Remembering 9/11

I won't gloss over September 11th with some nostalgic desire to fulfill my "feel like a victim" tank.  Neither will I bolster some internal hatred towards Arabic people.  But, most certainly, I won't sit around today remembering the events that occurred on September 11, 2001 as the media and the United States government portrayed them in the weeks and months following that day.

There were many crimes committed that day, but they weren't primarily done with box cutters by men who hate the USA and were willing to die to make that known.  The crimes weren't an attack on the USA from outsiders, but rather it was the treasonous acts of many in our own government, media, and business sector who collectively blamed an easy scapegoat they knew the revenge-hungry Americans would swallow hook, line and sinker.

I remember shortly after learning the truth about that day, I was shocked at how elaborate the crime must have been to hide it so well.  But, not so long later, I was equally shocked at how these crimes were not carried out well at all.  They were terribly sloppy, leaving evidence to be found virtually everywhere.

But, despite all the evidence pointing to the true criminals, accepting it to be the truth is difficult to say the least.  It's immeasurably easier to believe that we were attacked, we never saw it coming, and we couldn't have done anything about it.  I would still like to believe that.  But, it's much too late for that.  Once you know, you know.  You can't un-know things.

Accepting that the official story is a known predicated lie is a blow to one's own pride.  "If this is true, then I am a fool for not seeing it sooner.  It must not be true then, because I am no fool."  But, that's just it, isn't it?  Let's say you believe the official story.  In that case, hypothetically speaking, if the government was involved in the carrying out of the events of 9/11 they would know us better than anyone.  They would know that you can swing the vast majority of citizens' beliefs about an issue or event simply by how you portray it.  If you control how the story is told, you can control how the viewer internally perceives it.  It's Psychology 101.

Think about it.  Ever watch the news?  Ever wonder why people read the news to us?  We could receive words on a screen or video clips with a narrator, but primarily, we watch people's torsos tell us what "matters".  Our minds watch their overly-dramatic facial expressions.  Like children who love to be read stories to by their parents, listening to the rises and falls of their parent's voice as they communicate the emotion found between the lines of the text, we sit and get stories told to us by heavily made up television journalists with well-practiced dramatic tones.  Our opinions form around those deliveries and we trust that what they said was true.  Statistics are read and we never question where they originate or who did their collecting.  Some talking head does some "investigative reporting" about a supposed crime and mentions condescendingly that "attempts to contact" the alleged criminal "have gone unanswered" and we immediately pass judgement, "They must be guilty!"

Make no mistake, our government knows this about us.  People in big business know this about us.  It's how they get elected: by playing a role that we accept and support.  It's how their businesses get big: by selling us things we don't need or by recognizing ways to get us to invest.  If you can read people and know ahead of time how people will react to different things, you can manipulate them.

9/11 was a con.  We all got conned, myself included.  The question is: do you know that you got conned?  It's ok if you don't think that you did.  In fact, I may be a bit jealous of you.  Ignorance is bliss.  And, trust me, there are no cookies underneath any 9/11 rubble you turn over.  Any researching you do will not bring about any warm and fuzzies.  There is no pat on the back awaiting your arrival on this side of the fence.  So, if you are good with the official story of how 9/11 played out, then maybe you should just allow yourself to stay that way.

That said, I will seemingly contradict myself for your benefit when I say that you should watch this documentary.  It's made by a guy who, like me, didn't start questioning anything about 9/11 until some time after it happened.  It's really good in that he also talks about the kind of push back he got from friends and family, even his wife, when he started looking deeper into 9/11.  Even if you don't want to watch that documentary, you should watch this video if you haven't already.  It's a guy that is experimenting with thermite and it's amazing to watch if for nothing else than for the science experiment of it.

Read More

Health Insurance (Wealth Redistribution)

I know I've discussed this before, so sorry if you've heard it before.  But, I've got to get something off my chest.

We live in a free country, so we're told.  But, I have been threatened to be fined by my government if I continued to decline purchasing health insurance for myself.  I went without health insurance for years and I'm no worse off then I was when I had it.  And, neither are my fellow citizens.  I didn't use any medical services nor did I require any.

Now, maybe you're asking sarcastically "Well, aren't you lucky?".  My answer is "no".  I'm not lucky.  I'm healthy.  I choose healthy eating habits and healthy foods and pay for them with my own earned money.  I use products to maintain my health that I purchase with my own earned money.  I feed my children good foods and encourage physical activities for them some of which are organized and I pay for with my own earned money.  I limit my children's time to be inactive.  I'm an active guy because I choose not to be an inactive slob.

I'm a responsible human being with my health and with the health of those in my charge.  How am I rewarded for this?  I get used.  As demonstrated here in this snippet from personalhealthinsurance.com, my government "mandated" (made mandatory, a.k.a. forced) me to buy insurance.  Why?  Because, they know I won't use it.  The money I pay in, therefore, can be used by the insurance companies, to pay for other people's bills.  It "dilutes" the risk (reduces the risk, a.k.a makes more profitable) for the insurance company.

So, insurance companies, who already make up a billion dollar industry, are going to be able to make more money with less financial risk.  According to this same site, "Fortunately, the insurance market will be different by then (2014), ... insurance prices should begin to decrease." (emphasis added).

So, we healthy people are forced to join in the fray so that they can use our funds.  If we don't join in, they will forcefully take our funds.  Either way, they take our money and give it others.  But, at least the price will come down in 2014, right?  Because the market will be different by then, right?  No.  As the House of Representatives were told by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius back in March, "Health insurance rates in 2015 are likely to increase."  And, they have.

Read More

Social Justice

I saw this graphic yesterday on facebook and it just sort of got me thinking.  I like the graphic for its cuteness, I suppose. I mean, who doesn't like the big kid helping out the toddler so that he can enjoy the game, too?  I also like that it points out that there is a difference between equality and justice.

What I don't like about the graphic is its over-simplicity.  To be fair, this is true of most graphics, if not all of them.  Obviously, the point of these sorts of memes is not to address every nuance surrounding the issue, but rather to make a pointed argument sparing all the detailed implications that the argument makes.

I take no issue with the premise being displayed here.  Being a father of three with children these sizes, I would even encourage my eldest child to willingly give up the box he's standing on for the benefit of the youngest who can't participate without it.  However, while this example works quite well for three children taking in a free baseball game, it doesn't translate to many other real world examples in which people are calling for "equality" and "justice".

Take financial benefits offered by social programs, for example.  These programs are funded by taxes.  Taxes are monies taken by our government from people earning an income, purchasing a product, paying for a service, or for simply owning personal property.  So, apply this scenario to our graphic above.  In place of age, let the size of the individual in the graphic represent his/her contribution towards the general fund of collected taxes.  The proverbial boxes then represent the tax-funded benefits received from the general fund.  Naturally, the largest individual receives nothing from the general fund but contributes the most.  The smallest contributes the least and receives the most.

In the graphic, everything seems fine.  Everyone seems to be equally enjoying themselves.  An equalization has been reached.  So what's the problem?  Well, there are many, in fact, when applying it to the scenario of taxpayer-funded social programs.  Note that the box wasn't willfully given by the largest to the smallest, the box was taken (through taxes) from the largest and distributed to the smallest.  This may have a tendency to create the following:

1. The largest will: 
1. Despise the taking of this earned property.
2. Tend to feel he/she has contributed enough and will cease to give any willful contributions to any other charities.
3. Feel contempt for the smallest for being a "burden".
4. Possibly lack motivation to work harder fearing that more success will lead to even more forced removal of earnings.
2. The smallest will:
1. Eventually feel entitled to the distributions given him/her.
2. Tend to feel he/she needs help from others and therefore doesn't have enough to contribute to any other charities.
3. Feel contempt for the largest for an assumed and projected superiority complex.
4. Possibly lack motivation to work harder fearing that more success will lead to the removal of  the benefits currently being received.
3. The government will:
1. Require much overhead to oversee both the taking and the distribution of these funds.
2. Be pressured to crack down on those taking advantage of the system which will require more overhead auditing the entire process.
3. Be limited in its ability to stop individuals from taking advantage of the system due to over-zealous liberal organizations who sue, lobby, and slander.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against social programs.  And, I'm certainly not trying to say that the behavior listed above is true of all people.  I'm all for people having help available when they need it.  But, there has to be some safeguards in place with every charitable program.  Every non-for-profit charity knows this.  The only problem is that government-run programs are not at all structured like non-for-profit charitable programs.  And, they make no effort to learn from their successes.  The truth is that government-run charities are presently and historically the least effective and least efficient means to positively impact society and reduce the need.  My implication here goes beyond this fact, though, and delves into the lasting psychological and sociological impact that forced charity (taxes) has in the long term.

I realize that this is a sensitive subject.  It is particularly difficult, as a Christian, to approach a discussion about it.  After all, aren't we supposed to want to help people?  Of course, we are.  And we do.  Religious organizations and members of such give the most to charities.  Presently as well as historically, that has always been the case.

I can't sum up this rant because I'm surrounded by rabbit trails that are beckoning me but, in the interest of time, to close, I'll say that there are many virtues that we all understand to be intrinsically good.  Equality and justice are both viewed in this regard.  However, like our parents told us, the world is not fair.  And, they were spot on.  We are all given different lives with varying degrees of prosperity or lack thereof.  While it may be easy for some to claim that it is not equal or just that some are less fortunate, let me leave you with this question: Up to what percentage of earned income taken from a working individual and distributed to non-working individuals constitutes justice and at what percentage is it no longer just?

Read More

I pledge allegiance... or do I?

I recall citing the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school at the beginning of the day. I can't recall exactly when we stopped doing it, though. I am certain that I was in elementary school when the cease took place but the exact time alludes me.

Over the years since, I have heard many discussions concerning the Pledge and many opinions stated about how we were better off as a nation when we did it. Many people talk about how different our youth are today and speculate that the lack of citing the Pledge has much to do with these changes.  I don't know how many times I've seen something on Facebook about it, but certainly enough.

I saw a meme shared on Facebook today that asked the viewer whether school children should be made to cite the pledge.  It then instructs to 'Like' it for a 'yes' or comment on the photo for a 'no'.  At the time I viewed it, there was more than 600,000 'Like's and just over 20,000 comments.  I skimmed some of the comments quickly and saw that many of those were in fact affirmations from people who clearly don't follow instructions very well.

So, with the majority of people vocalizing their agreement that children should be made to cite the Pledge of Allegiance, the following may not be too popular.  But, that's alright.  Popularity is highly over-rated, I assure you.

I've never been against pledging my allegiance to the flag before.  However, I also grew up doing it and never gave much thought to what it was that I was being directed to do.  When I did give thought to what the Pledge is and what it means, I actually objected to it.  Do let me explain.

My allegiance is to my Lord and when asked about taxes and thus allegiance, Jesus responded with the answer to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (Matthew 22:21).  He was referencing to give the money to Caesar since Caesar's image was on the coins.  Without spelling it all out for them, Jesus was also implying that we, as the image bearers of God, are to give ourselves to Him (Genesis 1:27).

Jesus spoke tirelessly of the Kingdom of God.  That is where my allegiance lies.  I cannot give my allegiance to any single earthly nation as this would be in direct conflict with and forsaking my allegiance with the Kingdom of God.  Suppose the U.S. went to war with another country, a country in which Christians lived and were threatened by such war.  How could I pledge allegiance to the U.S. without forsaking the principles of the Kingdom of God?  Now, we can stop supposing.  Because the U.S. has already provided weapons to be used against Christians in many places and continues to do so.

Now, I love my neighbors.  And, I am blessed to have been born here in the United States.  I pay my taxes.  I obey the laws.  I am thankful for all the brave people throughout the centuries who have fought for the life and freedom that I enjoy.  But, they didn't do these things so that I would give my allegiance to them or any other group of people.  They did these things so that I could choose to give my allegiance to God and thus be used and empowered by Him to help my fellow man.

We were never promised by either God or our government that the laws of our land would line up with the laws of God.  Quite the opposite, the early church found themselves imprisoned much of the time for breaking the law of the land in order to spread the good news of the Gospel.  I will give to the U.S.A. what is the U.S.A.'s but it didn't create me and therefore has no ultimate authority over me to require my allegiance.

Read More

Issue of Equality?

Last Tuesday, I was listening to the "Bible Answer Man" radio show on Bott Radio Network.  This is a live broadcast that welcomes people to call in and get a chance to ask whatever question they like.  The show's host, Hank Hanegraaff, then does his best to answer that question from what he sees as a biblical perspective.  I found that I like the show despite the fact that I don't always agree with his answers.  I guess I just like interacting in conversations about things that matter to people and how they relate to the Bible.  Granted, the conversation is taking place without my ability to interact.  But, being a fly on the wall is apparently alright with me since I continue to tune in.

I downloaded the mp3 from the show last Tuesday and trimmed it down to the one caller's two-part question along with Hank's responses.  I have included that at the bottom of this blog entry in case you would like to hear it for yourself.

The question essentially went like this:  Since we are equally granted the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, shouldn't same-sex couples be equally granted the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples but in the form of civil unions?

This question came from a Christian who thinks that it is "inequality" to give benefits to married people yet deny those same benefits to same-sex couples.  The more common argument is that they want same-sex couples to be granted the right to get legally married thus providing them with the same benefits.  Though, in listening to their arguments, most are not so concerned with the benefits.  They just use them as a point to argue about, but really they're looking to be treated as equals by the law.  This is a tough one to argue simply because, like the photo depicts, one who disagrees with the misguided movement is quickly labeled as a bigot, a hatemonger, a racist (quite the stretch there), intolerant, unloving, etc.

I thought, at first, that Hank was going to answer this question as I would have answered this question but he didn't.  He dived straight into the arguments against redefining marriage.  Which is fine, but I feel that he missed the opportunity to confront the underlying assumption that the question is posing.  The question is assuming that there is a lack of equal rights between a heterosexual man/woman and a man/woman who self-identifies as a homosexual.  The assertion being made is that heterosexuals enjoy a right to marry and the rights to the benefits that go along with that while those who claim to be homosexual are denied those rights.  However, this assumption is simply not true.

The fact is that all adults have the equal right to marry whomever they choose as long as they meet the criteria required to be a lawful marriage.  We all have the same criteria to that right.  Therefore we all have equal rights.  There are certain criteria that need to be met in order to receive a marriage license.  Just off the top of my head, here are some of those criteria:

• There must be two applicants applying for the marriage.  (You can't marry yourself, or your imaginary friend.)
• Both applicants must be humans.  (No explanation necessary.)
• Both applicants must be alive.  (No marrying dead bodies.)
• Both applicants must be present.  (No absentee ballot marriages.)
• Both applicants must be adults.  (I believe that some states will allow minors of a certain age to marry with parental consent, though I don't personally believe this is a good practice.)
• Both applicants must consent to the marriage.  (No forcing marriage on someone.)
• Both applicants must be of sound mind.  (No forcing marriage on someone who may not willfully choose it if they had the ability to properly communicate their wishes.)
• Both applicants must not be immediately related.  (No one seems to be debating this despite the fact that pretty much all of the same arguments being made for the allowance of same-sex marriage also apply to this category.  Right?)
• The two applicants must consist of a man and a woman.  (This gets into the popular "redefinition of marriage" debate.)
• The two applicants must not already be married to another person.  (The polygamy argument.  Not too many debating this one either, albeit with the spotty success of same-sex marriage legalization, more polygamists are coming out of the woodwork looking to piggyback with the same set of arguments and the watered-down legal definition of marriage.)

Since we all have the same rights that have the same restrictions we do have equal rights.  Where the argument takes the turn is when someone makes the statement that they can't legally marry who they love.  What is happening here is two things: 1.  They are trying to say that marriage is the legal recognition of those that love each other.  But, even Tina Turner points out the problem here with her hit song "What's Love Got To Do With It?"  As demonstrated in the list of criteria above, the government doesn't require nor recognize love.  And, we don't want them to.  2. They are trying to shift the equality from people to actions.  But, equality doesn't translate to actions.  Actions are not equal unless they are the same action, which in the example cited (the love between a same-sex couple versus the love between an opposite-sex couple) is not at all the same action.  One can't compare one love to another regardless of "sexual orientation".  But, that is another argument all together.  Hank went straight to this argument when trying to answer the question.  And, I can see why.  He knew that this is where it was going.

Where my answer would've differed is that I would have started with the refutation of the assumption of the question that implied that there is a lack of equal rights happening here.  I did this in the paragraphs above.  Then, to refute that civil unions should be allowed to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples, I would've simply stated that the benefits given to opposite-sex marriages are given because it's the only union that can possibly produce our nation's greatest asset: children.  Same-sex unions can not do this.  The argument goes like this in its purest form:

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.
2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Same-sex unions cannot produce children nor can they ever produce the ideal household in which to raise other children.  Without the production of children, our nation will not survive.  And, without the production of ideal child-rearing environments, our nation will fail to produce successful future generations.  It is in the best interests of our government and the advancement of our culture to encourage opposite-sex marriages through whatever means within our power.  Therefore, the government has no business offering same-sex unions the same benefits since their unions are not nor will they ever be equally beneficial to society as opposite-sex marriages have always been.

Read More

Gender Confusion

Yes, evidently, there are people that believe it's not only possible to be confused about one's own gender but also believe that one IS actually the gender one believes themselves to be regardless of one's physical characteristics.

In Queensland, a nine-year-old boy who was named Ronan Hayes at birth has since had his name changed by his parents to Emma Hayes.  According to the family, the boy at the age of four said that he wanted to cut off his penis and be a girl.  I would have thought this to be the point where the parent(s) explain to the little boy that removing a boy's penis doesn't make that boy a girl, but rather just makes a boy that's unfortunately missing a penis.  See?  I'm a male not just because I have a penis, but because every cell in my body is a male cell.  Remember the whole XX/XY chromosome thing we all learned in school?  We're either a male or female through and through not just in a particular physical area.

Did Ronan's parents teach Ronan that he'd only be a disfigured boy after his malpractice of a self-surgery?  No.  Instead, they allowed the boy to act like and be referred to as a girl at home.  He was enrolled in school as a boy and was being treated like a girl at home, living an essential double-life.  Until this year, that is, when the parents decided to re-enroll him in school as a girl named Emma.  The misguided and incredibly selfish parents demanded that the school treat the boy like a girl in every way including the use of the girl's bathrooms.  As a compromise, the school decided to allow the boy to use the handicapped bathroom and renamed it the "unisex" bathroom.  Was that good enough?  Of course not.  No, these parents wanted every (actual) female student's privacy violated so that "Emma" could feel like a real girl.

Another blog, Eternity Matters,  stated the following that I feel sums it all up very well:

Something I don’t understand: If your body actually is male and your mind says it is female, why do we assume that means there is something wrong with the body instead of something wrong with the mind?

If you have an emotional problem with your body’s gender, it seems like common sense that we need to address the emotions which contradict reality instead of the gender which is perfectly fine.

I'm reminded of that old encouraging saying "You can be whatever you set your mind to be."  Of course, all sane people know that this was never meant to apply to gender.  Or ethnicity.  Or species.  Just think how stupid that is.  I feel I'm a dandelion and want to live my life as one from now on.  Do not refer to me as a man lest you discriminate against me.

Or, how about celebrity identity?  I believe that I am Brad Pitt.  I demand access to my bank accounts right now lest you discriminate against me.

Read More

Past Planned Parenthood Paradox

Last month, Chelsea Clinton spoke at the Women Deliver Conference in Malaysia.  From the stage, she revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Does anyone else see the oddity of this statement?  I mean, we've all been exposed to enough time travel science fiction through books, movies, and television shows to have a pretty good grasp on what becomes of the "present you" if your great-grandparents were to have aborted (or at the very least, family planned) your grandmother out of existence.

I can totally see the Saturday Night Live skit in my head already with them mashing up the video of Chelsea Clinton speaking at the conference with the scene from Back To The Future where Marty McFly's character's hand is disappearing while trying to play the guitar.  (Chelsea is lamenting about how unfortunate it is that her great-grandparents had no access to Planned Parenthood.  Suddenly, she drops the microphone she is holding and stares in shock at her missing hand.  Quickly, someone comes to her rescue and reads aloud from Wikipedia about how Margret Sanger didn't start what would later become known as Planned Parenthood until 1921, well after her grandmother was successfully born alive.  Chelsea's hand fades back in and everyone sighs with relief.)

Even if Chelsea was referencing contraception rather than abortion, it still doesn't sit right.  What it does is point out an error in the thought process of those who support abortion.  If you can't make sense of an argument supporting the availability of abortion for your parents, you equally can't make sense of an argument supporting it for your children.

Some may be quick to dehumanize others, but it stands out as blatantly foolish to fail to recognize the humanity of oneself from within one's own skin.

Read More

Religious Right

In recent news, a Kentucky high school graduation included a student-led prayer despite some objections by a handful of students.  The prayer itself, however, was very well received and was followed by a standing ovation.  One of the six known students to have objected to the school's principal, an atheist, has made his plans of contacting the ACLU known.  The article states that he feels that the public prayer violated the civil rights of students who are not Christian.

The ACLU's website makes it clear that they believe that graduation prayers are unconstitutional regardless of who leads them.  Their site states the following:

Think about it: graduation prayers would give non-believers or kids of other faiths the feeling that their participation in prayer is required. It doesn't matter who leads the prayer -- a minister, a priest, a rabbi, whoever, or whether the prayer is non-denominational -- some kids would feel left out.

The main problem that I see here is that judges keep entertaining these frivolous cases when they should immediately be thrown out.  The first amendment, among other things, strictly prohibits the government from prohibiting the individual's exercise of religion.  No one has the "right" NOT to hear someone else's right to free speech.  Likewise, no one has the "right" NOT to hear someone else's free exercise of religion.

Many people get hung up on the "establishment clause" part of the amendment and thus violate people's rights to freely exercise their religion.  The government is to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When a student decides to publicly thank God it's nothing short of a mile-wide stretch to say that this is the government making a law establishing religion.  What's not at all a stretch is to demonstrate that silencing that student is a violation of that student's right to free speech and the free exercise of his/her religion.

I realize that the ACLU has played a good role in years past advocating for the actual rights of people, but they have brought on themselves a bad reputation for advocating for rights that don't exist and, in doing so, violating the actual rights of many in the process.  For example, the ACLU, in it's self-described battle to keep religion out of science classrooms, has fought to keep Intelligent Design out of schools while being just fine with Evolution being taught.  The main difference between the two theories is that Evolution suggests that all things known to exist have come into existence by time and chance and under the influence of Natural Selection while Intelligent Design suggests that all things known to exist came into existence by the design of an intelligent source.  Evolution points to the evidence of similarities between species as well as what we currently know about adaptation.  Intelligent Design points to the evidence of the apparent design of all things and the irreducible complexity of most organisms.  If the ACLU contends that the teaching of Intelligent Design equates to the teaching of the existence of God thus violating the "civil right" of an Atheist, then they must also logically contend that the teaching of Evolution equates to the teaching of the nonexistence of God thus violating the "civil right" of a Theist.  But, they don't do this.  They fail to see their own hypocrisy on the issue.

It's time that the courts stop allowing these kinds of "violated civil rights" issues when the "violator" is someone peacefully exercising their civil right.  To allow these cases to continue to be heard only encourages others to make such claims and ultimately produces upside-down fascism where a small minority makes the rules that remove the freedoms of the majority.

Read More

Frowny Town

I saw this last week and laughed out loud.  I loved that someone properly captured the absurdity of this address to the press.  In case you don't know where this image originated, it was from the moments after Congress failed to pass a bill that would have required background checks for all gun transfers specifically at gun shows and online sales (of course, neither the cat nor the elderly puppet were actually there)(and by elderly puppet, I'm not referring to Biden).

The President was introduced by a father of one of the murdered students from the Newtown, CT incident.  I take no issue with any facial expression that he might have produced in reaction to any disappointment of the preceding legislative actions.  But, the forced expressions on the faces of the President and Vice President were nothing short of ridiculous.

They were melodramatically frustrated with the Senate for not passing the bill and they evidently wanted to make that well understood even to the hearing impaired.  This sort of behavior doesn't lend much credibility to them politically, in my opinion.  I'm picturing what the rest of the world must think of the U.S. when they see images like these (the original, sans the comical additions).

They were upset because they viewed the bill to be a perfectly non-invasive and helpful addition to gun control.  Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V. who co-authored the bill even went as far to say, "If you're a law-abiding gun owner, you'll love this bill."  Though, as a law-abiding gun-owner, I neither love the bill nor do I see it as either non-invasive or helpful.

First of all, it requires a background check to be performed which is a service that costs money.  Who is going to pay for all these background checks, you ask?  Why the people, of course.  Call it what you will, but it's in essence another tax on a product that we have explicit rights to own, buy, and sell without the government's intervention or restriciton.

Meanwhile, the background check inherently requires a registration of all transfers.  We've already seen this be abused by our own federal and Missouri State governments at this link and at this link in direct violation of State law.  Yet, over and over again, we hear that the information will not be compiled into lists ever used for any purpose or made available to any other agencies.  Why is this bad?  Because the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the country from any tyrannical government, including its own.  By requiring this information, compiling it into lists, and making this information available to other government agencies, they are collecting data to potentially use against us by a future tyrannical entity.  This right of the government to be able to collect this information was never granted to it and when brought before the Senate last month they affirmed that the government should not be granted this ability.

Let's now deal with the fact that the President wants to make this about protecting our children.  It's undisputed that he's using the Newtown massacre as a catalyst for these new gun control measures.  But, the logic being used is all fallacious.  A required background check would not have prevented Newtown.  For that matter, it would not have prevented any of these recent mass-murders.  No supporter of this bill has yet to come forward demonstrating that any of the weapons used in any of these events would have been restricted by the implementation of this required background check.  The reason for this lack of demonstration: because it cannot be demonstrated.  So, why is the President so emotionally involved in trying to pass this added restriction?

What the bill would have done is this:  Law-abiding gun owners would have been burdened with the cost of more government regulation on all new gun transfers.  Law-breaking criminals would still have their weapons of choice to do their destruction.  The number of lives saved due to this legislation would not have been affected.  It would have created a compiled list of all gun owners and the guns they own, giving the government an even larger advantage over their one check and balance: the people.  It would have undermined our Constitutional right to bear arms.  It would have been used to argue the need of even more regulation and restriction.

In conclusion, last month our U.S. Senate did their job.  They recognized an unconstitutional, ineffective, and costly infringement on the rights of all U.S. citizens being proposed and they kept it from passing despite a large number of supporters interested in a power grab by exploiting an unavoidable tragedy.

Read More

Hypocrisy on Both Sides of the Fence

I saw a re-post shared on Facebook yesterday that brought to mind an ironic hypocrisy among many politically left-leaning individuals.  I thought that I'd take a moment to point that out.

Many liberals decry the existence of the U.S. Naval Base Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO).  And they do so rightfully.  It should be a universal outrage, no doubt.  How can a freedom-touting country allow it's government to create a prison in which people can be held indefinitely without trial?  It was placed in Cuba, so that the laws and protections of the U.S. somehow wouldn't apply.  And, we're supposed to be ok with that?  It's almost universally understood that the treatment of the prisoners there is inhumane.  Torture of various types has been inflicted.  We know this.  Many have died.  And keep in mind that these are prisoners who have never been given the due process of law, never to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers, never to have an impartial judge hear the arguments, and thus never been convicted.  They've only been accused.  Yet, despite this, they have been imprisoned, beaten, tortured, degraded, and many have been killed.  And, again I ask, we're supposed to be ok with that?

Sadly, on the original Facebook post, I saw many comments primarily in support of the prison.  It was mostly obviously uninformed people assuming the guilt of those imprisoned there.  Really?  How ironic it is that this support heavily hails from those who claim to love the USA and would cheerily accept 'patriotic' as an appropriate adjective for themselves.  These people who love freedom and the protection of rights for all people, yet are simultaneously in support of a government who would strip that freedom and those rights away simply on the basis of accusation alone?  It's not ironic.  It's contradictory.

Worse yet, many of these prisoners have been "released" many times over from the various oversight committees involved citing that the prisoners in subject weren't believed to have ever been involved in the crimes of which they have been accused.  Yet, they've not been let go.  They remain incarcerated.  To date, 166 prisoners are locked up there, 86 of which have been cleared for release.

I would venture to say that the real enemies to the U.S. are the corrupt government officials displaying Anti-American values who allowed this to be created in the first place and the ones currently in office who aren't actively and legitimately seeking to bring an end to it.

That being all said, it occurred to me while reading the Facebook post that the politically right-leaning self-proclaimed patriots in support of this heinous practice aren't alone in their hypocrisy.  The vast majority of the politically left-leaning crowd on this subject is also displaying a gross inconsistency.  While the more liberal crowd is almost unanimously opposed to GTMO's Detention Center, simultaneously they almost unanimously support the legal allowance of abortion.

The parallels between these two injustices are astounding.  Let's look at some from off the top of my head.

• Both are denying the rights to live as free individuals.
• Both are having a sentence carried out while being denied a trial.
• Both involve human beings being treated inhumane.
• Both have the majority of their advocacy by individuals who either don't know what is actually happening in the process or don't want to know.
• Both are advocated by those who support freedom of everyone BUT the individual who is receiving the sentence.
• Both are advocated by people the majority of which wouldn't be emotionally capable of carrying out the sentence if asked.
• Both sentences would be an illegal act in the U.S. if the location of the one receiving the sentence was on U.S. soil.

I could go on if given enough time, but I bet you get the point.  One cannot be against one and not the other.  It's not logically consistent.

Read More

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Makes Good Point

On Thursday, Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, gave a speech at the UN. Amongst his many topics, was the attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Reportedly, a bunch of government officials walked out during the speech including the US Representatives. So, I see that many didn't agree with him, nor did they want to hear anymore on that subject or any other. President Obama has already given a statement, condemning Ahmadinejad for his "inexcusable" statements.

Despite what people may think of me for saying this, I have to agree with him about what he said concerning 9/11. He listed three different theories of who was responsible for the attacks. In a nutshell they are: some foreign terrorists did it (our government's official version), our own government did it, and lastly that foreign terrorists did it but our government saw them coming and took advantage of the situation.

The UN Representatives for the United States walked out during the second theory. Many other country's representatives left, as well. One reporter called what Ahmadinejad said "vile conspiracy theories" and, of course, Obama was acting very offended as if Ahmadinejad was insinuating that Obama himself had orchestrated the whole thing.

But, everyone is missing the point here due to our preconceptions of the man giving the speech. I don't agree with most of what Ahmadinejad said, but the things he said concerning 9/11 were right on. He only called a spade a spade and mentioned that there are multiple accounts for what happened that day, evidence that points to people other than the officially accused, and questions that have not been answered nor had honest attempts of aptly answering them by our government. He further suggests that the UN put together a fact finding team, to answer these questions.

If you think about it, he's properly using a democratic process. The US government has had 9 years to find and provide answers to the obvious 'who', 'why', and 'how' questions. Instead, it only took them hours to point a finger. Despite the ridiculous amount of new evidence that would implicate more involvement from others, this finger has never stopped pointing at the initial suspects and has turned a deaf ear to any suggestion that the event had co-conspirators other than those already named.

This deaf ear, continues today with the walkout of our government at the mere mention of theories that have been sparked, not by Ahmadinejad, but by unanswered questions and intentional government cover-ups.

Ahmadinejad's reason for bringing up 9/11 was to point out that the United States government's leading of the UN in bringing punishment to Iran for their "lack of transparency" surrounding their nuclear program couldn't be more ironic. It might be difficult to find a better example of the pot calling the kettle black.

How can I relate the two, you might ask? The United States used 9/11 as a springboard to invade two countries, and completely overthrow the government of one of them. Several thousand people did die on 9/11, but several hundred thousand have died in the United States' mission to avenge the supposed responsible parties. The United States' military force driven by a government that needs no solid evidence to choose a target is, in and of itself, a weapon of mass destruction. However, the US government feels no need to further investigate nor answer any questions. On the contrary, they get upset and leave just by the mere mention of the subject. Which only leaves us to believe that they're avoiding discussion on the subject because there is something to hide.

Read More

9/11 Conspiracy?

After writing the last blog, Jodi and I watched the movie World Trade Center starring Nicholas Cage. It was, of course, a sad movie. Even more so since we remember watching these events as they unfolded on our TV screens nine years ago.

Remembering all that took place that day and the days that immediately followed, one finds oneself in the eye of a storm of emotions, thoughts, and unanswered questions. 'Who', 'why', and 'how' being the ones in the forefront.

Not long after the event, we were given answers to those questions. A foreign religious extremist group of radicals was the 'who.' Their extreme religious beliefs were the 'why.' And, a simple story of terrorists among us exploiting a weakness was the 'how.' So, mystery solved, right? Isn't that what really happened? I know that I bought it without question. At least in the first few weeks, anyway. However, as the weeks turned into months, all kinds of questions were raised. One being the locked up secrecy in which they hauled off, quarantined, and then sold for scrap the wreckage of the World Trade Center buildings. What purpose could secrecy about the evidence serve? The world saw the buildings come down. We were all given a fairly good explanation as to why they came down. Why would the government go to the extra effort of hiding the material from everyone? Unless, of course, leaving the material out for anyone to see might reveal something they don't want us to know. Hmm...

Other questions started arising that led me to start searching for answers on the Internet. It didn't take long to find several web pages and YouTube videos that not only were asking similar questions but were also presenting evidence that I had either not yet been made aware of or I had not thoughtfully considered.

My initial thoughts were of doubt. Less doubt about what I had been led to believe along with the rest of America, but more towards what these "conspiracy theorists" were trying to get me to think. No one could have done this. No one could be that evil. No one could have kept the truth quiet and hidden. It's too complex to have been pulled off without getting caught.

But, am I right? Why would I believe that a bunch of radical Muslim extremists living in the mountains of Afghanistan are that cunning, evil, and capable? Because it's easier to believe that some Muslims are that evil? Because to believe that I've been deceived would be a blow to my intellect? My pride? Because, I think that everything is hunky-dory here in the 50 states? Because the news said so? What, exactly?

A great documentary to watch on this subject is called Loose Change. At the end of this very well put together, informative, and unfortunately appalling film the narrator made a statement that really struck me. He said, "You will either have an emotional response to this information or a logical one."

What do you think? Would you be in support of a criminal investigation over the disaster? Would you agree that there is, at minimum, enough evidence and motive to implicate others' involvement so much that a new investigation would seem called for?

Read More

Childhood Obesity Task Force

Today, President Obama formed a task force to tackle the problem of childhood obesity. The First Lady, Michelle Obama, has pushed for this and will apparently help lead the campaign.

According to the article, one out of every three children in the U.S. are currently obese, this being triple the ratio it was in 1980. Personally, I am not too quick to accept this as a fact only due to my belief that the only method for determining obesity is not a very accurate one. At least, it isn't in accord to the way most people define the word 'obesity', anyhow.

It was a while ago, but I wrote a blog about how it is determined whether or not someone is obese. The formula is not a complex one, by any means, and, therefore, doesn't take enough factors into account. Obesity is determined by BMI(Body Mass Index). BMI is determined by dividing your weight in kilograms by your height in meters. Then the following scale tells you where you stand (or sit or lie down, for that matter).

* Underweight = <18.5
* Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
* Overweight = 25-29.9
* Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Are height and weight the only factors that should be used to determine how healthy you are or are not? Surely, this should not be so. I would think that build plays a huge role, but I won't get into this again. I repeat myself a lot in the real world, but online I try to limit it wherever possible.

So, I do think that the numbers given in this article and others like it sound a lot worse than what they actually are. On the other hand, people are getting fatter. There's no denying that. I applaud The White House and the President for admitting it and doing something to combat it. But, what might be done?

In the article and a couple others that I scanned-read, I only saw education as a plan. This is important, to educate America how to make healthy choices. But, does it stand to be the answer to the problem? Most definitely not. Is it possible that it will bring us halfway to solving the problem? Probably not. Will it make much of a difference at all? I hope so, but I doubt it.

I'm not trying to be negative. I just think that 95% of us know how to live healthy lifestyles, but that only about 20% of us actually do what we know. That only leaves an education campaign a chance of improvement of 5%. To the other 95% it's just beating a dead horse. Maybe some of those, after being re-educated, might find a renewed sense of motivation, but how many will, I wonder?

I think education is a good start, but I would suggest not to spend too much time, energy, or money on it. Privately funded documentaries such as Super Size Me and Food, Inc. have done more to educate America on the health risks of poor eating choices than our government will ever accomplish, anyway.

I believe that there is another solution and that it has been spoken in complaint form at one time or another by everyone in the U.S. who has ever tried to eat only healthy foods: "It's not right that eating healthy should cost so much!" I believe that this is the biggest problem plaguing Americans with poor health today. If you've ever been to a health food store and walked the aisles, you know what I am talking about. I've seen a few decent prices here and there on certain items, but for the most part healthy, organic food prices can be two and three times the price as their chemically produced counterparts.

Much of this is due to the way farming is run these days. Subsidies are paid to farmers to grow certain things during certain seasons and the farmers grow what they are paid to grow. End of story. The effects this has is that the only way to make a profit is to grow lots and grow it fast. Chemical farming, genetically modified seeds, and artificial hormones are used to get the most for their efforts. To grow something other than subsidized crops like organic crops that have no subsidies means that the farmer is carrying all the cost and all the risk if those crops don't sell in the market. The costs and the cost of the risk is passed on to the consumer.

Let's look at the opposite of subsidized crops for a minute. What about the tobacco industry? They've taken a lot of grief these last twenty years, haven't they? They're being blamed for one of the largest health epidemics in the United States and they're being forced to pay for it. We've seen the cost of cigarettes go from roughly 75 cents a pack to almost $5 a pack in my lifetime alone. This cost increase wasn't the result of tobacco getting harder find or anything. It's the cigarette producers handing down the costs of settlements, litigation, and most importantly, increased taxation. In an effort to discourage smoking and also to recoup some of the health care costs caused by smoking, our government as dramatically increased the amount of taxes on cigarettes.

So, using this logic, it stands to reason that a possible solution to our nation's so-called epidemic would be to tax the junk out of the junk food producing companies, while subsidizing the healthy food and organically grown foods. If the tables were to be turned and unhealthy foods were two and three times the cost of healthy ones, America would no doubt choose healthier meals. Alongside our population getting healthier, health care costs would decrease, health insurance premiums would get more competitive and would dramatically drop in price. Our country's health care problem could be solved, people! But, as they say, it would take an act of Congress to get any of this to happen so quickly. Maybe that's just what we need.

Read More

Presidential Address

Usually when the President of the United States makes a statement on live television, a vast majority of Americans want to stop what they are doing and listen. The sit down speeches usually come during prime-time and wind up popping up on virtually every local broadcast channel. People like me, who rarely watch broadcast television, have little trouble avoiding the monologues from the faces of those whom my grandchildren might spot on some new denomination of dollar if we haven't gone to a one-world currency by then. Albeit a rare occasion, I do sometimes catch the highlights on the evening news or an online news report. I like to keep up on what is going on in the political arena. However, I also attempt to avoid the massive amount of jargon that accompanies the few informational bits that I would like to hear. So, there is a balancing act going on with my attention span during such addresses to the nation.

I just got notice earlier today of a planned Presidential Address for next Tuesday. It will take place at noon, Eastern Standard Time, instead of during the evening when the majority of Americans will be watching. The reason for this is that he isn't addressing the majority of Americans. He's addressing students. Specifically, kindergarten students through twelfth grade. To my knowledge, and my quick search of the Internet, I don't think that a President has ever done such a thing. The Department of Education has urged schools across the nation to allow all students to watch the planned address. In addition to being urged to allow students to watch the 20 to 30-minute live video of Obama's speech, faculties are also being given lesson plans to accompany the video, lesson plans that were drawn up by the Obama administration.

Upon finding out that Jacob's school intends to show the video, Jodi and I decided to opt Jacob out. He will instead be elsewhere with all the other concerned parents' children doing a different prepared civics lesson.

All of this happened this afternoon and I was surprised that I hadn't heard anything about it. However, the news reports are coming out now. People all over are taking issue with the proposed address. The White House ensures everyone that the Obama's speech is simply to encourage students to stay in school and to set goals and so forth, but Conservatives nationwide are calling it what it really is: a usurping of power by the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. They are intentionally showing this speech during school hours to side-step parents' involvement and influence, bypassing parents' right and power to educate our own children on matters of politics, morality, and ethics. By creating lesson plans, they are undermining our state's power and authority to comprise their own educational systems. Oklahoma State Senator Steve Russel said, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education. It gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq." And I happen to agree with him.

In the last nine months, we've seen the federal government seize control over our banking system and the automotive industry while attempting to gain regulatory control over our nation's health care. We've seen the largest debt accumulated in a single Presidential administration. And now, President Obama thinks that he can just bypass me and get to my kids' minds? He thinks that he can go live when I'm elsewhere and spill his eloquent tongue all over the place to create a positive image of himself to all the children in America? I don't think so.

Read More

Getting Opinionated Again

Warning: The following is a representation of my opinion. If you don't like it when people make their opinions public then I suggest you stop reading now and go on with your day. Also, this may be my longest blog ever. So, if you don't like to read then may I suggest playing a video game or building something out of Popsicle sticks. If, however, you think that you can make it through then you will have done a great thing and should feel proud of yourself for making such an accomplishment. Leave a comment and I may even send you a trophy.

I wrote this blog over the span of several days, so bear with me as it is lengthy and covers two issues that can both be summed up as bigotry. I felt compelled to write this as I feel that those who do not agree with the liberal left generally will keep their mouths shut in fear that they will be viewed as bigots or worse. Minorities (no reference here to race, just minorities in general) will so often play the accusation card that few people will voice their opposition to an issue being argued. A perfect example of this was a couple months ago after one of Jacob's football games. We were leaving as were many others and upon entering the parking lot there was a woman who was angrily shouting obscenities while telling her family about somebody who did something very inconsequential. I let it go the first couple times, but upon realizing no end, I spoke up by saying "Hey. Hey. Do you mind keeping it G-rated? There's children everywhere." I said this and kept walking still attempting to hold Jacob's ears. After a couple seconds of silence which apparently was from the family trying to process what just happened (they probably don't get asked to keep it down by white people very often) here came the words. The husband started mouthing saying all kinds of things mostly accusing us of saying worse around our kids at home, being "country" and "racists", and about how his father owns the police. Yeah, I don't get that last part either but he sure was talking a lot about it. He wouldn't stop his rant, but refused also to look me in the face while doing it. He clearly didn't want any real trouble, just an opportunity to look like he was defending his dirty-mouthed spouse.

I also didn't want any real trouble but wouldn't have hesitated to physically shut him up had he actually opposed a visible threat or even spouted off a verbal one under his breath. He ran his mouth, yes, but was obviously being very careful as to choose his words and body language in such a way that I wouldn't have cause to take any further action. He just wanted to cause a scene and announce to anyone within earshot that I was a racist. I am not a racist. Far from it. I, however, will not fear being accused of being one. Do I naturally have that feeling like every other white person that compels them to restrain themselves in situations that they normally wouldn't if the person involved was white? Yes, I do. I feel it. And I hate it. It's social conditioning, not racism. My generation has been reminded of the racist atrocities of past generations so often that there is an understandable fear in the minds of white people that they might be associated with the racists of history simply because of their skin color. It's the same fear that resides in racial minorities. Many Americans of Arabic decent deal with looks from people and they, too, fear that they will be associated with those few that have hurt so many.

It's unfair and a clear injustice when anyone makes statements or acts in such a way that is based off another person's skin color. I highly doubt that the man at the football field parking lot would've called me what he did if I had been virtually any other race other than white. While some may argue that his actions were racist or not racist, we can be sure of one thing: Racism has been kept alive and well by people who will not let it go. This goes for every race.

As an avid reader of the News-Leader, I've run across many articles in the Voices section that I agree with and many that I have not. As far as I can tell, the NL is somewhat fair with the quantity of liberal articles versus the conservative ones, but I have noticed an imbalance in the effectiveness of those articles. It seems to me that many of the conservative articles are not as well-written as the liberal ones. I highly doubt that this is because liberals are just naturally better writers. Rather, I suppose that the powers that be at the NL have a tendency to sympathize with the left and purposefully choose the letters from the right so that they are not as convincing. In all fairness, the numbers may be about the same, but the letters are carefully chosen as to what may see print and what may not.

One of these letters was recently written by Paul Harris, a homosexual originally from California who recently relocated to Eureka Springs, AR. Despite his pride and love for his home state he felt forced to leave it for conflicting ideals. More specifically, the recent Proposition 8 passing that amended California's State Constitution to include the words "only between a man and a woman" when discussing marriage was why Mr. Harris felt that he no longer could stay in CA. So, he moved to Eureka Springs, AR. This is ironic since Arkansas was one of the first states to do what Proposition 8 did for CA back in 2004 when Massachusetts started allowing homosexual marriages. Not only did Arkansas restrict marriage to being only between a man and a woman but they also banned any same-sex civil unions, a step further from what many other states did. So, just into the introduction of Mr. Harris' letter, I'm already failing to see any logic applied to his decisions.

The rest of the letter is basically an attempt at humanizing himself so as to gain sympathy from the reader while claiming many injustices done to him over his lifetime done by "religious extremists" among others. He uses words like "equality" and "civil rights" and expects the reader to feel sorry for him and all gays everywhere for the terrible injustices that they must endure, specifically being denied "the equal right to marry."

Let's look at this, though, shall we? Since when has marriage been a right? I know what it has been throughout history and all around the world: a spiritual and religious union between a man and a woman. Study the practice of marriage in all cultures and you will find two very repetitious themes. The first, that the two involved make up one of each gender. Second, that the ceremony is always done as part of a spiritual ritual. The rituals vary from culture to culture, but the central theme is the same. A man and woman come together to spend their lives with one another as one unit blessed and approved by their god. Jews do it. Muslims do it. Hindus do it. Christians do it. Catholics do it. Buddhists do it. The list goes on and on.

The pattern can not be dismissed. While I agree that gays should not be discriminated against, we seriously differ on our ideas of discrimination. Leave marriage what it is and always has been. Leave family what it is and always has been. Not all things are rights. The height restriction for a roller coaster is not age discrimination against children. Social Security benefits is not age discrimination against the non-elderly. Restricting a high school girl to the girls soccer team rather than the boys team is not gender discrimination. Restricting men from using the women's bathroom is not gender discrimination. Being denied financing for purchasing a Lexus while working at a minimum wage job is not financial discrimination.

Many resources define marriage as a social, spiritual, or religious union that is recognized by either the state, society as a whole, or a religious organization. This definition isn't perfect and by using words as a means to construct the definition someone somewhere will always attempt to interpret it differently. But it pretty much makes as clear as it can that marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by a religious organization, government, or society. Society here in the U.S. voted and determined that they didn't recognize homosexual unions to be marriage. The overwhelming majority throughout the world shows that they don't recognize them as marriage. Most governments including ours does not recognize them. And the majority of religious organizations don't recognize them.

Homosexual relationships can not, therefore, be recognized as a legal marriage. Since society collectively views marriage as a religious, spiritual act between people that is more than just a contract, it is no more a person's right to marry, than it is their right to be holy. Likewise, on whether homosexual couples should have the right to equally adopt children, it is no more a person's right to be a parent, than it is their right to be able to physically birth a child. No one has the right to be a parent. Many people live and die and never have children in their home and it was not because they were stripped of their rights.

Read More

Rock the Vote or Boat

It's November 6th and I've considered many times since the evening of the 4th to write a blog talking about many different things. I could write about my thoughts for the country for the next four years, my relief that Bush will soon be out, or maybe my anger towards the Republican party for choosing who they did for the Republican Presidential Candidate, about the huge voter turnout, or maybe I could just expand more on the light bulb topic of my last blog since it wasn't very lengthy (obvious sarcasm intended). Most of you know that I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I have been ever since my brother turned me on to him years ago. He sent me a link to a simple website that had updated writings of Dr. Paul's and for the first time in my life I realized that there are people in government that resist the temptation to "go with the flow" and actually take a stand against "the flow" that threatens present and future liberties.

With all the hype of this election, the cacophony got me thinking about patriotism and what that word means to me. Growing up, I always understood that patriotism is loving one's own country. And I'm willing to bet that most everyone would define it this way. But, I wonder, what defines the word "country". Is my country the trees, grass, lakes, mountains, and shores? Is my country the people on my street, the people living in these trees, grass, mountains, etc.? Is my country the company I work for, the companies that we sell to, the companies that keep Americans working and prosperous? Is my country the local government, state government, or federal government? Surely, it can't just be one of these things. Likewise, there's no way that it can be all of them. Right?

I'm reminded of the common phrase, "Love it or leave it." I've heard this phrase used and seen it pop up in the comments sections of many blogs and articles on news sites. My question is, "What constitutes, NOT loving your country?" The word "patriotic" simply means to be like a patriot. What is a patriot in modern times, though? We know what one was back in the Revolutionary War days: a person who loved America, the freedom it stood for, and was willing to sacrifice in order to see that the country and all it stood for would prevail against any powers that threatened those freedoms. In many ways, it could be said that it wasn't the grass that the patriots of yesterday were sacrificing for. Nor was it the government that they risked their lives for since it didn't yet exist. It would be safe to say that the patriots were fighting for freedom. Freedom from government over-stepping their bounds. Freedom for themselves as well as freedom for their children. One might even go as far to say that patriotism could therefore be defined as "a love and willingness to sacrifice for establishing or maintaining an established country in which freedoms are upheld."

I like that definition a little better. Could the argument of freedom be taken too far, though? For example, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1860 for Governor of Illinois, the main topic was slavery. Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was against slavery and argued that the Declaration of Independence was for all men and women and not just for white ones. Douglas, the Democratic Candidate, argued that it was Lincoln's right to not agree with slavery and therefore he didn't have to own any, but that it was also others rights to own them if they so chose. Douglas maintained that people should have the right to own slaves and he eventually won the Governor's seat. One thing Lincoln said summing up Douglas' theory on slave ownership was, "No one should have the right to choose to do wrong."

I like that quote, but to be fair while it almost always stands to be true it can't always be applied in a free country. Because, the definition of what is wrong is based off of society's vote on what is morally right and wrong and I'm not convinced that society really gets morality. For example, abortion is wrong. No doubt about it. Yet people will vote for people who support it and will directly vote to allow people to choose. But, like Lincoln said, "No one should have the right to choose to do wrong." And, since this blog has turned me into a betting man, I'm again willing to bet that over ninety-five percent of people who voted directly or indirectly for "the right to choose" would do anything in their ability to avoid being forced to actually assist first-hand in an abortion clinic. Let that one sink in for a minute. Get out your moral calculator and type away when you're ready.

People are willing to say that something wrong is right as long as they're not the ones that actually have to do the wrong deed. Like I said before, I don't think that society really gets morality. Or maybe it's just the election process that they don't get. See, our votes have to reflect our morals otherwise we send the message to Washington, the world, our children, and God, too, that we are immoral people. And that we prefer a society that is immoral, as well.

I believe that people need to wake up and smell the garbage. And I think that some people have somewhat roused, hence the huge voter turnout. But, I also think that while there was a record number of voters showing up at the polls the number of voters that showed up completely uninformed was most likely breaking records, as well. It seemed to me that everyone I spoke to about the candidates had their minds made up already long ago, but couldn't tell me more than one policy change that their chosen candidate was planning on making to make things better. As a matter of fact, most couldn't even tell me one, yet their minds were made up. I dislike the "Rock the Vote" campaign and others like it because they push people to vote but spend no time encouraging people to research the candidates or issues. I recently saw another short video campaign put on by a group of celebrities that was encouraging people to vote and went as far to say that "you should vote if you care about" the war, gay rights, abortion rights, the economy, taxes, etc., etc. Of course people care about these issues. Everyone has an opinion. That's the problem. Everyone has an opinion, many are willing to vote based off that opinion, but very few understand what those votes will affect. It's easy to vote for and feel good about women's rights, but not when babies are violently slaughtered as an effect. It's easy to vote for and feel good about slashing taxes on the middle class and raising them on the upper class, but not when it hurts local businesses which are still collaboratively the largest employer in the U.S. Who do you think work for them? The upper class? All taxes on corporations are passed down to the people. It's easy to vote for and feel good about helping the lower class financially, but not when the financial burden on everyone drags millions more into the lower class bracket.

It's not our privilege to vote, it's our duty. But, it's also our duty to be informed voters, not popularity contest judges. In the information age, no one has an excuse. My personal opinion: Senator Barack Obama was elected to be our next President of the United States because people were tired of the Republicans screwing it up for us and the word "change" wouldn't stop echoing off the walls where Obama made his speeches. It sure would be easy to vote for and feel good about voting for a real change for the good. I guess, we'll see what we get, though. Won't we?

Read More

We Gotta Take The Power Back... dannah, dannah, dannooooww Come on, COME ON!

You may be wondering what was wrong with me when I typed the title to this blog, but I assure you that nothing new is wrong with me that hasn't always been wrong with me. It's simply some lyrics out of a RATM (Rage Against The Machine) song. And those words that aren't found in Webster's were my air guitar version of Tom Morello's amazing guitar manipulations. I say manipulations because Tom Morello doesn't play guitar, he manipulates one.

Anyway, air guitar and explanations aside, I wanted to say something in light of what is going on in Washington. I also would like to admit some incorrect thinking and make good on what I've previously talked about in the last blog (Bailout Bombed). I made it pretty clear that the financial institutions are the ones to blame for this need of a financial bailout. I pointed out that "their mistakes" of irresponsible lending are now costing us money if our government decides to give them our money. Now I sort of think that I was wrong. Sort of. Rather than go into my own words, I will simply insert a paragraph that I read on FederalBudget.com. Here it is.

It seems there were many forces and organizations pressuring the financial institutions to make housing loans to folks who clearly would not qualify for them. Goes back to the turn of the century. The ruse was "affordable" housing, and the slogan was "everyone has a right to own a home". (Not according to the Constitution). It was a well thought out project. It was calculated that a bailout would be needed. Congressional members supported it. A few resisted, even those resistors knew what would happen. The pressure was heavy and many-fronted. The financial institutions must lend to unqualified borrowers. Ultimately, the scheme would lead to having the citizens buy houses for the low income earners that couldn't qualify. This is clear socialism. More than that, it was calculated, premeditated, theft. It is against the U. S. Constitution for the U. S. Federal Government to do this.

The author of this paragraph is Gene Simmons. No, he's not the guy from Kiss who sticks out his tongue, but the founder of the National Debt Awareness Campaign (NDAC) who willfully bares the burden of informing individuals like me and you the truth behind the government's decisions that affect the economy and also unfortunately bares the burden of having the same name as an infamous goober. You all should make some time to read through this highly informative website that isn't flashy by design but is clearly devoted to teaching the American public the problems with our economic system. However, unlike so many other sites I have found, this one also offers solutions beyond a mere suggestion as to who to vote for. So you are aware, the NDAC does not support or endorse any political party.

I wonder now if Jodi and I didn't benefit from this pressure on the financial institutions in some way. We got approved for our home loan in January of last year after a long road of fixing our (when I say "our" I mean "my") bad credit and building up good credit. I wonder if we would have qualified under normal circumstances. However, I would hardly put us into a category alongside all these people who are foreclosing on their homes. Most of these cases are with people who couldn't afford the home that they were buying in the first place. Some people just shouldn't be able to buy a home if they don't have the income to warrant it. We had the income and the career longevity and job security and the low debt-to-income ratio. We just had a poor credit score since we had a severe lack of credit hits. I always thought that it was good to buy things outright in cash and that it was responsible to turn down credit card offers. However, it turns out that if you ever do want to borrow money, you'll need to show a history of doing just that. Which makes sense, but then the problem of getting that first lender to lend you money arises.

I've strayed here a bit, but I wanted to let it be known that the NDAC has done a lot more research than I have concerning the subject of today's financial crisis. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe now that maybe our government has planned all along to take this money from us and to give it to the financial institutions so that it allows the financial institutions to keep funneling money everywhere. And why not? Every time that money changes hands in the US, the government takes a piece. And when no one is buying and no one is selling, the government feels it necessary that they intervene to get things moving again so that they can go back to collecting. I'll end this with two more quotes.

For society as a whole, nothing comes as a 'right' to which we are 'entitled'. Even bare substance has to be produced.... The only way anyone can have a right to something that has to be produced is to force someone else to produce it... The more things are provided as rights, the less the recipients have to work and the more the providers have to carry the load. -Thomas Sowell (quoted in Forbes and Reader's Digest

A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it. -Neil Boortz

Read More

Bailout Bombed

Today's economic crisis is obvious and not so obvious at the same time. Everyone sees the gas prices fluctuate from day to day and think that they have a handle on what is going on with America's finances, but I'm willing to bet that the average voter probably can't explain the process of credit institutions and how their stability can affect the market. We've all seen news reports, debates, headlines in the newspapers, and probably online stories from all over the US but all the information is getting lost as it piles up on the heads of the people who don't fully understand it.

I know all this because I am one of the people that don't fully understand it. I read a lot and do a lot of research before I formulate most of my opinions, but the information out there is a bit much to take. There appears to be an agreement that the financial security in America is at stake, but the way to go about healing it is where all the confusion comes in.

The White House wants to bail out the financial institutions that are struggling with foreclosed properties and bad debt. Their hope is that by purchasing these bad debts from the banks it will allow them to become healthy again where they can continue to dole out loans to people who need them for businesses, personal property, and homes. It's the classic "trickle down" economic process that promotes helping out the biggest companies so that they can in turn create jobs,give loans, and stimulate spending.

But, what if, by relieving the banks of the results of their own mistakes, they only go out and make the same mistakes again? Or maybe they won't. But, what's stopping them from doing so? By bailing these companies out we're giving them the message that they can do whatever they want and even if their company fails they'll still collect.

I know that if the economy continues its nosedive that America as we know it could radically change. But, I fail to see what I should be fearing by this change. Let it fall. It's a machine that was built by the wealthy to become wealthier by feeding off of the majority. It's wrong and it deserves to tumble. My guess is that the majority will survive just fine, those that don't rely on the government (their neighbors) to support their lifestyle. For the others, it can only serve as a wake up call to a broken system.

While it may be a difficult road, one in which that us fat and lazy Americans aren't used to, I think that we'd be better off letting the bottom fall out and starting over with a much more aware society rather than this willfully ignorant one. Many will disagree with me and I welcome any comments for or against my position, but I would like to ask these people who are for a government bailout a two-part question: Can you explain to me what you expect that this bail out will save? And, if saving our current mode of operations is your answer, then what is it about the current mode of operations that is so worth saving?

Read More

Nice Choices, America

Maybe I'm just getting older and wiser, but it sure seems that presidential elections have been getting more and more ridiculous in this country with every passing four years. I was already extremely unhappy with the candidates that both the Republican and Democratic parties chose, but with the events that have taken place in the last 24 hours I'm disgusted.

Last night I watched 15 minutes or so of Barack Obama's acceptance speech officially becoming the Democratic Presidential Candidate Nominee. I have to give the guy credit on his speech. His speech seemed unread and unrehearsed. It was motivating, moving, and exciting. Not for me, but obviously for everyone there. I can easily see what all the democrats see in him. Now that I've given him kudos enough, let me point out that (of what I saw) it was the same old garbage eloquently spilled out before us again: change, fewer and lower taxes for lower and middle class, change, no more tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, change, removal of tax-supported programs that don't work, change, adding back tax-supported programs that supposedly will work, change, aiding start-up companies for small business, change, change, change...

We've heard it before. Once again the world is putting their hopes in a man who is promising to fix what has been broken by those who promised the same things. The only real change here is the name that follows the title "President". Obama openly admitted that his promises will cost a lot of money, but he promises that all the money that is needed will easily come from the programs that he will cut. Well, I don't know about you, but that makes me feel a lot better (sarcasm). I've got an idea: how about cutting the programs that don't work just like you said, but then don't start any new ones that are destined to fail. Want to cut taxes? There's your answer. If everyone had the huge amount of money that is taken from them by our government then I'm sure that we'd see a lot less poverty and an amazing amount of prosperity practically overnight.

John McCain's actions today really takes the cake, though. Did you hear? He chose his VP running mate. HER name is Sarah Palin. HER. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and looked up her record and what she stands for and all, but mostly my suspicions weren't squashed by what I found. I suspect what almost all of America is suspecting right now: McCain picked a woman as his VP since Obama didn't and now he thinks that all the women who were going to vote for Obama because of Clinton will now vote for him because of Palin. What a joke. All women should be offended right now. McCain's campaign clearly thought that this would be a good tactic. After all if Obama becomes President then he'll be the first minority to make it into office. How can McCain compete with that? He can be responsible for having the first woman as VP. That's how.

I'm usually worried when things like this happen because I'm afraid that there will be some morons out there who will fall into the obvious trap laid out in front of them, but this time I'm not. This time the trap is way too big and way too obvious and despite what previous experience teaches me I doubt that anyone is as stupid as McCain thinks they are. McCain's biggest point against Obama was his lack of experience and now he's gone off and picked a VP who has less experience than Obama. I guess we won't be hearing McCain pointing that out anymore.

Here are my predictions: McCain's campaign will fail miserably. It won't be very close. Obama with his eloquent speech by his side will be ushered into the White House. Bush will retire with his oil buddies and laugh at us for years to come. And, finally, Ron Paul will write another book pointing out all the ways America has gone wrong and 30 years from now people will read it and wonder why America was so blind, that is if Americans can still read after the "No Child Left Behind" act has done its full damage.

Read More