notion of “freedom” versus “force.” Or “Individualism” versus “Collectivism.”

Two views when looking at the same things.

Points in comparison:
================

1. Abortion.
- While the right believes there are circumstances where abortion should be legal, i.e., when the mothers life is threatened, as in self-defense, the left refuses to acknowledge that their might be a real person in the womb at some point and wants abortion as a form of after the fact birth control.
- In reality abortion on demand is the ultimate act of selfishness. The notion that it is “My Body” refuses to acknowledge that it is at some point in the process, a matter of “three people” involved, not just one.
- Notice that "My Body" is about as selfish as one can get. They are saying..."It's MY body and my baby can just suffer pain and death, as I could care less." What a wonderful concern for the Golden Rule and fairness. Sure was a good thing their mother didn't have that same selfish attitude.
- To be so selfish as to not even acknowledge that the baby might just be alive at some point prior to birth is beyond rational belief.

2. Socialism.
- While the right believes that the individual has the moral responsibility to care for the poor, the left believes the government does. Or, in some cases, the left believes that both do. Since we are the government, they want to “force” their idea of “forced philanthropy” on all of us. They are in essence saying, “We are more enlightened than you, and therefore we feel that you will not care for your neighbor as you should, so we will force you to.”
- First it was "free" education. Next it will be "Free Health Care." Then next it will be "Free House" and "Free Car." Why not, they are all "necessary", aren't they? When do we stop, when everyone is poor/Equal?
- Either you believe in the idea of the "Bell shaped Curve", (Upper, Middle, and Lower Class), when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your labor, or you believe in everyone living off the fruits of everyone else's labor.

3. Government.
- While the left believes that government can solve everything by just using their enlightened wisdom, the right sees the fact that bureaucracies are the problem, not the solution. The fact that governments more often than not spends other peoples money unjustly, inefficiently, and unwisely, just escapes them.

4. Religion.
- While the left sees the Christian right forcing their brand of religion on others, the right sees just the opposite.
- While the left fails to realize that the Christian right does not want to force any particular brand of religion on the nation, the right wants the nation to acknowledge that everyone must answer the single most important moral and ethical question of all time, and that is The Question of God. There is no possible neutral ground on this question. Either you believe in God or you don’t. Those at work trying to remove God from our heritage and our nation are “forcing” their Atheism on the rest of us, all in the name of “neutrality.” Either you are a Theist or you are an Atheist, there is no in between.
- While the left is feverishly pushing for tolerance , they are all the while being intolerant. Take for example the news of the little girl in Washington State who was asked by the teacher to place their foot on a sheet of paper, trace around it and then label it or write what you think about it. The little girl wrote below her foot, “Jesus loves me.” Was the teacher tolerant? No, she scolded the little girl and told her she must not write about Christianity in public schools. But yet when the parents investigated why their little girl ran home crying, they found the teacher would not have been “offended” by the “Star of David” or the “Crescent” of Islam. So, who is intolerant? Is Christianity under attack or is the left’s version of “freedom of expression” the only one that counts?

5. War against Wahabism.
- While the left hasn’t got a clue as to how to fight against an enemy that has no nation, the right is doing their best to at least not just stand around and do nothing like the left did for eight years before. Clinton had numerous chances to get rid of Ben Laden, but was too worried about how popular it would be to do something. So, he choose to do nothing instead.
- The left criticizes the war, but then has no plan other than “cut and run.” Some plan.
- The left looks at 5 pieces of paper that all say the same things. One from France, one from Britian, one from Spain, one from Russia, and one from the U.S.A., or Bush. At the time the left said, "we believe in what all these papers on intelligence say and we vote to do something about it." Then when there are actual casualties, the left says, "All of the other papers were right, but the one that Bush gave us was all lies." And the real problem is that the MSM says "Bush Lied", but the others didn't, and the ignorant and closed minded belive it! Even when all of the intelligence reports said the same thing! Incrediable blind hatred!

We need to quit saying that the Republicans are all corrupt and the Democrats are not, and vice-versa. There are good and bad people in every walk of life, including government. It is just so naïve to think that one party or the other is all good or bad. The party in power is always on the defensive. It is a fact of nature that the opposition will always demonize the party in power, because it will always be about power, where it should always be about what is good for the country.

Lets talk about ways to improve our contry, instead of always finger pointing, because you know what they always say, "When you point your finger, there are four more pointing back at you."

The problem is that "They" even get the old saying wrong. It should be, "When you point your finger, there are THREE more pointing back at you.", because your thumb is not a finger, and is usually not pointing either way anyway.

Ethics vs Morals

2005-11-26T13:19:00.000-08:00

A New Perspective on Ethics

Ethics is all about interaction or conduct between people in a society or a government setting. Interaction and conduct can have adverse affects on people. There are several ways someone can adversely affect another person. It can be as small as unfair treatment, or as big as infringing upon their freedoms or Civil Rights. Morals, on the other hand, might be about conduct as it relates to “mores” or “norms.”

Once again, while Ethics and Morals are closely related, I would like to propose a distinction based upon the affected party. Ethics being about conduct that may affect people, and Morals being about conduct that can affect the given society. For instance, if you are a cannibal and someone from another country crashes into your land, eating the newcomer for dinner would not be immoral, because eating people is part of the “mores” or “norms” for that society. But if you were to apply the Ethics side of the coin, it might be unethical because it would certainly not be fair to the one being eaten and by applying the golden rule it would certainly show improper behavior as if the roles were reversed the cannibal would certainly want to be treated by his societies rules.

Let’s therefore develop two new definitions for Ethics and Morals. A new one for Ethics might be, “people’s correct or proper interaction with each other in a societal or governmental setting as it relates to their freedom or civil rights and to their sense of fairness.” A new Morals definition might be, “peoples correct conduct as it relates to the impact on their societies “mores” or “norms.”

I will attempt to provide the elusive “standard” that can show that every ethical situation can be examined with a factual foundation built on conduct as it relates to freedom and fairness and a standard for Morals based upon the situation’s impact on society. Notice that by having facts as the basis of examining ethics, we can feel more confident about our conclusions. Or in other words, if you say that one plus one is two, does this mean you are biased? No, you are stating facts. This means that by not using subjective things such as faith or feelings as the foundation for ethics, but by using facts based upon freedom and fairness, it allows less chance of having bias in the conclusion.

Here is what I consider the “standard” to apply to any ethical situation:
1. Does the conduct affect someone else? And if it does:
____a. How does it affect the other person’s freedom/Civil Rights?
____b. Do the feelings remain the same if the shoe is on the other foot?

Here is what I consider the “standard” to apply to any moral situation:
1. Does the conduct affect the given society? And if it does:
____a. Does it further degrade the society?

By answering the above questions and their related contingent questions we can logically arrive at a good conclusion to all ethical and moral situations. But not without a complete understanding of freedom, which will be given below.

Background:

Humans are creatures that desire to be left alone to do things without interference from others, including government. This natural desire for freedom is at the base of their drive for individualism. This desire is worldwide and is not unique to the U.S.A.
Thomas Hobbes approached ethics from a scientific viewpoint and believed that morals are based upon self-interest. But, the freedom for one person to swing his/her fist ends where the next persons nose begins. While Hobbes believed in the Golden Rule, he realized that it had to be viewed in a world where government was involved.

Thus from above we can see that it is important to discuss freedom, the Golden Rule and the proper role of government in our view of Ethics because it has everything to do with our interaction with others.

People may have a built in desire to do good, but David Hume recognized what Frederick Bastiat observed in his book, The Law, that it is human nature for humans to sometimes do things that are unethical or even unlawful if it makes life easier. Bastiat believed people view work as pain, and while some will steal to get something, (stealing may initially be less painful), by making this conduct unlawful, societies can cause people to reflect upon the way they interact with others or they may suffer consequences.

One of the Dictionary definitions of Ethics is ““A set of principles of right conduct.” Let’s examine two important sources for the definition of the Law. First from Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition we have;
“Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.” And next the most important one from “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat; “We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

As can be seen from the definition of Ethics and a definition of Law that they both deal with “proper conduct.” The purpose of Law is to prevent injustice and not to promote justice, but never the less, law is force and it must be applied equally and not at the expense of one class over another, because if it isn’t applied equally, it stops being about liberty and becomes oppression.

Before getting too far into my premise, let me begin by giving some additional dictionary definitions of ethics:
1. “The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person.”
2. “The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.”

Suppose you were on a Yacht that was packed with all of the necessities of life and you stumbled on an uncharted island. You moved all of those necessities to the island, and began the life of a recluse. Now, ask yourself how any of your actions can be considered unethical? What “conduct” could you do that would be considered unethical? Perhaps the only thing you could do to affect other people while on that island would be to harm the environment, like polluting the ocean. Is it ethical or moral to smoke pot on this uninhabited island? If there were no laws, then why wouldn’t most anything you do be ethical? You can’t affect someone else on this island if you’re the only one on it.

So, again my premise is that you cannot really think of an unethical act, unless there is someone or some organization, (a group of people), that is affected by that act.

Since people can use the government to adversely affect others, then this brings us to the next part of the premise, the proper role of government. Let’s start with a look at the two extremes of governments, Totalitarianism and Anarchy. If you stop and think about it, so many things can be classified as “opposition sets.” By this I mean so many things have opposites. Like cold, and hot, right and left, east and west, logic and emotion, etc. In all of these cases you can draw a line and place one thing on one end of the line and the other on the other end of the line and there will usually be varying amounts in between the two ends. The spectrum of government is no different. On one end of the line would be “total government control” and on the other end of the line would be “no government control.” These opposites are called Totalitarianism and Anarchy. Totalitarianism is on the political left of the line, while Anarchy, is on the political right of the line. Every form of government falls in between these two extremes and almost every adult person in this country has their views on the amount of government control they prefer somewhere on this line.

A “Liberal” person might be for more government control and towards the left end of the line, and a “Conservative” person would be for less government control and towards the right end of the line. You would place Communism and Socialism on the left, Democracy near the middle, and a Republic on the right. And remember, our form of government is all about how much we want to interfere in our neighbors lives, since in affect, we are the government. Also, this means interfering even if it is to prevent them from having the choice to do something wrong. A good example being how we as a majority “force” the use of seat belts, for the good cause of protecting everyone from acting foolishly. (Rules of Conduct.)

If you are a Dictator, then you as both a person and as the government will deal with your fellow citizens a certain way, and this will be the way you write, execute, and judge your laws. Some laws will be ethically and or morally right and some will not be. But, once again, it is the way people are interacting, that can be the foundation of discussing ethics. By the way, a “Right Wing Dictatorship” is an oxymoron because it cannot exist. A Dictatorship is on the Left towards more government not less!

Next let’s take a Democracy, which is approximately in the middle of the political spectrum, and see how its form of government is affected by ethical conduct. In a Democracy, when 51 percent of the people vote for a law that is unethical and or immoral then it is those 51 percent who are affecting the other 49 percent. Let’s say that the 51 percent vote to have all people from a specific country of origin be deported. Would this law be ethical or morally right? Most would think not, but then that is why we don’t live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic instead, or at least we used to. The move of our legislators has been to move us closer and closer to the left with more and more doses of Socialism. With Socialized Medicine and National Health Care being good examples. Ever hear of “and to the Democracy for which it stands”? How about the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy”? In a Republic the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority by the Constitution. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, help insure that the “morals” of the majority are not “forced” on all of us. The following quote by George Washington should never be forgotten, because it forever reminds us that government is “force”. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

The significance of all this is that when we vote for a law in this country we are forcing our will on others, unless the courts find that the law violates the freedom and rights of the individual as spelled out in the “Bill of Rights”. How many laws go unchallenged that could be considered a violation of our individual rights and since Ethics is about conduct between people, voting has a lot to do with Ethics.

Foundation for proper Choice:
Having the proper foundation is paramount to making good decisions. Let me give an example. Suppose you are asked to solve a Calculus problem. This would be a major problem if you had not had a proper foundation of first “arithmetic”, then “algebra”, and then perhaps “geometry and or trigometery”. But if you have had the foundation of arithmetic and have proof that one plus one is two, and you also have the proof that “the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the squares of the other two sides”, then the Calculus problem is built on proper foundation and the problem has a better chance of being solved correctly.

The proofs of the lower building blocks are set in a strong foundation that is hard to shake mainly because the foundation is made of facts, not interpretation or opinion. This is why it is so important to have the proper foundation in the “rules” of ethics, before we can make an informed choice because generally if you foundation for ethics is just religion, then you are on shaky ground from the start, since religion is not about fact, it’s about belief.

However, once we have the proper foundation, with facts as the basis, we are in a totally different arena. This way, when we make value judgments, we may be accused of having “bias” if someone asks us to state our opinion and we choose to hold on to our decision, but if we let ourselves question the decision that we made on our ethics choice, then we must first reconsider if our foundation has been shaken. If arithmetic has been proven false, then we must reconsider algebra and all other blocks that are built upon it. But if in your case, your foundations of the components of judging the ethical situation are correct, then the chances that the conclusions you draw will also be in your favor of being correct.

With the above understanding that ethics is really about the way we deal with others, an organization like the government, or a company, we now can add the last component to the equation…. fairness.

Fairness is all about putting yourself in the others shoes, or “walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins”, or “applying the golden rule”. Generally you are a fair person if you can keep the same position, after putting yourself in the other persons place.

We know that many people cannot arrive at consistent choices because they do not want to take a stand; because it is easier to feel good about one’s self if everything is in a gray area. It is easier to believe in “situation” ethics. Some people love the response… “It all depends.” Sometimes this is the correct response, but sometimes it is stated as the answer because people don’t have a good foundation on which to make more difficult choices. They feel uncomfortable and believe that if they don’t take a stand, then they can be perceived as being “open-minded”, which could be a nice cop-out for fence straddling. It may be they just don’t want to offend anyone by taking a stand.

A good example of people who do not have a good foundation on ethics are those that when asked three questions that are separate from each other and can stand on their own, will somehow magically change when they are combined. Here is an example of the three questions.
1. Who believes that it is wrong to prevent someone from earning their living if that living is completely wholesome, such as a Café owner who only sells wholesome food like organic foods?
2. Who believes it is O.K. to protest?
3. Who believes it is O.K. to protest while preventing the Café owner from earning a living by blocking the streets and not allowing his normal customers to buy his food?

A truly compassionate person would feel for the rights and feelings of the storeowners. A logically thinking person armed with facts about how freedom works will be able to see that the situation above is not ethical. By breaking the law to obtain what the protesters want, it is clear that they have no feeling for the Golden Rule as it applies to the storeowners. It is amazing how many people will say a combination of a wrong and a right will be right if it is for the right reason. It is O.K. for a man to rob someone if that is the only way he could get the money to prevent his mother from dying. Or as in the movie, “John Q”, the premise that it was O.K., to kidnap people if it is for a good enough cause. Or, Robin Hood was a “good” thief, because he “stole” from the rich to give to the poor. So, in this case stealing was O.K.

In the case above about the protestors who purposely block traffic, what if there was an Ambulance trying to get a dying person to the hospital but the streets are blocked and the person dies? Would the protestors then claim that it was O.K. to break the law because it was the only way they could get their point across? Or is breaking the law O.K. if it is for a good enough reason? Can a wrong and a right ever make a right?

A Final Example:
And now for the ultimate example that brings all aspects of ethics together at the same time, the proper solution to the situation, (the proper role of government), and the fairness of the solution, (the moral ingredient).

I will paraphrase and tell a similar story to the one that was told by former Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson to a group of college students many years ago. I cannot remember it in its word for word form, but here is the basic premise and the basic story.

The time setting is back in the days of wagon trains from the east going to settle in the West. The people who wanted to make the trip would gather up enough money from their group and hire a wagon master to lead them across the plains. This wagon master could be thought of as their government for all intents and purposes. On this wagon train are two other key participants, first a businessman named Jones who has over 200 horses that he was transporting to sell once he arrived in the West. The other important participant in this journey is the widow Brown, who had put all of her resources into this trip and only had barely enough left to complete the trip.

During the trip, the widow Brown’s horse broke it’s leg and had to be shot. The wagon master circled the wagons and asked the rest of the members of the wagon train, what should be done about helping the widow Brown since she did not have enough money to purchase another horse. Should they proceed without her? Should the wagon master use his power as the “government” to “take” a horse from Mr. Jones, since he had more than he could ever need? Or perhaps the rest of the wagon train should vote whether the wagon master should take a horse from Mr. Jones.

Now, the real ethical question is if any of these actions are ethical. What if you were Mr. Jones? Would you feel the same, if the wagon master took one of your horses? Would your feelings change if you knew that there was a vote that the wagon master takes a horse from you? This is the true test of fairness.

You see, we as a nation choose to have our government, which is really we, to take from the rich and give to the poor, because we do not wish to wait to see if the true solution would ever happen. And what would be the true ethical solution? Well, that would be for the wagon train to wait and see if anyone would give, loan, or contract with the widow Brown for a horse. Perhaps Mr. Jones would let her do his laundry or some other job that would allow the widow Jones to receive true charity, instead or robbing from Mr. Jones his right to do something charitable, and at the same time robbing from the widow Brown the self esteem that comes from not being the recipient of stolen goods, for which she never has to pay back.

Conclusion:

It is all about Cause and Effect. Societies have seen in the past that as the “norms” of societies move away from everyone earning their own way and being self-sufficient and not being a parasite on the rest of society, that for the good of the entire civilization, we must not ever become like Rome, where in one of the main reasons it fell was because there were too many people who were living off the fruits of others.

Just as someone can solve a murder by applying the correct background to the crime scene, Motive, Opportunity, and Means, we must apply a consistent set of criteria to all ethics situations, in order to be consistent with our own set of values, and of which, the most important set of values should be the values we place on freedom and fairness. (Politics and Morals)

The Death Penalty

2005-11-22T09:34:00.000-08:00

Is trying to be moral easy? No. Can a person think with their heart? Maybe, but will it often be wrong? Yes.

We are supposed to think with our brain with minor input from our heart, but sometimes we find that too much blood flows from the brain and can skew the results.

Want examples? O.K., take when a male starts taking notice of a desirable woman. His blood leaves his brain and arrives somewhere else below the belt, and he no longer thinks clearly. In fact otherwise very intelligent men often make fools of themselves. :)

When we have empathy for a murderer our blood leaves our brain and arrives back at the heart and again we make poor judgments.

It is easy and makes us “feel good” to make judgments from the heart. Heartfelt judgments make many people feel very good about themselves, and to some that is more important than doing the right thing.

They rationalize that “if it feels good, it MUST be right.” Adultry "feels good" but is it right? Joy riding in a stolen car "feels good", but is it right?

That is why so many people allow “a little indiscretion” because they want to have people love them for their “understanding.”

Having compassion should not stop us from insuring that justice is done and so people who need to learn life’s lessons can.

Again, heartfelt judgments are the easy way out. When our children misbehave is it easy to enforce the rules? No, it is very difficult.

Our heart says to let them off the hook. Being Liberal is easy; doing the correct thing is difficult because sometimes it affects people’s lives and who wants to be the bad guy who enforces the rules? Most real bad guys hate the police and judges.

The correct way to make judgments is to do what a judge does in the courtroom. Look at the circumstances, look at the standards from which we are to apply them, and then make a decision.

Let's start with the "The system is flawed" argument.

“Well your honor, I know there are videos of me robbing the bank, but we need to eliminate all of the "robbery" punishments because the system is flawed.”

So, let me get this straight, we should only apply laws when the system is perfect? Does that argument sound ridiculous? Yep, but it certainly makes sense to those who think with their heart.

Well, that is the same logic they apply to the death penalty.

I have gone back and forth on the Death Penalty. Partly because I want to be loved for being compassionate too, but I always come back to the position that it is a correct principal and I will attempt to explain why.

If a man comes over to my house and steals my car, do I have the right to get it back? Of course I do.

Usually I will call the Police and have them do it for me.

This is the basis for having society "make the victim whole.” It is called Retribution and it is moral and just.

Someone kidnaps you, they take away your freedom, again you are justified to require the Police, (government), to take away his freedom.

If someone is stabbing your spouse, would you be justified in killing them? Yes.

Again, notice I said "killing" them and not "Murdering" them. Self Defense of your family's life or your life is justified. And that is all that Society is doing when it takes the murderer's life. It "kills" the murderer, it doesn't "murder" the murderer any more than you would be "murdering" if you were defending your life.

The definition of Murder is the "Purposeful and Unlawful taking of an innocent life." That is why the Bible correctly translated says "Thou Shalt not Murder.”

But where most people miss the point in the Old Testament in the quote "An eye for an eye", the context here is that this was to be the guidelines for a judicial system of "making the punishment fit the crime.”

We do it all the time with our children. If they come home an hour late, we don't give them the same consequences that we do if we find out that they slashed the tires of the neighbor’s car.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:6)

The purpose of the penal system is not to rehabilitate people; it is to protect the innocent.

If you ask everyone in prison if they are guilty, almost all of them will say no. It is amazing how many people "find Jesus" in prison.

My oldest son told me what happened to him when his wife was mad at him and was kicking and slapping him, so he reached up finally and grabbed her wrist and pushed her down.

The neighbors called the police on her, but the police said both of them had to go to jail because they said my son, should have just left instead of pushing her down.

He agreed that he could and should have just got in the car and left until she cooled down. What were they fighting over? She said they should be “friends” with their children and not give them any consequences, while he said they must have consequences. She lost her cool and got very angry. Why, because he was so calm. She let her emotions, (heart); rule her actions instead of discussing it with her logic and brain.

While in jail, a counselor came into a big room and asked, “How many of you deserve to be here?” My son and only one other person out of about 200 raised their hand. She said, “Well I can see that only two people in here will NOT be back, I will see the rest of you again.”

Do people deserve a second chance? Yes, in every case where the victim can be made whole.

Can the life of the victim be restored? No. Then should the murderer be given a second chance? No.

If we steal money, and then pay it back, we can and should be forgiven. But, in the case of Murder, perhaps the reason in the Bible we find that God requires the murderer give up his life is so when the murderer is standing before God, God can say, well you paid back you deed with your life and now I can forgive you.

I Don't know that to be the case, but it might be. Food for thought.

There is only one unpardonable sin, and that is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Meaning, a person had a sure knowledge that God exists and then he fights against him.

Is the Murderer's life anymore precious than the victum's?

The two most important things to get out of this are the following laws of nature:

1. People must "learn" that their actions have consequences and that consequences are good for their own growth.
2. People must "observe" that actions have consequences that are commensurate with the crime or society will cease to have respect for the law and will not have any safety.

When people get a ticket, why do you think most people get upset? They know that they did something wrong, so why do they get upset?

The reason is that all of us know that the law was not applied equally. Some speeders are not pulled over, so they ask "why me?"

The consequences must be always applied, and with the correct amount, or we loose respect for authority and law.

Should there be an "ultimate" consequence for an "ultimate" crime? The Bible says so, and reality says so.

People will argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent. They will cite all kinds of statistics to prove their point.

I love statistics, but I also think all information we process needs to be filtered with logic and common sense.

Does the following scenario make sense to you: What if you were a criminal and you were told that if you murdered anyone with a blue shirt on you would get the death penalty, but if you murdered anyone else, you wouldn’t?

Would it make a difference to you?

Would it make “any” difference to "some" criminals? Not all murders are “heat of the moment”, that is why we have First Degree Murder because it was “planned.”

Again, using common sense, any intellectually honest person would have to answer that question "YES".

War and Peace

2005-11-20T19:01:00.000-08:00

As Sesame Street would say…”Some things just go together” and this is never so true as with the following snippets.

Freedom, Love, Righteousness, and Peace.

Force, Hate, Unrighteousness, and War.

Peace:
======

The above eight words are forever interconnected. In order to have Freedom we must have Love, Righteousness, and Peace and vice-versa.

Peace is something that cannot be legislated. It must come from each individual’s heart. It must be planted, nurtured, and harvested by individuals. It cannot just be plucked from a tree.

It must come first from the old phrase “Live and Let Live." In my discussions with a fellow blogger, I have been unable to show him that his view of force can never be able to coexist with peace and freedom, for freedom is really only possible with the concept of “My neighbor must keep out of my business, and that includes forcing me to care for one of my other neighbors welfare.” I either want to or I don’t. I am morally responsible for his welfare, but if I am “forced” to do it, then there is no real freedom and hence no real peace.

Freedom is more precious than peace or even life. There is no peace in compromising principals. As Emerson said, “Nothing can bring you peace but triumph of principles.” To be makers of peace requires respect for law, the living of law, the willingness to preserve principles, and forthright facing of facts.

War:
====

In the early history of the world, wars were of extermination or enslavement. But, when the Roman Empire became powerful, it adopted rules that honored it’s enemies, treated them with respect, and in fact on one occasion the Romans declined to recognize one of their generals in a victory that he had won by using bribery, and on another declined a certain victory by use of poison.

After the Dark Ages, along about the 1500’s a man named Hugo Grotius prepared the first great work on international law, and in the preface he said, “I saw prevailing throughout the Christian world a license to making war of which even barbarous nations would have been ashamed; recourse being had to arms for slight reasons or no reasons; and when arms were once taken up, all reverence for divine and human law was thrown away, just as if men were thenceforth authorized to commit all crimes without restraint.”

Because of this condition Grotius wrote his work “De Jure Belli et Pacis”, which was the beginning of the bringing into war of something of humanity, if humanity may be properly spoken of in connection with war.

First an effort was made to draw the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Wars were to be waged between armies and not civilians.

When our great Nation was formed, we brought forth the concept of neutrality, (again, the old Live and Let Live philosophy),the intent thereof being to confine the war conflagration in as narrow a space as possible. We knew that “global war” and “total war” was a curse.

Then came our own “Civil War.” Many were treated as “traitors.” But then came Francis Lieber, a political refugee from Germany, and he drew up for Lincoln what became known as “General Order 100.” These Orders went to the Federal armies and prescribed how to conduct the war.

The rules forbade the bombardment, without notice, of places where there were civilian peoples, provided protection of museums, libraries, and scientific institutions. Undefended towns were not to be attacked. They provided that poison gases and poison it self should not be used. Pillage, rape and arson along with all like crimes were forbidden.

Then came World War I, and we began to sink back to barbarism. All distinctions between combatants and non-combatants disappeared. This was partly due to the type of weapons used.

Then came World War II and the Atom Bomb. We wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian populations with this bomb. Few if any of these people were responsible for the war. We lost all that we had gained from Grotius (1625) to 1912. And the worst was that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, but it actually drew approval from the nation at large.

We could have done something else to demonstrate our “Walk softly but carry a big stick (atom bomb)” philosophy. We could have at least “warned” the towns first. We could have dropped the bombs on a deserted island, etc.

We were again not thinking with our morals when it came to Nuremberg. As Lincoln said about the opponents of the North in the Civil war, (the Southerners), “no one need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing these men, even the worst of them.”

Men should not be convicted for acts, which, when committed, were not contrary to the law of that nation, but were declared so after they were committed. This is violating one of our fundamental constitutional concepts that “ex post facto” laws are not tolerable. (Dina, you will certainly appreciate this one.)

When we, as a nation, support such un-Christian plans as the “Morgenthau Plan”, (to starve Germans living in the South – See Tobacco Road), we need to reevaluate our national principals.

What are the conditions of Justifying War?

First the reasons that are not justified to begin a war;
1. Territorial Expansion.
2. To impel others to a particular form of worship.
3. To enforce a new order of government.

Reasons to Justify entering a war are as follows:
1. An attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his freedom.
2. Loyalty to his country.
3. Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one.

The reasons to justify beginning a war are:
1. When we are attacked.

Now, we were attacked and that part justifies the war. However, having said that, we were not attacked by a nation, but rather a group of people who truly want to destroy us. And we do have the right of self-defense. So, the question remains, do we have the right to use the methods that Bush applied to defend us?

That question is very hard to answer, and I must say that it may be that only the Classified documents that the White House has and only those in power really know the real reasons to justify his actions. In other words, more information is needed to answer this question. There is a right and wrong answer, it is just that I am not sure that I, or we, have enough to decide at this point. I have laid out the moral rules for war, help me decide.

Now for the reality check. Should Saddam be tried for crimes that were not illegal in his country? If they were not illegal, then I don’t think so, because of the “ex post facto” circumstances. However, there was supposedly written laws in his country, and I wonder if rape, and murder by the government were legal because they were written as law. (sts and I are having this discussion now with respect to stealing, (transfer payments), by the government being O.K. because he believes it is in the law.)

In the end, peace efforts are useless without Righteousness. War in our midst is inevitable without people searching for Freedom, Love, and Righteousness. We have too much hate in this country, and often by the very same people crying for peace. They hate the Christian, the Republican, and the Conservative. Now, some of the aforementioned also have hate, so we all need to pull back a little and not be so easily offended and not try to use force to get our way.

Peace can never be legislated. We will never have….”so let it be written, so let it be done” as long as man is running things.

Terrorism and Armageddon

2005-11-20T07:57:00.000-08:00

O.K., for those who don’t wish to be “preached to” or those who don’t wish to understand how any “bible thumper” could possibly want Bush to succeed, then you may not want to read further.

The following is a scenario that I believe is possible and one in which I am still trying to understand myself.

It is much more detailed than I am presenting here but I thought it worthwhile to make it available to those who perhaps have not been exposed to it or have not studied it as I have.

Is this scenario written in stone? No.

Is it possible that my understanding could be wrong? Yes.

The Bible is purposefully written with hidden meanings and the reasons for that are too numerous to mention here, but suffice it to say that the mysteries are still yet unfolding.

First we are all here to learn the difference between good and evil.

God allows evil to exist so we may learn from it. We cannot know hot without cold, up without down, and good without evil, ad infinitum. God made everything in the Universe balanced. Ever notice that while we breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide, plants just happen to take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen? Coincidence? Planned, or part of Random Evolution?

The good aligns itself with freedom, while the evil aligns itself with force. While God had his Christ, and because of Balance in the Universe, Satan must therefore have his.

The authors of Force are the ones who are the Totalitarian Government proponents, whether they are Communists/Socialists, Nazis, or Wahabists.

The authors of Freedom are the Founding Fathers of this great Country. No time in the history of the world have we been able to see God’s way of having freedom rule, so as people may worship as they please, as we have had in understanding the principals of this Nation.

In the Bible, Daniel tells us that in the whole history of the world, there will only be 5 world rulers:

Babylon
Medes and Persia
Greece
Rome
A Ten Nation Confederacy

We are also told that a powerful man who would allow the Jews to worship at the Temple Mount and will bring peace between the Jews and Muslims would rule this last Ten Nation Confederacy.

Some believe that this Ten Nation Confederacy is the final number of nations who will belong to the EEC and that this leader will be the President of this “European Economic Community”, or Common Market.

Next, he will be wounded in the Head and be miraculously healed. He will rule for 3 ½ years and then this Ten Nation Confederacy and at least one other Confederacy of Nations, perhaps led by China, and/or a Muslim Confederacy will attack Israel and the world’s final great battle will be fought. It will be called The Battle of Armageddon.

It is the opinion of many that the way this ruler will gain power will be to solve the worlds economic problems by presenting a world economic plan that will truly usher in a Global Economy that is ingenious and clever in it’s solution. (“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” - Rev 13:17)

Did you know it is possible to solve the following problems with one simple plan?

1. Money Laundering.
2. Identity Theft.
3. Counterfeiting.

Yep, just make everyone have a “Banking Number” and eliminate all paper currency, so that everyone must use their bank number in order to make any transaction, and have a chip implanted in their hand or forehead so the number cannot be stolen, and can be easily scanned. (“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand.” – Rev 14:9 )

It will be important to not get this mark in your hand or forehead because you will be giving in to this evil man and his evil plan. Why is it evil? Because it gives him world power, and we all know that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton.

Perhaps it will be after a world recession that is unprecedented in the history of the world. He will be thought of as a Savior of the world’s economic problems, and will usher in what appears to be world peace and economic prosperity. Some reason that this is why he will be a Counterfeit Christ, (a fake Savior), thus the name Anti-Christ.

The President of Iran has just recently said that the Jews should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Many other radical leaders say and feel the same. The reasons are many, but two main reasons cause most of the world’s hatred toward the Jews.

First, are the radical Muslims who believe that their God, Allah, hates the Jews and that the Muslims are the chosen people of this Earth and not the Jews and it is their job to get rid of these Jews.

Their biggest physical desire is to be able to continue to worship at the “Dome of the Rock.” This is the place where they believe that Mohammad ascended to heaven. Since it is also the same spot where the Jews want to worship at the “Temple Mount”, they believe that the Jews are working to take this away from them.

Next, many in this world believe that the Jews are behind some giant conspiracy to dominate the world’s currency and are secretly manipulating all politics behind the scenes. (Many Muslims are taught this Jewish conspiracy and are even being taught that the Jews were behind the attack on the World Trade center.)

It is with the understanding of one or both of these two worldviews that many are supporting President Bush as they perceive that we may be prolonging the start of this deadly battle that they believe will surely happen.

Many believe it will happen before 2021. They reason thusly:

The History of this earth is broken into 7 periods of a thousand years each. God rests every 7th period, (Sunday), or after every six thousand years. And at the end of the 6000 years the faithful will reign with Christ for a thousand years of peace.

“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” (Gen 2:2)

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8 )

How do we know that the creation was six thousand years? God told Adam "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:17)

Adam lived to be 930 years old. He died in one day.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Rev 20: 4 )

Most biblical scholars believe that Adam was here approximately 6000 years ago and many believe that the following two statements explain why we have yet to see the Battle of Armageddon, which is supposed to usher in the thousand years of peace at the beginning of the 7th thousand years.

Again, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8 )

“AND when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.” (Rev 8:1 )

If a day is as a thousand years then a half an hour is approximately 21 of our years, hence the approximate date 2021.

Of course no man knows the exact hour that this will happen, but we have many signs that will tell us of the impending battle.

And one of these signs is the incredible build up of Arms that the Chinese are engaging in. Warships, bombs, etc, sure seem to indicate that they are rushing towards going to war soon.

If the Chinese are preparing for war, whom do you think they are planning to battle? Do you think it might be Taiwan, Israel, the U.S., or a combination of these?
And if China is going to get into a war, could that war be anything other than THE final battle?

The Communists have always believed that Communism will only work if the whole world is practicing communism and therefore they must conquer the entire world.

They plan to conquer by force or by creeping Socialism. They have stated that any society that allows socialism will one day wake up and find that they are conquered and are Communists.

Why Do Many Believe This Country was Founded Upon Christian Principals?

2005-11-12T09:19:00.000-08:00

Here is a poll that shows over 85% of the U.S. consider themselves Christian.

My guess as to why so many claim that the principals of Christianity is what this nation was founded upon, (now notice I am not claiming that the founders were mostly Christian, merely that the principals were), is evidenced by:

- a Letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 where he was saying that this was in fact the basis for the system of government in America…

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. - Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40

- And when Adams wrote: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity…” - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421, dairy entry for July 26, 1796.

When most people miss a meeting and want to know what took place, they ask one of the participants who was there for an account. Now, the account may not be 100% accurate, but one would hope that the "tone" or the "concepts" of the meeting would be similar if all were asked.

There may be other quotes that may show that others had other things to say about the founding principals of our nation, but I doubt we will find such an exact quote on the "Underlying Principals" of our founders. We may find that other things were discussed, but I would love to see other quotes about the "Principals" not being Christian, I just can't believe that Adams would have been so specific and yet not be with a consensus.

- And many other early records that show that most of the framers believed in God, (most were Theists), and most believed in Christian principals, even if they weren't Christian, (as evidenced by Adams quote above), and above all they wanted a nation that had no “National Church”, but yet one that recognized God.

Again, no one particular church. Secular does not mean "anti-religious", it means, "not relating to a religion or a religious body." - American Heritage Dictionary

.“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…” - George Washington

Some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, and many of them recognized that they needed to do something about that, and some did. But most saw it for what it was and worked to get rid of such an evil practice. But that is for a different post.

Well there you have it.

Probably will be ignored by the Christian haters out there, but then all you can do is present your facts and let those who are open minded ponder it with real intent to know and not intent to start putting it down as quickly as they can.

How and Why Governments are Created.

2005-11-11T19:29:00.000-08:00

This is not new to the political landscape.

I have heard talks by Ronald Reagan and read speeches from former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson espouse these very eternal principals. (I found a link to his speech by searching "The Proper Role of Government" on Google.)

Both of them have cited Frederic Bastiat as one of the champions of these principals and have said these same principals are the foundation of our great Republic.

Let’s examine how governments get started.

You are back in the primitive days. You live with a tribe.

Your tribe gets attacked and pillaged from time to time. You sometimes have your own people stealing and murdering your neighbors.

So, you therefore logically organize some of your tribe to become your government to provide order out of chaos.

The job of this government is to protect you from criminals from without, (other tribes), and from within, (criminals in your village.).

You gladly give some of your possessions, (taxes), to have some of your tribe to provide full time service to these tasks. (They need money to live on, so taxes are required to provide them with the tools and sustenance to do their job.)

Now the last thing you hired them to do was to pillage your property so they might give some of the loot to their friends, (voters), who are not in the government.

Collecting taxes in order to function is not the same as having the tax collector come by and say, “My wife’s cousin is a voter, and I will take an additional amount from you so I may give it to her.”

The key here is that “fair or just” taxes are used by the government to protect you from people or armies who want to harm you or pillage your property.

Any time the very government you hired to protect you, becomes an instrument to pillage your possessions, then they have perverted the law.

It becomes easy to see the immorality of “unjust” plunders by the very government you hired to protect you.

Immoral acts are not “Far and Just” actions of any government.

Robin Hood may have been a local hero, but he was still a thief.

To quote Bastiat:

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.

Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?

Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces.

And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

In a Democracy the majority gets to rule the minority, but in a Republic as we have, the individual is protected from the majority by way of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

These rights include the 5th and 14th Amendments, which prohibit the government from unjustly removing your property. In the 5th we read “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

And in the 14th Amendment we read: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Ever hear of “And to the Democracy for which it stands?” How about “Battle Hymn of the Democracy?”

Again in a Democracy 50.1% of the vote can tell the minority to do whatever they wish, but in a Republic, the government is specifically told it can not take away property or rights and the functions of government are the only reasons to take property from the individual.

Initially the framers were so worried about the reach of the Federal Government that they spelled out how to protect us from “taxation without representation.” They essentially said that each state would send an amount to the Federal Government based upon it’s number of citizens, as done by a census.

In other words, California you have “x” number of people, send us “x” amount. Oklahoma you have “x” amount of people, you send us “x” amount. They were fearful of a “direct” tax. But alas the greedy people in D.C. had that changed with the 16th Amendment, and the rest is history.

As Will Rogers Jr. said, “We have the best people in Washington that money can buy."

Are We All Heretics?

2005-10-29T11:35:00.000-07:00

Heretic - "A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma..." - American Heritage Dictionary

While going to College I noticed that I would often disagree with my Professor. I would ask questions posed as nicely as I could put them, but I found that if I disagreed with the textbook or the Professor, my grades were not going to be as good as they otherwise would be.

Now, don't get me wrong, I wound up with a 3.84 GPA with over 200 Credits when I graduated from College, but it was a struggle to keep my mouth shut on many occasion.

When I took Biology Class, I would ask questions about the origin of the species and the proverbial missing link and would find my question was responded to with anger, so I soon found that if I approached the professor after class things would go much smoother.

Witness the following from the Preface in the Book "Icons of Evolution":

" During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student as University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks, I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true.

As I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology, however, I noticed that all of my textbooks dealing with evolutionary biology contained a blatant misrepresentation: Drawings of vertebrate embryos showing similarities that were supposed to be evidence for descent from a common ancestor. But as an embryologist I knew the drawings were false. Not only did they distort the embryos they purported to show, but they also omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from each other."

I wonder if he ran into the same bias that I had found and that is...we should not challenge the established worldview unless we wanted to be labeled a heretic. The holy alliance of the "High Priests of Higher Education" will pound you into submission if you dare challenge their ego during classroom time where you might actually be able to stir some freethinking by your peers.

No wonder there is few, if any, other "Theories" being taught about evolution.

Thank God when I took Political Science my professor actually was teaching from a book that pointed out that since the definition of government was force, that it follows to reason that the true left-right political line should be drawn with "Force" being the correct axis and not the new definitions of Communistic thought on the Left and Fascism thought on the right.

He pointed out that all Authoritarian forms of government belonged on the left and only a Republic form of government belonged on the right since the amount of “Force” was the key to understanding governments and political thought.

He told me at the time there were forces in Academia at work to confuse the political landscape to inject Orwellian ideas of double speak into the arena. Things like “Right-wing Dictatorship” he correctly pointed out are an oxymoron when using the “Force” definition of government since a Dictatorship is a strong Authoritarian form of government.

It is amazing how I run into people who have graduate degrees and miss this simple important fact. Oh well, even the very elect are caught up in the lies propagated by the Godless Socialist thought that has taken a strong foot hold in Academia.

Sad, but there are huge difficulties to overcome to gain a truly free exchange of ideas in our Holy alliance of the "High Priests of Higher Education."

The Law, The Constitution and Freedom

2005-10-28T10:19:00.000-07:00

I cringe every time I hear the phrase “There ought to be a Law.” Every time we pass a law, by definition we are restricting Freedom.

Much of the law we have comes from logical choices to restrict the way we mistreat our fellow humans. That is to say, Murder, Stealing, etc not only is founded in morals, but it is there to restrict human behavior so as to protect others from harm. Restricting Freedom to harm others is still Force.

This is why George Washington said that the definition of government is “Force.”
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

This is where we need to understand the purpose of the Constitution. The framers realized the importance of restricting government from being over intrusive so they set up a document that was meant to be founded upon correct principals. Truth and Principals never change, and the document was to be interpreted by Justices with that in mind. If it needed revising, then it should be so obvious that a Constitutional Amendment that requires a “Super Majority” to pass should only change it.

The framers recognized that if Justices ever saw their role as to make the Constitution a “Living Document” or a document that needed to “Evolve” or that its application needed to “Evolve”, then we would no longer have a country that was ruled by law and principals, but a country that was ruled by unaccountable Judges.

This is what is at stake in the appointment of a “Strict Constitutionalist” or also called a “Strict Constructionist” to the Supreme Court. Justice Steven Breyer on the Charlie Rose show tried to make both cases, i.e., that the document was only to evolve with constitutional amendments but that he thought the application of it’s principals should be applied by the Judges. He tried to say that the founders could not have envisioned the internet, automobiles, etc. He fails to realize that these modern advances don’t change principals, and if they need to be looked at, then it is the job of the Legislature to do the changing because it puts the power back in the hands of people who are accountable. His view is so wrong because it puts too much power in the hands of Nine people, and their “opinions” become law.

Justices that use International law pick and choose those international laws that fit their agenda. We left Europe to get away from governments that were not freedom friendly and we should only look to our document that truly protects freedom like no other countries laws can.

Why Doesn’t God or Jesus Show Himself?

2005-10-24T22:57:00.000-07:00

My posts are usually about Freedom and Politics, but with a little Theism thrown in from time to time. Today I thought it was a good time for a little Theism since a lot of comments on other blogs have been about Religion, God or Intelligent Design.

Many ask the question, If there is a God, why doesn’t he just show himself and prove it? Some would answer that he has a few times. God showed himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai when he gave the Ten Commandments. Jesus showed himself when he was here approximately 2000 years ago, but generally he stays away. Why is this you might wonder?

It all has to do with us proving ourselves to be worthy of governing ourselves. To see which we will choose, right or wrong without having “proof” that God exists.

First let’s assume that there is Justice in the Universe. Next, if there is then let’s assume that we will receive more punishment for doing something we “know” is wrong than we would if we just “thought” it was wrong. Kind of like the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose, but the next level down.

If God came down and showed himself to us and we had “pure knowledge” of him, and not just “faith or belief” in him, then from that moment on we would be bound to only do the right thing because we would no longer be covered by the Atonement. We would not be able to say, “I didn’t know!”

We would not be able to have Jesus say “…..Father forgive them for they know not what they do…...” (Luke 23:34)

Where much is given, much is expected.

We are to go through life and prove ourselves that we will choose good over evil because we want to, and not because we “know for a fact” that we should always choose good.

It is by our faith that we can learn and progress to try to become as perfect as we can. Jesus commanded us to try to always choose the right. He said “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5: 48 )

He wants us to do this on faith, not on knowledge. For with the greater light comes the greater sin. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17).

Theistic Evolution – Not Possible

2005-10-15T10:49:00.000-07:00

Christians cannot believe in both Evolution and Creationism. If some do, they are compromising their principals, either consciously or without realizing it.

Paul, in speaking about the different species returning to their maker, said the following: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of birds.” ( 1 Cor. 15:38-39)

The problem of a fish or a bird becoming human is just as impossible as iron becoming gold.

We are in our maker’s image. The Law of Probability says that even if it were possible, it would take more time than the age of the earth to evolve from a fish that swam onto the shore and then through this leap of faith the fish grew legs, etc, etc, until it became a human being. Again this is saying even if it were possible, and I don't believe it is.

It is obvious that God wants to remain unrevealed. This means that we will never discover the truth about the beginning of human life until God again revels himself. However just as Jesus was rejected when he was on this earth approximately 2000 years ago, we would probably reject him if he came amongst us again today.

The Scriptures tell us that God created each species separately, each after its own kind. The Scriptures also tell us that Adam was the first man.

I am sure that some of what is presented in Evolution Theory has some basis, but not the overall Theory. There is no organic evolution.

If it is Science then this process should be demonstrable and it of course is not, therefore by the definition of Science if it cannot be predicted or repeated then it can only be speculated. This means it does not fit the rules of being Science.

However, the only real way to debate this subject is to use Science to inspect the claims and determine if indeed Science actually agrees with the claims.

This book Icons of Evolution actually deals with the subject without any religious references.

Here is just one of the many reviews from the above link:

“I must admit that reading this book was somewhat shocking. I had expected to see rehashed creationist arguments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. On the contrary, nothing Wells says depends on creationist ideas. He has collected evidence from the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and combined them into a compelling case against what we might call "textbook Darwinism." This might be a trivial accomplishment, since the record of high school and college textbooks is generally dismal. But his cumulative argument seems to me devastating to orthodox Neo-Darwinism, since it just is textbook Darwinism. Wells discusses the famous comparative vertebrate embryo diagrams-- which should be an embarrassment to any textbook author who includes them--the fallacious way homology is used for evidence of common ancestry, the collapse of the story of Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, and many more pieces of the Darwinist lore. By the time I was finished, I had lost faith in almost everything I thought I knew about evolution. I now suspect that Darwin will soon join company with Marx and Freud.
I'm not sure what I believe at this point, but I can no longer buy the official story. I don't know if I agree with some of Wells' recommendations in his conclusion, but something clearly has to be done. Hysterical defenses of falsified "evidence" by Darwinian disciples at Talk.Origins and elsewhere convinces me that they didn't see this coming, and won't be able to deal with the actual facts involved.”

And yet another good review from the amazon.com link:

… “This is the first book I've read on evolution that actually uses "science" to examine the evidence for or against the theory. (I've read many on both sides of the fence) Science being evidence based. Wells certainly has the scientific credentials to do this and certainly more qualified than most of us to examine this evidence and make assertions based such evidence or lack thereof. The central theme of the book examines the main "Icons of Evolution" that the defenders of the theory call upon to show that evolution has been proven or at least demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence. When someone asserts that evolution is a "fact" or has been "proven" they typically use one or more or all of these "Icons". They are briefly:

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment
2. Darwin's Tree of Life
3. Homology
4. Haekel's Embryos
5. Archaeopteryx
6. The Peppered Moths
7. Darwin's Finches
8. Four winged Fruit Flies
9. Fossil horses and their evolution
10. Ape to Man (the famous ascendancy drawing)

Wells scrutinizes these icons and pretty much explodes them all. The real fact here is that none of these icons support Darwin's theory - even the ones that aren't faked ( like the peppered moths or Haekel's Embryos). One example I can sum up refers to the origins of life and the Miller-Urey experiment; if we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable-why are we so very sure that it happened? Such evidence would not hold up in court, and sure won't satisfy the requirements for a science.”

There we have it. These reviews pretty much sum up my feelings based upon what I had already discovered myself. Of course I had not come up with near the evidence that Mr. Wells has, nor do I want to imply I have made any exhaustive study, but my conclusions are similar to those of the reviewers above.

Liberal “Values”

2005-10-12T10:02:00.000-07:00

In the upcoming elections we are going to see Howard Dean push for “re-packaging” the image of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t matter to him that this new marketing scheme will not be truthful; it is all about marketing to win!

Not many years ago Abortion was very unpopular with a huge majority of Americans but after a new marketing firm repackaged “Abortion” into “Choice” it became much more palatable to many more people.

The Dems know that over 96% of Americans believe in God and over 80% attend church. They also believe the only reason that Kerry lost was because of the “value” voters.

Enter their new push to hoodwink the undecided voters that they also stand for values.

The problem is they don’t stand for real values, but entitlements repackaged into, “caring for the poor”, “free health insurance for all”, and a bunch of other “spend other peoples money” schemes that are made to “sound good.”

Their biggest vulnerability will be the fact that it is just more “Socialism” in sheep’s clothing.

Organizational Morality

2005-10-07T12:38:00.000-07:00

What about the poor people?

If there were one thing that separates the left from the right in this country and is the single most defining issue, it would be the proper way to help the poor people.

There are an infinite number of things that could be done with taxes. Most of these could be under the heading of “It’s a good cause.”

Where we need to focus is on the single one thing that Satan has deceived a large number of people on this planet. Organizational Morality. Also known as Socialism.

This world is fast becoming almost an entirely Socialist World. Let’s examine the concept behind why Socialism is morally wrong.

If I rob a bank, is it wrong? If two people rob a bank, is it any less wrong? If a whole neighborhood robs a bank is it wrong? If a whole town votes to have the police rob a bank and give the money to the poor, is it still wrong? Satan has convinced people that if the government does it, then it must be moral.

This is the greatest lie that people have bought into. Government steals from it's citizens, it allows gambling, but says if you run a gambling establishment, then it is wrong, it prints more money than it should, (counterfiting), and it is all dismissed as moral because the government is doing it. We are the government! Why is it voting takes away the morality of the act?

This is the crux of Socialism and it’s immoral premise that the welfare of the poor is more important than morality. They reason that it is more important to vote for the government to be a taker so it can then be a provider than to do what is morally right.

Satan has convinced almost the entire world that government enforced welfare is morally right. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is stealing, period.

Take (t³k) v. took (t‹k), tak·en (t³"k…n), tak·ing, takes. --tr. 1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: a. To capture physically; seize. b. To seize with authority; confiscate. - American Heritage Dictionary

There are a lot of good liberal people out there who sincerely believe in the welfare state. They have been deceived and fail to admit it or they admit that it is wrong but continue to say it is the only answer. Meaning it may be morally wrong, but it is the only solution.

This is the basis for our stand of “doing the right thing” even if it seems like the wrong thing at the time. This country has millions of good-hearted people on both the left and the right that will not let people starve if they suddenly were off the welfare rolls.

If each town/city would have the poor sign up on a list posted through out the town/city seeking assistance, I guarantee that all of the churches would take that list and make it a charitable project to help the poor.

Helping people by taking (forcing $100.00 out of your paycheck), and then sending that $100.00 to Washington, so they can send $10.00 back to the state to help the poor, is not near as good as the $100.00 that would be freely given by charitable people so that the entire $100.00 gets to the people who really need it, instead of in some pencil pushers pocket in D.C.

But most of all, there is no way possible for the left to say that Socialism is morally right and still not know that they are being decieved. Their conscience will tell them if they listen to it.

This is the main battle between the right and the left. Is Socialism morally wrong? Only those decived would think it is. We need to pray for them.

A Nation of Used Cars

2005-10-07T07:51:00.000-07:00

When I was growing up I had a very good family life. My father was a Major in the Army and my Mother was a stay-at-home Mom. I have a five-year older sister, and an eight-year younger brother.

My mother told me about the birds and the bees when the subject first came up. She said she waited until I was curious to tell me about it and that was the way and the when that God and nature had intended for it to be taught. If it is brought up sooner, then children will become curious before they were intended to be. They often are not able to handle the shock and will think about it more than they should.

The session was only about how babies were created, and that was that.

It wasn’t until I got into college that I really learned about the true morals of human sexuality. I was curious about why there seemed to be a double standard between men and women when it came to being sexually active.

I figured I had better read books that were written by people who cared about morality instead of caring about teaching for money. I figured you go to church to learn about God’s ways, but you go to public school to learn about man’s ways.

I found out that Women are special. They are given less sex drive, (in general), than men. Men were given much stronger sex drive, so that the men are in the role of chasing women by nature.

Men are kind of like Dogs; running around with their tongues hanging out saying things like…. “Feed me, play with me, entertain me, but most of all, please play with me!”

While women are like cats, just sitting around purring and saying things like…. “You don’t really expect me to come to you every time you call do you? And ”you can pet me if you want to, but if you don’t that’s alright too, because it really doesn’t make that much difference to me.”

So I learned that men were given much more latitude when it came to feeling sorry for them because of the “dog in them.” Women in some marriages even continue to forgive them for their adultery for they wrongly think that men have no control over their sex drive. Baloney, it’s kind of like smoking, people say they can’t stop, but what they are really saying is they like to smoke more than they want to stop. Men can wait until marriage, and after marriage they can stop the outside escapades. It just takes will power and morals.

Parents can't give them will power, so we better give them the understanding of values and morals. Teach them "why" to be moral.

I found out that what God had in mind was for everyone to have a new car as soon as they were ready to purchase one. This meant that when men were ready to get married what they really wanted deep down inside was a virgin. They wanted a brand new car, one that had never even been sat in before. Makes sense that if you are only supposed to have one for your lifetime, then it should be a new one.

God wanted women to have a new car also. But here is what usually happens. Boys have their libido telling them to test drive cars as often as they can. They know deep down inside that they are making a “Nation of Used Cars”, while all the time hoping to find a new car when they are finally ready to purchase one.

They reason that God can’t send everyone to hell, so they try to influence as many of their friends to go along with them as possible. People have a tendency to pull others down to their morality level because it makes them feel like it must be normal if so many are doing it.

But if you put a rotten apple in a barrel of good ones, the rotten one will usually turn some of the good ones bad until the keeper removes them, but if you put a good apple in a barrel of rotten ones, the rotten ones will easily turn the one good one bad. So, as the old saying goes, the company you keep is vital to your long-term happiness. Misery loves company.

Since Clinton has been in office, the age of young girls becoming active has dropped from 15 years old down to 12 years old. They have also reasoned they can be safer, from pregnancy and disease, by copying Monica Lewinski’s method, but instead are only safer from the pregnancy part. The disease’s can be just as dangerous as before. And they also fail to realize that they are being used by boys and men, all the while they are being laughed at for being so easily tricked into thinking that being a "used" car is desirable and makes them equal to men. Used is used, and they fail to see that often once the boy/man gets what he wants, then it is "see ya later, I don't want to marry someone that has such low morals because I won't be able to trust her after we are married."

Let’s try to recognize the things we should do to help our young children from being tempted to lower their morals.

First, let’s fight for optional sex education and try to keep the government from having our young children becoming exposed to it before they are ready for it. I have read somewhere that some schools want to introduce it as early as the second grade so as to help them know what to do if they are in an abusive home. Isn’t it funny how the parents are willingly giving up their responsibilities?

Yes, some parents are not good parents, but if you legislate for the exception, you often destroy the rule.

Second, let’s teach our children the importance of not falling for group pressure to lower their values and morals, by impressing them with how to handle peer pressure.

Third, have some very basic rules and don't give in to these "deal breakers."
1. Tell us where you are going, who you are with and when you are coming home.
2. No single dating until you are 18. Double dating starts at 16.
3. Junior high you must be home by 11 o'clock, high school by 1am. Nothing good happens after 1am at night and a ton of bad stuff does.
4. Bad deeds are given consequences, good ones are given rewards.

That's my list that I used. It seemed to work, and it came from some very good sources.

And finally lets insure that our children have a good understanding of why we are here on this earth, and what is expected of us from God.

In Defense of Religion - Intelligent Design

2005-10-03T18:29:00.000-07:00

Preface:

While I am a Christian, I will not engage in proselyting for any particular religion, so please don’t ever ask me to get into which religion believes what or what religion I belong to, as I don’t think this forum is the proper place for that type of conversation.

I do not have a problem in defending Religion or Christianity in General.

Since there are over 1200 different Christian religions alone here in the U.S., then there are obviously many different positions that are taken by many different denominations. But if they call themselves Christian, then we can assume they agree on the most fundamental position and that is the existence of Jesus Christ.

Some Christian religions engage in “putting down” others views and calling them “cults” and even more hurtful names, so it again is important to talk in generalities so we don’t get into this non Christian activity. This country was founded upon religious tolerance and respect for others views.

However, I may mention what I have read from a few different religions as a way to stimulate thought or present an interesting point of view.

Big Bang. (Infinite Monkeys vs. Intelligent Design)

In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. We now know that this event took place approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power) ago.

On April 23, 1992, a group of scientists found proof that the universe was created by the Big Bang. This proof was that the universe was not static, but rather it was decelerating just as Einstein had predicted by his singularity equation, which had convinced Einstein that God exists.

It was so exciting a discovery it led the most famous and brilliant physicist Steven Hawking to exclaim “This is the discovery of the century, if not of all time”, and he is known for his understatements. It further led him to say that “we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning.”

Until this discovery many scientists had believed it possible for the complexities of life to have spontaneously occurred by way of what some have called the “Infinite Monkeys” theorem. This theorem basically says, “An infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time will produce a given text.” (Such as a novel or even the collective works of William Shakespeare.)

Well if time was not infinite as the Big Bang theory states, then there is not sufficient time for all of the “random events” necessary to sustain life to occur, i.e., Evolution.

Science also says that the “Law of Cause and Effect” states that for every effect there must be a cause. So, if Length, width, height, and time all were created at the Big Bang, then what or who was around to “cause” the Big Bang?

More and more scientists are concluding that there had to be something or someone outside the universe to cause this event, but if all exotic matter and all ordinary matter had a beginning, then who or what could have caused the Big Bang. The answer to this is in the only book that I have found that actually makes the claim that everything but God had a beginning, and that God caused the Big Bang, i.e., created the heaven and earth.

Organize/Make Earth:

There are some who speculate that when God organized the Earth he gathered parts from other worlds. Perhaps these worlds had skeletons that predated man. It would explain why some levels of earth are newer than some that are closer to the surface.

The dilemma of the age of the Earth continues to be a mystery. Many different postulates have been put forth to explain the questions that seem to indicate that the earth is older than the date the Bible says that Adam was created. I kind of like the idea above that the elements of the earth are older than Adam, because they came from other planets, but who knows? All I do know is that there is an answer to this question and we need to be patient about finding it out.

Adam & Eve:

According to the chronology of the Bible, Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden approximately 4000 B.C. or 6000 years ago.

When reading the Bible, it is important to understand the concept of the word translated as “Day.” In some places in the Bible it means literally 24 hours, in other places it means a “Year” and in other places it means “a thousand years” such as in this quote, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” ( 2 Peter 3:8 )

I have read where some people say that when God was talking about the creation process; it was where each day was a thousand years.

They reason thusly: God told Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen 2:17)

Now Adam lived to be 930 years old, so if he lived less than a thousand years, then he indeed did die in less than a day. But even with this possible view, it would mean that the earth is only approximately 6000 years older than Adam since he was created on the 6th day, unless you again consider the possibility that the earth was made up of components from other planets that were perhaps older than the earth.

And lastly, maybe we just won’t know until we have it explained to us by God.

One Religion - Others are offshoots:

One attack of religion is that man makes it up. If that is the case then God does not exist.

But if God does exist then one could easily speculate that if one single religion were given to man in the Garden of Eden, then all others would spring from that one. Perhaps as humans moved into different areas of the planet, they changed the dogmas of the one religion and it became something else. This might explain how the concept of “Reincarnation” is so similar to the concept of “Resurrection.”

The Hebrews were told about a Messiah coming to “save” them. They were told about two different times he was coming. They were told he would come first to fulfill the concept of the Sacrifice, and he would come again to be their “King” and rule the world. They focused upon only the one where he would be their King.

Christians believe in both and are looking forward to the “Second Coming.” So, in some regards it is one religion that has two different views of the coming of the Messiah.

The significance of the “Sacrifice” is lost on most people. Let us consider the seemingly contradiction between the concepts of “Justice” and “Mercy.”

If we rob a bank, Justice demands that the victim be made “whole.” Mercy says to forgive the person and not make them suffer. But if the robber gets off without any consequences, then Justice is foiled.

The “Sacrifice” makes it possible for both to occur. Jesus, who never committed a sin, pays the bank back the amount that was stolen. Or, in other words, the “pay back” serves Justice and then Mercy can be given since the proxy of the Sacrifice pays the debt of sin.

Cycle of Humility:

One thing the Bible tells us in many different stories is what has been called the “cycle of war” or the “cycle of humility.”

This is where the religious people have very little and are thus on their knees often to thank God for their existence.

Next God blesses these same people and they become wealthy and healthy.

Then finally because they think that they are well off and no longer need God’s help, they become what the bible calls “stiff necked”, meaning they no longer bow their heads in prayer, so God will allow the consequences of the effects of this move towards selfishness and egotism to occur.

This effect is the wars, plagues/viruses and other events that cause people to once again loose their possessions and their health to where they must once again bend their knees in prayer.

And then the cycle repeats.

Will it End:

There are some Christians that believe in what is called the “End Time” and others who don’t.

Some of those who believe that eventually Jesus will return believe that it will happen on the beginning of the “Seventh Day” or in other words the Seventh Thousandth year. They call this period of a thousand years, “Gods day of rest” or the “millennium.”

There you have it, a short synopsis of a generalization of many peoples worldview and why so many people believe in God.

Many Christians may differ on some of the points above, but in general we all believe in Creationism, God, and in Jesus Christ and I have presented a summation of what one of these worldviews might be.

Self Esteem – Important, Fact or Fiction?

2005-09-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

Many conservatives for years tried to point out the importance of self-esteem, and finally the school systems started to try to introduce it into the curriculum. After several years it was deemed a failure. Let’s examine why.

First we need to understand how some one obtains self-esteem. The only way to get self-esteem is to earn it. How does one earn it? By “doing something of redeeming value.” It must be something that almost everyone will be proud of. So, how is that done?

If little Johnny wins a spelling bee, or helps a little old lady across the street, or helps his little brother clean up his room. This is how people feel good about themselves. Is this selfishness?

I went to a seminar and the speaker asked this very deep question….”Is Altruism really possible?”

He went on…”If one helps an old lady across the street, is he doing it purely for selfless reasons, or is he doing it because it makes him feel good? Maybe the answer is that man was meant to seek happiness, (everyone wants to go to heaven because it is where they will be happy), and that through service to others we not only gain happiness, but we help others along the way. Notice I said happiness and not pleasure, there is a big difference. Immorality never was happiness.

In the school systems they tried to “give” the students self-esteem by making it easy to succeed. Notice they didn’t expect them to “earn” it; they wanted to “give” it to them.

How? By making everyone a winner and no losers. This way, they reasoned no one would feel bad and everyone will feel good. Well, you can’t fool most people, including most little kids. They saw through the phony platitudes and reasoned that what they did was nothing to feel proud of, because it required little effort and no sacrifice.

Helping others in need such as with Hurricane Katrina, is how we not only make others feel good through service to them, but it brings us self-esteem and happiness.

What is a Conservative?

2005-09-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

The “Political Spectrum” is very easy to discuss once we can agree on the most fundamental view of “mapping” where anything is.

When we are trying to find out how to get somewhere we look on a map. Almost all things with “Universal Opposites” can be mapped by using lines on a plane. For example “Hot and Cold” can be mapped by drawing a line with a left and right ending point.

Hot____________________________________Cold

Now, anywhere on that line we can define where a particular temperature is located. If we are looking for “Room Temperature” we might place a “dot” in the exact middle of the line because if we described it, it would neither be hot nor cold, but between the two.

Next, the amount of being pregnant. On the far left says “Not Pregnant” and to the far right is birth. Any point inbetween are how many days pregnant you are.

Same thing when the line is drawn with regards to Belief in God, either you believe he doesn’t exist, (Atheism), or you have a particular amount of belief, (Theism), in him all the way to the far right which is “Knowledge.”

Now, I said all of this to bring you to the line we draw when it comes to the amount of Freedom we believe in, or to use the negative, the amount of Force, which is the amount of government control that we believe in.

Below is the standard “Political Science” chart of this amount of “Government Control” with one exception: Many professors have changed this spectrum from what it was back a few decades ago to “muddy” the waters and confuse people. These people snuck in a fallacy in order to make the incredibly easy to understand political spectrum, seem incorrect. This fallacy was to move the “fascism” label to the right side of the spectrum. It is clear that all “Dictatorships” belong to the left, or “More Government” control, side of this spectrum, but many including “Libertarians” have fallen for this dupe.

(Click Drawing to Enlarge)

There is often the case where people can be Liberal in their economic views but Conservative in their personal liberty views, or other combinations

My economic views are more toward the far right end of the conservative spectrum, while my personal freedom views are more to the other end of the conservative spectrum...more towards the center-right, but still conservative.

The following public/private scenario is why my political philosophy falls in the “Conservative” range of the spectrum:

The place of where an act of freedom occurs matters, and those two places are private and public. Conservatives believe that the government should have the moral right to police public places where someone else’s act might harm them. Libertarians don’t believe this.

The classic definition of freedom is, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." So we say that people should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the freedom of others.

Let me explain. Suppose you live in a neighborhood where you have a public park at the end of the street, that all of you in the neighborhood freely gave to finance. The park belongs to the public, (neighborhood), and one of the neighbors decides to set up a pornographic sales stand in the park. Now, if that neighbor looked at this filth in his own house, most “live and let live” conservatives would have no problem with it, but put it in the publics view and it should be policed. The Same thing applies to things like “public airwaves”, the “public internet” and other things not done in private. Libertarians don't want any government control of public places.

Conservatives believe that part of the responsibility of being a citizen of a free society is that you must give of your time to defend this country if it calls. Libertarians don’t believe this.

Take the following test at the Libertarian webpage and see where you fall on the political spectrum. I scored as a “Conservative.”

Test Here

Have fun and don’t let others tell you oxymoron things like: “Fascism” belongs to the right, or “Right-Wing-Dictatorship." A Right-Wing-Dictatorship is impossible because a Dictatorship belongs on the "Left", not on the Right. This type of crap is Orwellian “Double Speak” and is meant to confuse the truth, when otherwise it would be plain and easy to understand.

Hillary Saying all the "Right" things!

2005-09-24T09:35:00.000-07:00

In the New Your Post no less, Hillary is getting on board with having her "wet finger" in the political breeze and has caught wind of the "Anti-American" IFC and what they are doing to the Ground Zero site.

Here is the aritcle:

HILLARY COMES OUT AGAINST FREEDOM CENTER
By DEBORAH ORIN

EXCLUSIVE

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday dealt a crushing blow to the International Freedom Center planned for Ground Zero, saying she wants the project canned for failing to listen to the 9/11 families.

"I cannot support the IFC," Clinton declared last night in a strongly worded statement in response to an inquiry from The Post.

Her tough comments are Clinton's first significant remarks about the controversy raging at Ground Zero over the Freedom Center, which 9/11 families and other critics fear will become a center of anti-Americanism.

"While I want to ensure that development and rebuilding in lower Manhattan move forward expeditiously, I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me," Clinton said.

"The LMDC [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] has authority over the site and I do not believe we can move forward until it heeds and addresses their concerns."

The family members of victims, as well as unions representing the city's cops and firefighters, want nothing less than the Freedom Center being booted from Ground Zero.

Given her influence, Clinton's hard line could spell doom for the Freedom Center's hopes of remaining at the World Trade Center site.

Clinton spoke out the day after the IFC released a plan intended to save its spot at the site, but it was met with immediate opposition from 9/11 families.

Clinton won't support any plan unless the families and first responders back it, said her spokesman, Philippe Reines.

Many relatives of 9/11 victims denounced the Freedom Center plan as an insult to the 2,749 people who diedat the Twin Towers because it would paint them as a little more than a footnote to the world's march toward freedom.

The families, cops and firefighters say the IFC's plan to use hallowed land at Ground Zero to highlight poverty as a barrier to freedom diminishes the tragedy of 9/11.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also voiced concern yesterday and called for a compromise — although he didn't state flat-out opposition to the Freedom Center.

"There's got to be a way to meet the families' sincere and real needs and build a center that honors the freedom that the victims died for. We hope that the LMDC will find some common ground quickly," Schumer said.

Gov. Pataki — who wields strong influence over the LMDC, which will soon decide the Freedom Center's fate — is traveling abroad and has yet to take a stand on the Freedom Center's latest proposal. Pataki has said thathe won't support any plan that offers a forum for anti-Americanism.

Clinton's opposition means that the anti-IFC push is now a bipartisan cause. Three New York Republicans — Reps. John Sweeney (Saratoga), Peter King (L.I.) and Vito Fossella (S.I.) — are already challenging it as a "blame America first" project.

Yesterday, the trio of Republicans formally requested a congressional oversight hearing as a step toward blocking the IFC from getting any of the $2.7 billion in federal funds allocated for Ground Zero.

"The whole thing was hijacked. If you asked people on the street what they wanted at Ground Zero, this would be the last thing that they wanted," Sweeney said.

I sure hope we are lining up a strong canidate to run against her, because she is definitely savy when it comes to demagoguery and winning votes.

What is the Difference between Jews, Hebrews and Israel?

2005-09-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

Two different postulates are suggested to the origin of the name Hebrew. One is that Abraham and his posterity were called Hebrews to distinguish them from the races living on the other side of the Euphrates River and the other is it is a derivative of the name Heber, one of the ancestors of Abraham.

Abraham had two sons. The first was born when he was 86 to Hagar. He was named Ishmael. Hagar was told that “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Gen. 16:11-12)

Through the linage of Ishmael came the prophet Mohammad and the religion of Islam. Maybe the information that Hagar was told about her son is very apropos to today’s Radical Islamics.

When Abraham was 100 years old he had his second son. His mother was Sarah. He was named Isaac.

Isaac also had two sons. They were named Jacob and Esau. Jacobs name was eventually changed to “Israel” which means “Contender with God” because he had succeeded in his supplication before God.

Jacob, (Israel), had twelve sons. They were named Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. They are often called "The Twelve Tribes of Israel."

After Solomon died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided into Israel, (Northern Kingdom), and Judah, (Southern Kingdom.)

Ten of The Northern Kingdom tribes were captured by Shalmanezer in the approximate year of 721 B.C. and carried off to Assyria. This left mainly the Kingdom of Judah.

Through Judah would be born Jesus and what remains of the Tribe of Judah is what we now call “Jews” and many of them are now living in the country of Israel.

Hope this helps clear some of the questions that many of you might have had since Israel plays a leading role in world events.

But then again, maybe you guys already knew this stuff?

Danger - Danger Will Robinson

2005-09-19T08:30:00.000-07:00

With Hurricane Katrina still in the minds of all of us we tend to overlook some of the side agendas that are swirling about. Both of the two below have to do with giving away sovereignty to "world laws".

Pressure to sign the Kyoto Treaty because of Global Warming. Despite many scientists proving that the "solar magnetic cycle" is the cause of this warming, and you can see from this article/proof that Gore and his other "Chicken Little" friends are all wet, these "blame America" folks just don't give up.

ICC - The International Criminal Court. This is a real biggie. Imagine you are just getting off the airplane in Germany for a nice vacation after you retired from the military and you are immediately arrested for "war crimes", taken to jail with no civil liberties like a phone call to your lawyer because you will be tried under a International Criminal Court with none of the Constitutional protections because the world is now the Judge and Jury and not U.S. law and justice.

Sound far-fetched? Not if some of the "One World" viewers like Ginsburg, Kennedy, etc. get their way.

These "One World" or "New World Order" folks believe that many/most wars are started only because of National Goals and if there were no "nations", but rather one Nation representing the whole world, then there would be no need for greed, or national goals because the whole world would "share the wealth" of all nations.

Giving up our sovereignty is the worst thing for keeping our freedom that could ever happen.

Dangers of the ICC.

From the Dangers article:

One, they include the repeal of all laws condemning homosexual sodomy.
Two, the legalisation of same-sex marriages.
Three, mandatory and graphic sexual training for children.

She has three paragraphs on the last of these. She says the training has to include instruction, beginning when the child's at the age of 10, on how to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. Since this will of necessity be graphic, she says, "such materials should be exempted from pornography and obscenity laws".

Caesar and Christ

2005-09-16T11:47:00.000-07:00

Will Durant, a famous historian, wrote in his book, “Caesar and Christ”, a summary of the causes of the destruction of the Roman Empire, he said: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes…."

One of those class struggles was the notion that a human being is mostly an economic creature. Meaning his material well being is the single most important part of his life, and all other facets including his freedom and privacy are subservient to that well being. (This is also the crux of Marxism.)

Security, food, clothing, housing and medical care are the same things that one might consider necessary in a jail where they are all guaranteed.

Unless everyone bakes a loaf of bread for every other citizen, we cannot guarantee that all citizens will have a loaf of bread to eat.

Government cannot guarantee material gain, economic prosperity, or food, clothing, and shelter. They are only the result of hard work and industrial production.

While government is absolutely necessary in order to have an orderly society, there are concerns that the tendency is to have government seek more power, thus slowly restricting freedoms.

We, the people, granted our government limited powers. They were only granted the following:
1. Defend the Nation.
2. Punish Crimes.
3. Adjudicate and enforce Property Rights.
4. Compel each citizen to bear his fair share of performing the above.

When we allow the government to do activities outside the above limited functions such as welfare and redistributing wealth, or other activities that coerce people into performing a prescribed code of social planning, then we are in grave danger of losing our freedom.

We can only allow the government to force our neighbor to do these things if we have the right as an individual to force our neighbor to do them, because the government only has the same rights as an individual. They get the right to act in our behalf because we grant them that right. If I do not have that right, I cannot delegate it.

“I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it. It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates, and those within it to be heard in the name of tolerating a different point of view!” – Cicero, 106-43 BC

Welfare, Homosexual Marriage, Removing God from our Country are all “Trojan Horses.” We should never have the freedom to destroy freedom.

In 1976 Ford Motor Company economists showed that there were more people being supported by taxes in the United States (80,655,000) than there were people working in the private sector of the economy to pay the taxes (71,650,000).

“A new American majority is being created,” the study states, “who are exploiting the fact for their own political and professional purposes.” Such was a major factor in the fall of Rome. This group votes! And it Votes for more entitlements! More Social Programs, more Welfare, more Socialism!

Katrina was a terrible disaster, but should the Federal Government institute more Welfare in order to “fix” the problem? Or, is it really outside the powers granted to them by the Constitution?

Perhaps the Government should instead organize the different Charities to give a “helping hand” to help the evacuees to rebuild themselves? Give a “hand up” instead of giving a “hand out?”

Should we use Charity or Welfare to help those who have lost everything? Is it worth the loss of freedom in order to help others through Welfare?

Am I a lone wolf crying in the Wilderness? Am I too conservative? I hope not, or we have all but lost the battle of remaining a free nation.

“A government must be a taker before it can be a provider.” – Winston Churchill

God and the Laws of the Universe

2005-09-12T12:57:00.000-07:00

Why Arnold should Veto AB 849.

Some would wonder why Gay Marriage is a problem for Christians. Some would wonder why Christians seem to place so much emphasis upon the Ten Commandments and other Laws and Guidelines that we learn from the Scriptures.

The answer is easy. God understands the “Law of Cause and Effect” better than anyone. Simple as that.

He knows that if you “touch the hot stove, you will get hurt.” He knows it better than anyone dead or alive.

This is why he gives us the guidelines to live by in the Bible such as the Ten Commandments. He knows that if we truly want to be free we must avoid the consequences of bad choices.

He knows that if we steal, murder, etc, we will harm society and therefore harm ourselves.

So, he also tells us that if we commit adultery, we will help to bring down society, because we need a stable family unit to properly teach our children the value of staying together in a marriage.

This same caution is applied to homosexuality. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22

He even says it is about “Cause and Effect” in the following caution about “unnatural affection” such as in this verse: “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” - Rom 1:27

Recompense is to receive payment for something. Getting paid back for a wrong deed. Or, the Law of Cause and Effect catching up to us.

There is plenty of proof that broken homes cause problems for society, and isn't it interesting that the Bible has plenty to say in this matter. It is almost like God is saying to us, "I have given you a Bible to use as a guide for correct principles, if you choose to ignore it, you will receive recompense for your errors."

God doesn’t have to punish us. It will happen automatically through the Law of Cause and Effect.

Just maybe it is a bad idea to help the minority to force their will on the majority based upon some fake "group" rights. Does anyone care about the feelings of the people who hold marriage as an important social foundation that has roots in sound laws of nature, like the proper way to raise children.

Let's hope we don't have to wait for the "effect" part of the "cause" of ignoring the wise council of the Scriptures.

Isn't it interesting that the Jews, the Christians and the Muslems Scriptures all say homosexual activity is wrong? I know that the majority is often wrong, but then we aren't talking about peoples opinions, but higher and better opinions than that.

Even non religious tribes recognized that something was wrong and unnatural about homosexual activity. Even though some had allowed it, it was always looked down upon.

Activities are not rights. We can not say that any man that likes to fly airplanes, or any man that likes to kiss blondes, or any man that likes to kiss other men has an inherent right to.

There are rules to follow for all activities and as long as all males and females are required to follow the same rules for these activities, then we are being just and fair. (Not to mention possibly avoiding the consequences of the law of Cause and Effect.) All men and all women are required to follow the same rules regardless of their likes or dislikes. All men must marry a woman, and all women must marry a man, regardless of thier likes or activities.

All morals are not laws, and all laws are not moral. As soon as we start to think that the law should be revered as moral judgement, we have lost the insight into true morals and we have lost the spiritual battle with evil.

All laws should be moral, but alas, they often are not.

Arnold is for Jobs

2005-09-09T07:31:00.000-07:00

Arnold is a Champion. When he is fighting for what is right, he will always have people who disagree. That is because often people are blinded by rhetoric. We need to look deeper into what is best for our freedom first.

In order to be free, we must be able to function in a free market.

Many bills will either be pro business or anti business.

How does the government obtain money to function?

It comes both directly and indirectly from business. If California makes it hard for businesses to function in this state, they will move to one that is not so hostile.

Businesses employ people. People get paid. Taxes are withheld from their paychecks. Businesses pay taxes. Tax money starts and ends with business. The only way government gets taxes is because businesses employ people.

Arnold understands this and wants to keep businesses in California. If you want to call that special interest, then so be it. I call it our interest.

I like jobs.

Dems and Libs in general hate employers, and supposedly love employees. That is an oxymoron. You can't kill the golden goose and expect to still have the gold.

If the private sector of jobs go away, all of the public jobs will no longer be funded because public jobs require private taxes to exist, yet the Dems take the side of the public unions and say that the members are being hurt by Arnold.

How is that possible when he is trying to remove the strangle hold that the public unions have on the union members and the taxpayers? Arnold is not attacking the public employees, but the public union bosses. Those big Labor bosses; you know those Jimmy Hoffa types.

But those anti-Arnold ads will show you union employees attacking Arnold and making it seem he is against the members....what lies! Unions destroy business and intimidate members. See this article for a good view from an ex-union member as to how union bosses will always abuse their power for the worse. Arnold doesn't like Union Dues being used to run business out of state.

Or maybe some people think what Hoffa did wasn't so bad? Or being against business isn't harmful?

If you want more insight into why Arnold feels the way he does about freedom and economic freedom, read one of his favorite books, "Free to Choose", by Noble Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, and you will see the folly of the anti-business attitude by the left.

FEMA - Welfare or Charity?

2005-09-05T10:57:00.000-07:00

We as Americans have a bad habit of looking to Washington to “Fix” any and all problems.

Welfare is one of those problems that we look to the Federal Government to solve.

So, how should we handle Welfare? Let’s look at the proper way to deal with people who are not able to fend for themselves through no fault of their own.

There is a hierarchy of responsibilities that should be observed. Here is the order of priorities:

1. First people should be responsible for their own sustenance if at all possible.
2. Next come families and friends.
3. Next come the local Churches.
4. Next comes the Local Government.
5. Next comes the State Government.
6. And then finally comes the Federal Government.

We as a Nation have this order reversed! The first place everyone looks is to the taxpayer’s pockets.

Imagine if the way we would collect the needed money for FEMA was that a soldier came and pointed a gun at you and said we need $500.00 from you to help the people affected by the Hurricane. And if you don’t give you will be jailed. This is the effect of Federal taxes used to help the poor. If it is not given freely with no coersion, it is not Charity it is Welfare. And the giver will not get the blessing because he had no choice.

Here is the way it should work:

It is back in the days of the Wagon Train. You and some others have just hired a Wagon Master to take you from the East to the West. You and 15 other Wagons are paying the Wagon Master to be your government. He is to protect you and govern you for the duration of the trip.

Now suppose during the trip, the Widow Jones horse that is pulling her wagon gets killed. What should the Wagon Master do?

1. Ask for donations to buy a horse from Mr. Smith who has 20 extra with him.
2. Ask for Mr. Smith to just give Widow Jones a horse.
3. Ask Widow Jones to see if Mr. Smith would let her do clean up and washing/ironing jobs to buy a horse from him on credit.
4. Just have the Wagon Master tell Mr. Smith that the Wagon Train members voted to have the horse taken from Mr. Smith to give to the Widow Jones and he has no say. He is told that he will be under arrest if he declines.

Now, if you said any of the above except #4 then you are on the right track to being fair to your fellow beings. But if you said #4 then you are for Welfare and are not a fair person because you believe that in order to help someone the only way possible is to punish one person in order to help someone else. Rob from the rich to give to the poor.

This is where we are as a nation. We think the answer to the poor is to do the only immoral thing on the list of ways we can help, because we have lost our faith in the kindness of our neighbors.

May God have mercy on those who feel “robbing from the rich to give to the poor” is a moral act.

The Blame Game

2005-09-04T09:12:00.000-07:00

In today’s world economy, we as a Nation should act like a unified body. It is like teamwork in any organized body. Teamwork brings synergy. We become more than just the sum of our parts.

But, in order to be a team the first thing that must go is “finger pointing.” These acts are by far the most destructive force to synergy and to existence known to man.

If we allow ourselves to be defeated from within, we will loose our great protections of freedom that this proud nation has been famous for.

A very good management consultant named Tom Peters studied the synergy of the Japanese team concept. While we in the U.S. will put one or two engineers on a single component of a project, the Japanese tend to put a team of up to a dozen or more on a single component.

But Tom said the attitude of teamwork in the Japanese culture was never more prevalent than in the way they solve problems. He said:

“Great managers and great team members look to fix the problem, while poor managers and poor team members look to fix the blame.”

This is the attitude of the Japanese teams. They have learned the destructive nature of "finger Pointing" and do not do it.

I may be paraphrasing a little as I don’t recall the exact quote, but you get the idea.

Any way let us examine some of the ridiculous cases of the Blame Game:

1. It is God’s fault – This one is really over the top. God does often put his hand in nature to bring about his works, but that would make it a “challenge”, not a “fault.” We are often put in a situation as a person or as a Country because of our needs to grow, or our need to be reminded of how we have taken our blessings for granted, and how we have been slow to “bend our knee” in prayer enough. Sometimes we are given challenges because we need them to grow and a person's true character can only really be displayed in a crisis.

2. It is Bush’s fault –"That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Jefferson. This quote shows that the closer to home we are to the problems, the better equipped we are to solve them. It is clear that the main item that was not taken care of that would have made this disaster much more manageable is the lack of attention to the levy. Had the levy been built to withstand this type of Hurricane, we would not have lost a city. And that was something the local governments should have handled, not the Federal Government.

Let’s don’t look for whom to blame for the lack of attention to the levy, but instead let’s “look to fix the problem” instead of the blame.

Using Words Correctly

2005-09-01T08:12:00.000-07:00

It's just amazing how we don't call things the way they are.

Looting is stealing. It is wrong and it gets play as if these people have a need to do it.

I can understand a little bit if they took food that otherwise might spoil, but TV’s, Furniture, etc. it needs to be called "stealing" and not just "Looting."

"Undocumented Worker", what a nice sounding word for "Illegal Alien."

I feel for those people affected by this disaster, but we should use words like "thieves" and "robbers" along with "Looting."

I am not saying that the word "Looting" is not appropriate. It is just that we seem to be numbing the populous to a word that is normally associated with "Valuables pillaged in time of war, spoils of war, etc."

Aren't words wonderful? We try to communicate but we have difficulty because sometimes the right word is just hard to find.

For example the word "torture." To some it can be when someone claws their fingernails across the blackboard, to others it can be playing rock music, but the dictionary uses the word "Severe pain" and usually "Sever physical pain."

Some GITMO prison come to mind? Was it really just as bad as the Gulag? Come on! Not even close. Words have meaning. They need to be precise when used.

Too bad the word "Evil" only has one meaning as well. If we throw around words that have "strong" emphasis all the time, soon they loose their meaning.

Ever notice that according to the Bible, the words "Jesus" and "God" are to be used sparingly? Words loose their importance if over used.

A good example is swearing. Ever notice how often people swear as just a normal part of their language? They are actually limiting their ability to communicate. They begin to loose part of their vocabulary. And they offend many who find bad language offensive.

Let's be more attentive to the words we use, but lets not be afraid to be politically incorrect unless we are being insensitive.

Defeat the New Iraq Constitution

2005-08-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

I know the above title sounds strange, but wait to here me out.

The Sunnis did not participate in the original regional elections for representatives to draft the new constitution so they just about assured themselves that the 20% Sunni population would not get good minority protection in the new constitution.

But, the saving grace is that if the vote for the new constitution is defeated in two-thirds of voters in any three provinces, the constitution will be defeated and new elections would need to be held to draft another constitution. Sunnis have the majority in at least four provinces.

In any Constitution there needs to be protections for the minority. It is no different in Iraq.

Let's hope that the defeat of the Constitution will not cause more unrest, and the process will begin anew with the Sunnis correcting their boycott mistake of the first elections.

The Company You Keep

2005-08-27T15:25:00.000-07:00

We are all judged by the company we keep. Rightly or wrongly it is a fact of life. Let's list the company that Conservatives and Liberals keep to get a prospective on how perception is reality.

We should ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Why are most Christians Conservatives?
2. Why are most Socialists Liberals?
3. Why are most Atheists Liberals?
4. Why is Larry Flint a Liberal?
5. Why did China and the U.S. Communist Party want Kerry to win?
6. Why did Osama Bin Laden want Kerry to win?

And last but not least ask yourselves which of the following goals by the Communist Party are favored by Liberals? (see Communist Manifesto )

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Point 5 is of course the Federal Reserve.
Point 6 is of course the FCC and the Department of Transportation.
Point 10 is to have people think that the world owes them an education and a living. Next it will owe them a house and a car, both necessities to get by. You begin to think that you can get something for nothing. It is “free.”

That is why Vouchers are so important; we can promote competition in schools, all the while making it more evident that the education is not “free.”

Let's be continually aware of which people want to destroy our way of life and how they are winning converts right here at home by gaining support for their goals.

Communism has not gone away. It is alive and well right here in our own back yard. It's little brother is called Socialism, (Communism without a gun to your head), and it has won the hearts of many liberals. If your a liberal and don't believe it, then ask yourself why your goals are so closely aligned with theirs.

Now, I have many liberal friends and they are mostly good hearted people, many don't support Socialism, at least not knowingly, they are sincere in their positions, all I ask is for those who oppose Conservatism, to please examine the goals of those who want to destroy our way of life. (Socialists and Wahabists)

How is this War Different

2005-08-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

When you are fighting a Country, the war becomes clear as to how to prosecute the strategy.

But when the war is against an ideology, such as Wahabism, and that ideology is in many countries, then how can you defeat them?

To defeat any opponent you usually must have both an offensive policy and a defensive policy. I know that defense wins championships, but the offense must get the ball and score some points.

In Vietnam, it was mostly a defensive war; occasionally we would venture out on “sweeps” to engage the enemy. That was the offense policy. It was the goal of the Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, as well as the Republicans, Nixon, to train the South Vietnam Army to be able to stand upon their own two feet and defend their own country.

But alas we pulled our monetary support and they began to loose because of supply and maintenance failures. Then we pulled out. And if we would have maintained our support monetarily and militarily for about one more year, we would have been able to see them do the job.

So, what is our offensive policy today against another non-uniformed enemy? Draw the enemy to the sandbox by showing them we will take away one of their prized possessions, 25 million possible converts to Wahabism, called Iraq citizens.

This means that they will spend their efforts in an area where they hope to have the highest percentage chance of reaching their goals of:

1. Convert as many Arabs to Wahabism as quickly as possible.
2. Kill as many Saturday people, (Jews), as possible.
3. Kill as many Sunday people, (Christians), as possible.
4. Kill as many Secular people, (the rest of the non-Wahabi people), as possible.

To most thinking people it is a good strategy, because their ideology is set in stone. It is not negotiable. They will be here blowing up people and places here if they were not in Iraq doing the same thing because it is their goal, their idology, not because they hate America! They hate all non Wahabis, and that will never change.

Does Right and Wrong Matter?

2005-08-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

No matter what anyone ever tells you, right and wrong means a lot because if not, people wouldn’t be trying to prove others wrong.

As C.S. Lewis once said,
"If I think making love to another man's wife is alright and she consents - is that wrong?

If you disagree with me, who is right?

If we have no moral point of reference, what you think is no more right or wrong than what I think."

The above is called moral relativism.

We must view all actions within the framework of right or wrong because we make laws based upon what is right or wrong.

Laws against theft are there because society believes that it is wrongful behavior.

All "Moral and Ethical" questions have a right or wrong answer. If someone says the answer is "grey" then he is basically agreeing, because he is saying the answer is not "clear" which one it is. The reason we don't know is one of the reasons below.

The only times there are "grey" areas are:
1. We aren't framing the question correctly enough.
2. We don't have all the needed information.
3. We don't really want to know the right answers because then we can't be accused of doing anything wrong. We just made a "mistake" instead of doing a morally wrong act.
4. We are too stupid to figure out the truth.
5. We are blinded by the craftiness of men.

People who say the answer is grey are not saying there is no absolute answer, at least subconsciously they aren't.

Every one is born with a conscience. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed to the "moral law within" as a powerful witness to the greatness of God.

As C.S. Lewis pointed out the scientific method of finding things out doesn't apply to morals or ethics because it doesn't answer the question of "why" and "if" there is anything behind observations we make.

These questions are for the Philosophical or Metaphysical to answer.

We live our lives based upon what we "ought" to do. If we just made it up, (moral relativism), then we would never allow ourselves to "fail" our own standards.

This is because it is with us when we are born. "I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts." (Jer. 31:33)

In other words we are born with our conscience.

We are continually either "climbing up the moral ladder towards perfection", or we are "sliding down the moral slide towards moral bankruptcy."

Sliding is always easier than climbing and we are seldom, if ever, standing still.