If one actually knew me in person, they would believe that I am a social person that is grounded in reality. Possibly too much so. The notion does not escape me that I find myself a stranger in a common land; among my own people, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
The counter balance to my ground in reality is the contemplation of certain philosophical aspects to life. Paulo Coelho, a Brazilian author, has had my attention since the day that I read his book, The Alchemist. Some call Coelho pretentious; I say that I really do not mind what personality he may have. The most important aspect to his relationship with humanity is what he writes. Nonetheless, I am getting a little off track here.
At times, I have this overwhelming urge to travel, to see more and experience those things in the world that have yet to be seen by my eyes... I have been all over the gorgeous countryside of Germany. North to Bremen, Halle and Leipzig and as far south as the Schwarzwald (The Black Forest). Rome was also beautiful, yet interestingly enough ironic for an ancient city to try to live up to contemporary times. It was amazing to walk through the streets of Rome, wondering how many great people walked these same little streets for thousands of years before me. The Vatican was also a sight to be seen. Prior to my trip in 2006, I contacted the Vatican Oficio Scavi office so that I may see what remains of the times of St. Peter. I was able to gain access to the underground crypt being led by a woman who had a strong Irish accent. There were about 8 of us, I presumed that most of us were Americans, and were basically told that we needed to remain quiet and allow the guide to show us around. We witnessed some of the earliest depictions of Christ where early Christians built their mausoleum around what was thought to be the burial site of St. Peter. We eventually got to the site, after laughing at how humorous the early Romans were for writing endearing jokes on tombstones about that person with whom laid beneath. What I saw was not all that grand in its totality, but knew that I was seeing firsthand one of the most important things I will ever see in my life. The actual tomb of St. Peter, encased by marble slabs installed by Emperor Constantine. The guide gave us the story and shortly after entered a very small golden chapel almost right outside of the tomb. I was still in a state of shock from what I have just seen.
How the philosophy of Paulo Coelho impacts me is my ability to set aside my Christian beliefs and know that many of his quotes are the moral stepping stones of being closer to my faith: being closer to being the person that I would like to be for all the right reasons. Consider a few of his quotes:
-Dreams are the language of God.
-At a certain point in our lives, we lose control of what's happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate. That's the world's greatest lie.
-When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.
-No one loses anyone, because no one owns anyone. That is the true experience of freedom: having the most important thing in the world without owning it.
-Love one another, but let's not try to possess one another.
-We all prepare ourselves to slay dragons, but end up instead being devoured by the ants of the details that we never bothered to look at.
-All religions lead to the same God, and all deserve the same respect. Anyone who chooses a religion is also choosing a collective way for worshipping and sharing the mysteries. Nevertheless, that person is the only one responsible for his or her actions along the way and has no right to shift responsibility for any personal decisions on to that religion.
-I learned the most important lesson of my life: that the extraordinary is not the birthright of a chosen and privileged few, but of all people, even the humblest. That is my one certainty: we are all the manifestation of the divinity of God.
-I don't regret the painful times; I bare my scars as if they were medals. I know that freedom has a high price, as high as that of slavery; the only difference is that you pay with pleasure and a smile, even when that smile is dimmed by tears.
-The secret is here in the present. If you pay attention to the present, you can improve upon it. And, if you improve on the present, what comes later will also be better.
-Everything has been written by the same hand.
-How is it possible for the beauty that was there only minutes before to vanish so quickly? Life moves very fast. It rushes from heaven to hell in a matter of seconds.
-Only the following items should be considered to be grave faults: not respecting another's rights: allowing oneself to be paralyzed by fear; feeling guilty; believing that one does not deserve the good or ill that happens in one's life; being a coward. We will love our enemies, but not make alliances with them. They were placed in our path in order to test our sword, and we should, out of respect for them, struggle against them. We will choose our enemies.
-We need to forget what we think we are, so that we can really become what we are.
-Face your path with courage, don't be scared of people's criticism. And, above all, don't let yourself get paralyzed by your own criticism.
The quotes are all from Mr. Coelho in his various books. The few short sentences that he produces, he communicates a powerful message that only the reader can process and apply to their life. These words do have a sliding scale of truth to them depending on the life that you have lived. In particular, I enjoy the quotes about people being under the impression that because they are in the same place everyday or live with the same person that those people tend to be comfortable with the idea that they are now owners of another. How quickly life corrects this notion of fallacy.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06:13 PM ET
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
Retrieved online from: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com
This is an interesting editorial; however, I would shy away from the use of the word "Nazi." These days, calling someone a Nazi is as hallow as the person using the term. But this does not elude the point that Mr. Sowell does have an interesting argument. I think we all can agree that:
-A Republic and/or democratic political system does rely on the intelligence of its citizens.
-Freedoms in this country are being dismantled piece by piece (namely, for the "good" of the public). Primary seat belt laws, DUI laws for, "physical control," of the vehicle, etc.
-Governments ought not "shakedown" private companies for funds preemptive to a tort claim being brought forth in court. Doing so is outside the chains of the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence, and you will see what the Founding Fathers were referring to when they were talking about a tyrant. They spoke of a Monarch dissolving Houses of Representatives and the Monarch installing Representatives at their discretion. Installing judges loyal to only the King, being paid by the King, and not having the true interest of the people in mind.
History is made every day. Even though all of us are only here for a short while, we can and should build on the concept of freedom and hard work; the concepts that built America to the place that it is today. Where we are losing our way, I do not know. One sentiment that lingers without question, is the notion that we truly are.
By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 06:13 PM ET
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
Retrieved online from: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com
This is an interesting editorial; however, I would shy away from the use of the word "Nazi." These days, calling someone a Nazi is as hallow as the person using the term. But this does not elude the point that Mr. Sowell does have an interesting argument. I think we all can agree that:
-A Republic and/or democratic political system does rely on the intelligence of its citizens.
-Freedoms in this country are being dismantled piece by piece (namely, for the "good" of the public). Primary seat belt laws, DUI laws for, "physical control," of the vehicle, etc.
-Governments ought not "shakedown" private companies for funds preemptive to a tort claim being brought forth in court. Doing so is outside the chains of the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence, and you will see what the Founding Fathers were referring to when they were talking about a tyrant. They spoke of a Monarch dissolving Houses of Representatives and the Monarch installing Representatives at their discretion. Installing judges loyal to only the King, being paid by the King, and not having the true interest of the people in mind.
History is made every day. Even though all of us are only here for a short while, we can and should build on the concept of freedom and hard work; the concepts that built America to the place that it is today. Where we are losing our way, I do not know. One sentiment that lingers without question, is the notion that we truly are.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Pres. Obama's Speech about BP
President Obama gave a speech that seems that everyone is up in arms about. All sides of the political spectrum are thrashing this speech for their own reasons. Now, I have watched this video and believe that ultimately it comes down to lack of substance. Not only does it lack substance, but Mr. Obama keeps going on and on about this conversation about nothing. Everyone else has their grievance as to why they didn't like it. Mine is because he lacked substance.
Interesting to note that there are only 5,142 views on this video.
Interesting to note that there are only 5,142 views on this video.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Lessons of the Misery index
Unemployment plus interest rates are typically dubbed the "Misery Index." I believe that this was concocted with the best of intentions, however, has become abused over the years to give the prima facie appearance that the economy is not as bad as it really is.
The unemployment calculation is formulated based on the desire of the individual to continue looking for work. If the person loses their job and is not actively seeking work they are not considered unemployed. This also excludes people that quit their jobs also.
Inflation takes a basket of goods from the economy and measures its price over a given period of time. BUT, the inflation calculation leaves out the prices of food and energy which, I argue, should be included in the calculation since it is a snapshot of the consumer realities in the marketplace. At the present time, food and energy are considered too volatile of commodities to include in the index.
So what happens when you hire a couple hundred thousand temporary census workers? What happens when you exclude the prices of food and energy? A distorted misery index that does not accurately reflect the true realities of the consumer. It's a simple accounting trick which emboldens those to seek to spend more money on temporary programs that have no economic return but reflect good on their politicking.
The census workers are taken off the "unemployment" roles and are returned to the "employed" roles reflecting a greater strength in the employment rate (which also does not make the distinction between government and private sector jobs) than is actual reality.
In the case of the interest rates, if they are held artificially low, this again gives an appearance that inflation has not been settling in the economy and further paralyzes the private sector from making any form of investment because they are too scared that if they throw their money in Treasury bills, they will surely not make any return on their investment.
The misery index would work properly if the proper data were used to make the calculation. The current calculation is simply Draconian in its present form. Mainly because this index is consulted by Nation leaders to help determine the health of the state.
Image Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279701661353763.html
The unemployment calculation is formulated based on the desire of the individual to continue looking for work. If the person loses their job and is not actively seeking work they are not considered unemployed. This also excludes people that quit their jobs also.
Inflation takes a basket of goods from the economy and measures its price over a given period of time. BUT, the inflation calculation leaves out the prices of food and energy which, I argue, should be included in the calculation since it is a snapshot of the consumer realities in the marketplace. At the present time, food and energy are considered too volatile of commodities to include in the index.
So what happens when you hire a couple hundred thousand temporary census workers? What happens when you exclude the prices of food and energy? A distorted misery index that does not accurately reflect the true realities of the consumer. It's a simple accounting trick which emboldens those to seek to spend more money on temporary programs that have no economic return but reflect good on their politicking.
The census workers are taken off the "unemployment" roles and are returned to the "employed" roles reflecting a greater strength in the employment rate (which also does not make the distinction between government and private sector jobs) than is actual reality.
In the case of the interest rates, if they are held artificially low, this again gives an appearance that inflation has not been settling in the economy and further paralyzes the private sector from making any form of investment because they are too scared that if they throw their money in Treasury bills, they will surely not make any return on their investment.
The misery index would work properly if the proper data were used to make the calculation. The current calculation is simply Draconian in its present form. Mainly because this index is consulted by Nation leaders to help determine the health of the state.
Image Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279701661353763.html
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Political Spectrum: Libertarian
Milling around the net, trying to find a page that can identify where I am on the political spectrum, I found this. I have long known that I am not big on the Red team, and certainly pretty far from the left, I'm more orange.
| Where are you on the political spectrum Your Result: Libertarian You believe in individual liberty and capitalism. You are fiscally conservative, socially liberal and likely to be a foreign policy isolationist. You just want to be left alone. | |
| Conservative | |
| Wingnut | |
| Moderate | |
| Liberal | |
| Lefty | |
| Where are you on the political spectrum Quiz Created on GoToQuiz | |
NJ Governor Chris Christie: I'm such a fan
Since Gov. Chris Christie got elected, I have been following his speeches where he communicates his believes and does not capitulate to the special interests, unions, and organizations that seek to continue to be subsidized by the taxpayer. He is a "breath of fresh air," in an era of out of control federal spending. No matter what side you are on, one has to admit that something needs to be done about the spending. Enjoy some of Gov. Christie in some of my favorite moments...
One of my favorites:
One of my favorites:
Friday, June 11, 2010
Lighten it up- Kardinall Offishall; Dangerous
Ok all, let's lighten it up for a bit. I love the song "Dangerous" by Kardinall Offishall and I found a video on youtube that a guy and his buddy does an awesome rendition of it on the piano and drums.. I must say it is EXCELLENT!
Here's the official song:
And here is the Piano version of it by the youtube user "bangabullet90."
Here's the official song:
And here is the Piano version of it by the youtube user "bangabullet90."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Portugual Decriminalizes All Drugs in 2001
What if we had no failed drug war? What if we decriminalized drugs in all forms? What could possibly happen? If you are interested in knowing, set aside about 80 minutes for the report of Portugual's drug decriminalization analysis.
If the United States were serious about drug use and eradicating drug cartels, it may be wise to seriously look at a real world example of decriminalization.
"In 2001, Portugal began a remarkable policy experiment, decriminalizing all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Some predicted disastrous results — that drug addiction rates would soar and the country would become a haven for "drug tourists." Now that several years have passed, policy experts can study the results. In a new paper for the Cato Institute, attorney and author Glenn Greenwald closely examines the Portugal experiment and concludes that the doomsayers were wrong. There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. Join us for a discussion about Glenn Greenwald's field research in Portugal and what lessons his findings may hold for drug policies in other countries (Cato Institute, 2010)."
Reference: The Cato Institute. Policy Forum. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887
If the United States were serious about drug use and eradicating drug cartels, it may be wise to seriously look at a real world example of decriminalization.
"In 2001, Portugal began a remarkable policy experiment, decriminalizing all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Some predicted disastrous results — that drug addiction rates would soar and the country would become a haven for "drug tourists." Now that several years have passed, policy experts can study the results. In a new paper for the Cato Institute, attorney and author Glenn Greenwald closely examines the Portugal experiment and concludes that the doomsayers were wrong. There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. Join us for a discussion about Glenn Greenwald's field research in Portugal and what lessons his findings may hold for drug policies in other countries (Cato Institute, 2010)."
Reference: The Cato Institute. Policy Forum. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887
The Tea Party and the Drug War | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Tea Party and the Drug War | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Tea Party and the Drug War
by Jeffrey A. Miron
Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z, from Basic Books.
Added to cato.org on June 7, 2010
This article appeared on National Review Online on June 7, 2010.
Voter dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is at historic levels, and the tea-party movement is hoping to play kingmaker in the November elections. The country's current breed of discontent is ideal for the tea parties, because economic concerns are foremost, allowing the movement to sidestep the divisions between its libertarian and conservative wings.
As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?
If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.
Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs. This does not rule out programs with large expenditures, or ones whose benefits are difficult to quantify; national defense is guilty on both counts, yet few believe that substantial military expenditure is necessarily irresponsible.
Any significant expenditure, however, should come with a credible claim that it produces a benefit large enough to outweigh both the expenditure itself and any ancillary costs. From this perspective, drug prohibition is not remotely consistent with fiscal responsibility. This policy costs the public purse around $70 billion per year, according to my estimates, yet no evidence suggests that prohibition reduces drug use to a significant degree.
And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction. Prohibition generates violence and corruption by pushing drug markets underground and inflating prices. Prohibition inhibits quality control, so users suffer accidental poisoning and overdoses. Prohibition destroys civil liberties, inhibits legitimate medical uses of targeted drugs, and wreaks havoc in drug-producing countries.
Drug prohibition, at least when imposed at the federal level, is also hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the Tenth Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.
Finally, drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.
The Tea Party and the Drug War
by Jeffrey A. Miron
Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z, from Basic Books.
Added to cato.org on June 7, 2010
This article appeared on National Review Online on June 7, 2010.
Voter dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is at historic levels, and the tea-party movement is hoping to play kingmaker in the November elections. The country's current breed of discontent is ideal for the tea parties, because economic concerns are foremost, allowing the movement to sidestep the divisions between its libertarian and conservative wings.
As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?
If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.
Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs. This does not rule out programs with large expenditures, or ones whose benefits are difficult to quantify; national defense is guilty on both counts, yet few believe that substantial military expenditure is necessarily irresponsible.
Any significant expenditure, however, should come with a credible claim that it produces a benefit large enough to outweigh both the expenditure itself and any ancillary costs. From this perspective, drug prohibition is not remotely consistent with fiscal responsibility. This policy costs the public purse around $70 billion per year, according to my estimates, yet no evidence suggests that prohibition reduces drug use to a significant degree.
And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction. Prohibition generates violence and corruption by pushing drug markets underground and inflating prices. Prohibition inhibits quality control, so users suffer accidental poisoning and overdoses. Prohibition destroys civil liberties, inhibits legitimate medical uses of targeted drugs, and wreaks havoc in drug-producing countries.
Drug prohibition, at least when imposed at the federal level, is also hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the Tenth Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.
Finally, drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.
Racism: Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
When you can't win an argument or would like to fabricate an issue, choose racism! It always works! Especially when a United State President uses some choice language on live television. Not that I'm too worried about what Mr. Obama said, as the Bushies also were culpable in using choice language.
Of course, The Drudge Report, a popular news website which has conservative leanings has a provocative headline about Mr. Obama's language, the race baiters go apoplectic. Like any good liberal Democrat, Mark Halperin chimes in that there were racist implications in Matt Drudge's headline.
RealClearPolitics - Video - O'Reilly Interviews Halperin About "Drudge Report" Headline On Obama's "Ass To Kick" Comment
When there is a State that passes a law telling their local law enforcement to enforce a federal law, groups like the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) challenge the law that specifically bars racial profiling. What's the NAACP's response? Joining the legal fight against the Arizona state law. Read the press release.
Find the Arizona State law here.
When the NAACP feels that the risk calculation of banks for a person seeking a mortgage is too high, what is their response? To sue banks claiming racial discrimination. Read the press release.
The NAACP even has a Justice page that includes a "Police Misconduct Rapid Response Reporting System." See here.
This is the most outlandish, foolish load of crap I've seen in a long time. Perhaps, I have willfully stayed away from these sites and articles for fear of becoming agitated by the sheer idiocy of what I'm reading. So long as there are racist organizations in this country, they will successfully keep this country divided and create such a divide among people who have different colors of skin, they will be unable to unite against tyranny.
Of course, The Drudge Report, a popular news website which has conservative leanings has a provocative headline about Mr. Obama's language, the race baiters go apoplectic. Like any good liberal Democrat, Mark Halperin chimes in that there were racist implications in Matt Drudge's headline.
RealClearPolitics - Video - O'Reilly Interviews Halperin About "Drudge Report" Headline On Obama's "Ass To Kick" Comment
When there is a State that passes a law telling their local law enforcement to enforce a federal law, groups like the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) challenge the law that specifically bars racial profiling. What's the NAACP's response? Joining the legal fight against the Arizona state law. Read the press release.
Find the Arizona State law here.
When the NAACP feels that the risk calculation of banks for a person seeking a mortgage is too high, what is their response? To sue banks claiming racial discrimination. Read the press release.
The NAACP even has a Justice page that includes a "Police Misconduct Rapid Response Reporting System." See here.
This is the most outlandish, foolish load of crap I've seen in a long time. Perhaps, I have willfully stayed away from these sites and articles for fear of becoming agitated by the sheer idiocy of what I'm reading. So long as there are racist organizations in this country, they will successfully keep this country divided and create such a divide among people who have different colors of skin, they will be unable to unite against tyranny.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
The Value of Freedom to the Oppressed
Coincidentally, Netflix just happened to deliver "V for Vendetta" to me yesterday. Being as I was busy, I was unable to watch it until tonight and I am intrigued at the message that it gave about oppressive government and tyrants.
The story is based on a real person, by the name of Guy Fawkes, who in the early 1600's conspired to blow up the House of Parliament along with the King in Great Britain. This was known as the Gunpowder Plot. This movie took me by surprise by taking place in a time after the United States had a Civil war and Great Britain was ruled under an oppressive Hitleresque government. Oddly enough, some of the things said by the "government" in that movie seemed so close to home..
The second coincidence I had today was finding a pocket Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Amendments to the Constitution. I picked it up and decided to read the Declaration of Independence in its entirety and was refreshed at the spirit of freedom in those words. In particular:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."--United States Declaration of Independence
Tell me, how can a country based on these principles seriously expect to looks its citizens in the eyes and convince fellow Americans that they should voluntarily surrender their labor for others? What does my healthcare have to do with another human in Texas? Hawaii? Maryland? Absolutely nothing.
Is this what life really is about? Is this really freedom? Hefty taxation/economic servitude at the expense of people's labor who will most likely never even meet. Let's step back from political parties and affiliations and challenge the premise at its core.
The story is based on a real person, by the name of Guy Fawkes, who in the early 1600's conspired to blow up the House of Parliament along with the King in Great Britain. This was known as the Gunpowder Plot. This movie took me by surprise by taking place in a time after the United States had a Civil war and Great Britain was ruled under an oppressive Hitleresque government. Oddly enough, some of the things said by the "government" in that movie seemed so close to home..
The second coincidence I had today was finding a pocket Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Amendments to the Constitution. I picked it up and decided to read the Declaration of Independence in its entirety and was refreshed at the spirit of freedom in those words. In particular:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."--United States Declaration of Independence
Tell me, how can a country based on these principles seriously expect to looks its citizens in the eyes and convince fellow Americans that they should voluntarily surrender their labor for others? What does my healthcare have to do with another human in Texas? Hawaii? Maryland? Absolutely nothing.
Is this what life really is about? Is this really freedom? Hefty taxation/economic servitude at the expense of people's labor who will most likely never even meet. Let's step back from political parties and affiliations and challenge the premise at its core.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
United States Debt
Clicking on to Drudge today, I see that the United States is topping about 95% of GDP in debt. 95%! The irresponsible behavior of our elected officials is literally spending any savings we may have, taking out loans, and maxing out every credit card. At what point is anyone going to get serious about America's checkbook and realize that no matter how many welfare recipients we have, how much of a safety cushion some people need to sit at home and collect their benefits? When are the American public going to wake up?
I found this except on CNN of all places.
Cafferty rightly states the condition of our debt levels and uses a stern tone to describe our current situation. Rightly so, and I applaud someone on CNN, of all places, putting our debt situation in important terms.
How did we get to this point? May I venture to say entitlements, transfer payments, fighting two wars, we are in the middle of a recession, a harsh regulatory business environment, and we are on the precipice of sky rocketing taxes, et al.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is only so much that a government can squeeze out of the economy, no matter how they rationalize taking your money. At some point, our government will run out of other people's money to spend. But the more important indicator in this whole mess is the government's brazen attacks on the people of this country vis a vis economic freedom. Does the government really have the power to function like an oligarchy to take control in the name of doing what is right or what they feel is, "good," for the American people? Or should the people decide how they are going to resolve their own situation and allow this hardship to pass?
This country is on the brink of answering this question. We will either walk down the road of completely blatant socialism; which will destroy hundreds of years of work and run afoul of our founding principles or some bold person will stand up and dismantle the alter of government that it has set for itself...
I found this except on CNN of all places.
Cafferty rightly states the condition of our debt levels and uses a stern tone to describe our current situation. Rightly so, and I applaud someone on CNN, of all places, putting our debt situation in important terms.
How did we get to this point? May I venture to say entitlements, transfer payments, fighting two wars, we are in the middle of a recession, a harsh regulatory business environment, and we are on the precipice of sky rocketing taxes, et al.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is only so much that a government can squeeze out of the economy, no matter how they rationalize taking your money. At some point, our government will run out of other people's money to spend. But the more important indicator in this whole mess is the government's brazen attacks on the people of this country vis a vis economic freedom. Does the government really have the power to function like an oligarchy to take control in the name of doing what is right or what they feel is, "good," for the American people? Or should the people decide how they are going to resolve their own situation and allow this hardship to pass?
This country is on the brink of answering this question. We will either walk down the road of completely blatant socialism; which will destroy hundreds of years of work and run afoul of our founding principles or some bold person will stand up and dismantle the alter of government that it has set for itself...
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Israel
Call me an apologist. Call me skeptical. But do not call me a Republican Party reptile.
The recent events with Israel has been making a lot of headlines lately when they raided a Turkish flotilla and a couple of activists ended up getting killed. Essentially, these activists have been blocked from Gaza since Israel shut down the border to prevent any terrorists being able to funnel any type of contraband into the country. Duly noted. I understand the reasoning why they have done this and the logic behind the raid. What may be an impossible feat for me is to prove a negative; that is, if Israel would not be so heavy handed with its neighbors, would there be a need for all of this military action? Interesting question, but impossible to ever know for sure.
Riding to work, I'm quietly spatting the local talk show host cheering all things Israel. He is in full swing into his circular reasoning and logic as to answering the question "Why does the United States support Israel?" "Well," he goes on to say, "The United States is a friend and ally with Israel and always has been. Friends stick up for each other. The neighbors of Israel want its destruction and has the same intentions for the United States." I'm very ambivalent to someone's decision to support something controversial with little or no thought behind what drove them to make the decision. Then when questioned about the contention, they shift the premise in a circular fashion that leaves one begging the question as they respond to each premise they are questioned about.
Look guys, let's be honest here.
(a)The Jews have had a very difficult history throughout the period of the world- lest people forget how Christians were also persecuted for their faith for hundreds of years.
(b)The state of Israel is not a democracy, they are a socialist and racist country. Again, let's be honest here! Just because a country has democratic elections, does not make the government as it functions from day to day, democratic. 93% of the land in Israel is owned by the government, has a healthful and generous welfare state among other things.
(c) The state of Israel has taken it upon themselves to create enemies they never would have otherwise have due to their reckless retribution. A good example is Lebanon. Israel leveled that country by destroying property and killing innocents. But they did get a few of the terrorists that were firing RPG's at them...
What all of these examples are boiling down to is the ability to ask yourself had this been another country doing this, would we have tolerated it? Probably not. Every day that I read another story about more shenanigans pulled by Israel, the more I am of the mind to let them stick up for themselves and sleep in the bed that they are making.
Now to be objective, I do need to admit that Israel has had it tough from the start. They have had to deal with murder of their people and fanatical Muslims who would do anything to inflict pain and horror onto the Israeli people. At times, they have tried to be humane by allowing the free flow of people into and out of Israel only for some coffee shop to go up in flames somewhere in Tel Aviv. Unsuspecting regular people being murdered simply because they were in the midst of a regional issue larger than themselves.
I am very skeptical of the actions of Israel and I am of the belief that every day they continue with these heavy handed, reckless responses to true threats, they are making more enemies in the region. They believe this will deter the enemy. My belief is that it emboldens the enemy into more extreme fanaticism; that is, the radicals are validated by what they have told their young, impressionable people looking to join a movement based on scripture. In the mind of a terrorist, they think of themselves as pious because of the fact that they are doing God's will.
From all of the experiences from the past, I can say with confidence that ultimately killing begets more killing and it doesn't stop until someone is eradicated. Let us just be honest and admit this simple fact to ourselves. It will be at this point that we can answer "Why do we support Israel?" with reason and logic.
The recent events with Israel has been making a lot of headlines lately when they raided a Turkish flotilla and a couple of activists ended up getting killed. Essentially, these activists have been blocked from Gaza since Israel shut down the border to prevent any terrorists being able to funnel any type of contraband into the country. Duly noted. I understand the reasoning why they have done this and the logic behind the raid. What may be an impossible feat for me is to prove a negative; that is, if Israel would not be so heavy handed with its neighbors, would there be a need for all of this military action? Interesting question, but impossible to ever know for sure.
Riding to work, I'm quietly spatting the local talk show host cheering all things Israel. He is in full swing into his circular reasoning and logic as to answering the question "Why does the United States support Israel?" "Well," he goes on to say, "The United States is a friend and ally with Israel and always has been. Friends stick up for each other. The neighbors of Israel want its destruction and has the same intentions for the United States." I'm very ambivalent to someone's decision to support something controversial with little or no thought behind what drove them to make the decision. Then when questioned about the contention, they shift the premise in a circular fashion that leaves one begging the question as they respond to each premise they are questioned about.
Look guys, let's be honest here.
(a)The Jews have had a very difficult history throughout the period of the world- lest people forget how Christians were also persecuted for their faith for hundreds of years.
(b)The state of Israel is not a democracy, they are a socialist and racist country. Again, let's be honest here! Just because a country has democratic elections, does not make the government as it functions from day to day, democratic. 93% of the land in Israel is owned by the government, has a healthful and generous welfare state among other things.
(c) The state of Israel has taken it upon themselves to create enemies they never would have otherwise have due to their reckless retribution. A good example is Lebanon. Israel leveled that country by destroying property and killing innocents. But they did get a few of the terrorists that were firing RPG's at them...
What all of these examples are boiling down to is the ability to ask yourself had this been another country doing this, would we have tolerated it? Probably not. Every day that I read another story about more shenanigans pulled by Israel, the more I am of the mind to let them stick up for themselves and sleep in the bed that they are making.
Now to be objective, I do need to admit that Israel has had it tough from the start. They have had to deal with murder of their people and fanatical Muslims who would do anything to inflict pain and horror onto the Israeli people. At times, they have tried to be humane by allowing the free flow of people into and out of Israel only for some coffee shop to go up in flames somewhere in Tel Aviv. Unsuspecting regular people being murdered simply because they were in the midst of a regional issue larger than themselves.
I am very skeptical of the actions of Israel and I am of the belief that every day they continue with these heavy handed, reckless responses to true threats, they are making more enemies in the region. They believe this will deter the enemy. My belief is that it emboldens the enemy into more extreme fanaticism; that is, the radicals are validated by what they have told their young, impressionable people looking to join a movement based on scripture. In the mind of a terrorist, they think of themselves as pious because of the fact that they are doing God's will.
From all of the experiences from the past, I can say with confidence that ultimately killing begets more killing and it doesn't stop until someone is eradicated. Let us just be honest and admit this simple fact to ourselves. It will be at this point that we can answer "Why do we support Israel?" with reason and logic.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Been a long time!!
Through the many changes that I have been through in the last few years, I have not been posting here. Rummaging through all of my excerpts on the web, I ran across my account here and was recanting what I was doing at that time and some of the views that I had at that time.
I'd like to assume that I was correct in my thinking in my previous posts; however, I do conclude at this point that I was still a bit misguided. These days, I tend to align myself as more of a conservative Libertarian- not that I had some revelation due to someone convincing me to have some different views. Rather, it was the result of a learning process that ultimately brought me closer to understanding myself and the world around me and how I interpret it.
Much has changed these past couple of years. I have gotten married, I have had changes in jobs, and a few other social things that I prefer not to mention. A good friend of mine that lived in Stillwater died in a car accident shortly after returning home. He was 24 years old. Of course, this hit me like a train wreck and I still think that I'm a bit pissed at God right now for that one. But what remains are old pictures of him and him on my "friends" list on facebook. This is the only thing that I have of him; that he added me at a point when he was alive and we were still friends and I was able to communicate with him. Reflecting on this and having reverence for what little I still have, I thought about my own situation. Perhaps, it may be a good move to write things down at some point in the case that something happened with me. This would leave a small trail of who I am and who I was for people sometime down the line to get to know me, should they choose.
To this day, I miss my friend Rankie and think of him quite often. I even post things on his profile explaining my feelings.. how ironic. But nonetheless, I feel as somehow he gets the message and is able to understand my gratitude and his impact on my life.
In the coming months, I am going to get serious about this again and put my thoughts down. In the case that something unfortunate happens to me.. My sons will be able to get to know who I was.
I'd like to assume that I was correct in my thinking in my previous posts; however, I do conclude at this point that I was still a bit misguided. These days, I tend to align myself as more of a conservative Libertarian- not that I had some revelation due to someone convincing me to have some different views. Rather, it was the result of a learning process that ultimately brought me closer to understanding myself and the world around me and how I interpret it.
Much has changed these past couple of years. I have gotten married, I have had changes in jobs, and a few other social things that I prefer not to mention. A good friend of mine that lived in Stillwater died in a car accident shortly after returning home. He was 24 years old. Of course, this hit me like a train wreck and I still think that I'm a bit pissed at God right now for that one. But what remains are old pictures of him and him on my "friends" list on facebook. This is the only thing that I have of him; that he added me at a point when he was alive and we were still friends and I was able to communicate with him. Reflecting on this and having reverence for what little I still have, I thought about my own situation. Perhaps, it may be a good move to write things down at some point in the case that something happened with me. This would leave a small trail of who I am and who I was for people sometime down the line to get to know me, should they choose.
To this day, I miss my friend Rankie and think of him quite often. I even post things on his profile explaining my feelings.. how ironic. But nonetheless, I feel as somehow he gets the message and is able to understand my gratitude and his impact on my life.
In the coming months, I am going to get serious about this again and put my thoughts down. In the case that something unfortunate happens to me.. My sons will be able to get to know who I was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)