Sunday, May 31, 2009

Wisdom and Humility are in Short Supply on University Campuses

Humility is a spiritual principle that I admire when I see it in others. Humility is the acknowledgment of our imperfections and flaws. Humility also acknowledges that we are all relatively ignorant and powerless compared to our creator and to all of the unknown knowledge and power in the vast universe. The more man learns, the more he comes to realize how much he does not know.

However, today's pervasive popular culture values the exact opposite. They admire the unmitigated hubris and braggadocio of those who define their success by popularity, wealth and pleasures. Achieving popularity, wealth, thrills and self esteem are touted as the highest goals in today's popular culture. Seeking physical and mental supremacy is lauded, while spiritual growth is ignored and/or mocked. I beleive that we all need to achieve physical, mental and spiritual growth in order to fulfil our human potential and to ensure that our nation remains strong, prosperous and free.

Today's universities teach unproven theories, as if they were fact. These theories include the alleged dangers of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), spontaneous creation, evolution, the evils of American history and diversity and multiculturalism as a virtue. On today's college campuses, public discussion about religion is discouraged and mocked, yet discourse on sexuality is encouraged and taught in classes. Students who have faith in God are often discredited as gullible, brainwashed, child-like, primitive, bigoted and narrow-minded. Those who experiment with "alternative" sexual preference and behavior are touted as open-minded, enlightened, modern and cool.

It is clear to me that everything is upside-down on today's college campuses. "Up" has become the new "down". Strong social pressure is brought to bear on those who refuse to "go along with the program". Diversity of race, language, culture and sexual preference is encouraged, while diversity in the "arena of the above-mentioned ideas", is discouraged. Those who do not fall in line are socially ostracized by their peers on university campuses. University staff encourages labeling people who hold the above beliefs as narrow-minded, bigoted and intolerant by university staff.

Wisdom is humbling. Today's popular culture, as evidenced by the pervasive attitude on today's university campuses, proves that wisdom and humility are both in short supply.

Monday, May 25, 2009

America: The Band Keeps Playing as the Great Ship Sinks

Our government is telling us that our nation is in a financial crisis because of too much borrowing and spending. The solution that they are implementing is more borrowing and spending at the highest levels in history.

What is really amazing is that most people are not challenging this solution which clearly defies reason, commonsense and personal experience. It seems like our leaders are purposely trying to destroy the American economy.

It seems that America's population is suffering from a collective "mental disorder". Today's popular culture seems to be in denial about many "plain truths" that seem so obvious to me, but most people are oblivious to. I feel like I am the only sane person in an insane asylum. This is scary because I know that I am not "normal" myself.

Today's America is reminiscent of the Titanic as she sank. The band kept playing as the great ship went down.

This was the feeling that I got when I recently toured the country. I was suprised to find that many huge, massive casinos had sprung up everywhere, even in the middle of rural areas in Kansas, Iowa and Wyoming. The reckless abandon that these casinos represent, seem to be a metaphor for the behavior and attitude of today's government and culture.

These casinos were filled with "senior citizens" who were happily squandering their life's savings and their children's inheritances for a few moments of joy and thrills in their remaining years.

The Spiritual Root Cause of America's Economic Woes

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Why are liberals so vulgar and hateful?

Here is an exerpt from a liberal blog, the "dailykos", that made it to the top of the Kosmonauts’ recommended list:

F*** you Dick Cheney! F*** your pompous condecension. F*** your straw men! F*** your mischaracterizations! F*** your sniveling attempts to keep you and your buddies asses out of federal (somewhat offensive movie quote removed, happy now?) prison! F*** your presumption that we are a bunch of cowering idiots looking for daddy to protect us from the big bad terrorists. Just F*** YOU!...

Below the article is a poll asking if Cheney is an a-hole a f-ing a-hole, or pie. The "FA" option is winning as of Sunday morning, with more than 3,000 votes (and 94 percent of the total.)

Here is the link to the entire article (caution: the explitives are not cleaned up in the original version):

Can you imagine the reaction if a conservative blogger would launch this type of hateful emotional attack against Obama?

I have never seen this kind of unabashed hatred and vulgarity on any of the conservative websites that I frequent. The Daily Kos is one of the top liberal web-sites. Why do liberals get a pass for such bad behavior?

Why is it acceptable amongst liberals to display hate and intolerance against those who they disagree with? How can liberals also make accusations of intolerance and bigotry about anyone who disagrees with them.

The only answer that I can think of, is that liberalism is based on emotion, rather reason.

Have we lost all standards or is there a double standard? Why?

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Our Corrupt Amoral Government is What We Deserve Because Con-men Can Only Trick Greedy, Dishonest and Amoral People

Often the truth is not popular. Currently, 40% of American children are born out of wedlock as our society is going to "hell in a hand-basket". IMHO, the current breakdown of our society in the area of crime, drugs, violence, huge prison population, illiteracy, corruption, spiritual depravity, disrespect, vulgarity and inconsideration is all due to the breakdown of the intact family.

Also, spirituality is largely ignored in modern child rearing. For our society to prosper and strengthen, we must place value on physical, mental and spiritual growth (body, mind and soul). In today's popular culture, we concentrate on the first two, but largely ignore the importance of spiritual growth and teaching universal spiritual principles to our children.

If you have helped foster this situation by producing b*astard children or by participating in the break up your own marriage, you should feel ashamed of yourself, because you are part of the problem.

I am sorry if my words hit close to home, but this is the unabashed truth as I see it.

We should look at ourselves for solutions, rather than pointing fingers at others. Our corrupt amoral government is what we deserve because con-men are only capable of tricking greedy, dishonest and amoral people. The rhetoric of many liberals, feminists and gay activists toward family values and universal spiritual principles is despicable.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

This El Monte Police Officer Was Justified in Kicking This Suspect in Head as He Surrendered

Read the following article and watch the embedded video to understand a reasonable explanation from the police union about why this head-kick was justified.

The reason that the Police union gave to justify kicking this suspect was that it was a distraction technique that police officers are taught in police training classes. Often a violent and unpredictable suspect will feign surrender, while planning a surprise attack on the arresting officer. Police are taught that a swift jolt to the head will disorient a suspect, so that they can handcuff the suspect without putting themselves at risk.

However, I believe that the kick delivered to this suspects head was justified for an entirely different reason. The cop was completely justified for kicking the suspect in the head because the suspect was obviously a "WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH".

Click on the above link to view the suspect's photo. Obviously this "waste of human flesh" has tattooed himself in such a way as to make himself look like a violent, psychotic felon who is prone to act, unpredictably and irrationally, especially when cornered like a rat.

The suspect's "markings" warned the officer that this suspect was potentially dangerous. The officer was justified by nullifying this potential threat with a kick to the head.

The only reason for a gangster in today's America to tattoo himself in such a manner, is to warn people that he is capable of psychotic, unpredictable,violent and irrational behavior. In other words, he is advertising that he is dangerous.

Similarly, poisonous snakes advertise the danger they pose with bight distinctive markings and sounds. These prominent markings on venomous snakes warns predators that these snakes are potentially dangerous. As a result they are usually left alone.

Just like the poisonous snakes, Extreme markings on gangsters are usually not idle bluffs. In most cases these anti-social sociopaths will be dead or in prison before their 21st birthday as a result of their psychotic behavior. However, their warnings are real, if you mess with them, you are likely to suffer a fatal blow, just like with venomous snakes..

However, even in nature there are posers. There are "look-alike" snakes that are harmless. However, the casual observer can easily confuse them with their deadly their deadly counterparts. In most cases, harmless snakes are protected by their markings that imitate those of their venomous counterparts. However, there are times when their bluff could lead to their death.

I understand why the psychotic, criminal gang member would use extreme tattoos to warn his enemies that he is capable of unpredictable, deadly behavior. However, I do not understand why otherwise normal youngsters in today's popular culture would imitate these violent, psychopathic, gangsters with tattoos, mannerisms, dress, gestures language, music and attitude.

The popularity of "gangster look-a-likes" in today's popular culture is more proof of the statement: .

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their head. Our children lose the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, etc."

Rather than finding myself in the position of being a victim of police brutality, I personally avoid this scenario by taking the following precautions:

1) I don't run from the police unless I am certain that I will escape. If I am caught, I understand that I am at risk of being beaten.

2) I do not purposely alter my appearance to look like an unpredictable psychotic. This strategy may backfire on me.

3) I speak respectfully to the police. I call them "officer" and I say "yes sir" and "no sir". I keep my hands in full view of the police and make no sudden moves. I strictly follow police instructions whenever I have contact with them.

4) I do my best to keep my criminal record free of felony convictions.

This has been a winning formula for me in avoiding police brutality. I think that these ideas should be taught in schools, universities, the media and the "arts". Instead, they are teaching today's youths that police are brutal, racist and unfair. They are teaching our youth that police are their enemies rather than their strongest defense against psychotic criminals and the like.

Today's police are the most pacified police that this nation has ever seen. They are afraid to perform their job effectively, lest they get criminally charged, sued or fired for doing their job too well. There has undoubtedly been an increase in cases of police brutality brought against cops. It is ironic that this is happening in a time when America's police have become sissified and pacified and less actual brutality is actually being committed.

In many cases, today's police have lost the ability to protect themselves in the sissified environment that now defines most police forces. It stands to reason, that if the criminals fear the cops, rather than the other way around, there will be less crime and less people behind bars.

The commonsense way to reduce crime in America is to have tougher cops, stronger families, and independent citizens.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Another Example of Deranged Public Behavior by Liberal Activists

This is the latest, in a long line of examples of bad public behavior by liberal activists. I have posted about 8 examples of liberal activists who attempt to discredit, ridicule, insult, bully, intimidate and demonize their opposition publicly in an effort to discredit, silence and marginalize them.

I challenge anyone to provide equally bad behavior on the part of conservatives in recent history. So far, you have a lot of catching up to do.

This bad behavior is straight out of Saul Alinsky's book: "Rules for Radicals". The following article illustrates how Barack Obama also follows the 5 basic rules outlined in Alinsky's book:

Monday, May 4, 2009

Are Children Brought Up By Gay Parents, Worse Off Than Other Kids?

Homosexual couples with children make up a very small part of society. Most homosexual men, aren't interested in raising children. Of course there are exceptions. Often activists highlight these exceptions as if they were the rule.

However, many lesbian women do have a maternal instinct. Often they conceive these children through unnatural means. Sometimes their children are the result of conventional marriage or a heterosexual relationship before they switched teams, or perhaps they were switch hitters all along.

By the way, most people claim that homosexuals have no choice, but how do they excuse bi-sexual behavior? But i digress.

The majority of "lost children", who have no moral compass, are the result of single parents, products of divorce or products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual beliefs, or lack there-of.

I do not believe that children who are brought up by homosexual parents are worse off than children of single parents or products of divorce. However, most of them would fit into the third category of: "products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual life".

There are three legs to the stool of well being; They are mental, physical and spiritual well being. I feel that today's society largely ignores "spiritual" well being.

IMHO, drug addiction, crime, poverty and ignorance are the direct result of "spiritual poverty" that reside in our current society of unprecedented affluence and knowledge.

IMHO, spiritual poverty will undoubtedly lead to physical hardship and mental ignorance in this world and in the next.

Homosexual behavior will always be part of human society, But when you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, you turn reason and common sense on its head. The inevitable result will be less freedom, less prosperity and less safety for all.

Today's popular culture is tearing down the religious, spiritual and moral principles that have resulted in the unprecedented freedom, prosperity and safety that this nation has come to enjoy.

Unfortunately it is likely that those hit hardest by the consequences of this "spiritual vacuum", will be the homosexuals themselves. This is because only a society based on natural law (universal spiritual principles), understands 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".

Here is a recent article,from Oprah's website, that highlights how Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood stars, and today's popular culture, celebrate, embrace and encourage homosexual behavior. "Why Women Are Leaving Men For Other Women"

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Is hate and intolerance on the part of liberal activists justifiable?

Some people on the far left take the issue of homosexual marriage, and the liberal agenda, very personally. However, IMHO, the ends do not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Here are three recent examples of hate and intolerance from gay and liberal activists:

Both sides feel that they have the moral high-ground. Many people on the right feel just as passionately about this issue as those on the left do. However, I do not see them behaving baldy. There may be exceptions, but the bad behavior on the left, far outweighs the bad behavior on the right.

Homosexual activists and some on the left are convinced that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, is a God given right and thus guaranteed by our constitution. IMHO it is neither. IMHO gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is true that some activists and sympathizers on the left get their feelings hurt when others present a contrary opinion on this issue. That does not give them the right to publicly insult, blacklist, and harm the businesses and careers of others.

There are no laws on the books that restrict a persons right to life, liberty and property due to homosexual behavior. Only the laws of nature and God restrict the lives and liberties of homosexual behavior. Gods laws prevents children from resulting from homosexual unions. Gods laws makes those who practice homosexual behavior more susceptible to disease and early death. [Some think that universal health care is a right (which it is not) because it might help equalize the lifespans between the rich and the poor.] Natural law and/or Gods law, allows the innate characteristics of men and women to complement and restrain each other's positive and negative tendencies. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions does not change these universal laws of God and nature.

However, US laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not restrict homosexual freedom under the law. If those who practice homosexual behavior would like to have a legally recognized union, very few people are opposed to that. However, most people resent the redefinition of the institution of marriage to include homosexual behavior. People on the right feel that they have a legitimate argument, just as much as people on the left feel that their argument is moral, just and fair.

Why is it that one side gives themselves permission to behave badly and intentionally hurt the, feelings, jobs, careers and businesses of those that they have a politically different opinion from? Both sides feel they justifiably have the moral high ground.

This issue can not be compared to race, because race is an innate human characteristic. Homosexual behavior is just that, a behavior. Many people may have overwhelming compulsions and desires to practice this behavior, however, it is still a behavior. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with the values that most of us assign to the institution of marriage. Most of us consider marriage to be the ideal situation to raise our children. There are other situations where children are raised, such as foster care, orphanages, single parents, and blended families However, the intact family that is encouraged through traditional marriage, combines the feminine characteristics of the natural mother and the masculine characteristics of the natural father to provide the best environment for a growing family and society. This has proved to be the ideal way to raise children and to move our society in a positive direction. IMHO, anything that diminishes this institution will lead to the weakening and eventual collapse of our society. Single parents, divorce and marital infidelity should also be discouraged for the same reason.

In California, gay rights activists have gone so far as to demand that the state eliminate marriage altogether and replace it with civil unions for everyone if homosexual marriage does not become the law of the land. This is the clearest example of gay activists' desire to diminish the importance and sanctity of the institution of marriage as we know it.

It is a sign of a declining society when one groups demonizes and intimidates another group for their deep seated beliefs. No one has the right to, intimidate, and bully good people with different opinions into silence. Yet homosexual activists are doing just that with their hateful and intolerant attacks against anyone who publicly states opposing opinions.

I do not object to a civil discussion on this matter, however, I am offended by callous, illegal, immoral and unacceptable behavior by many gay activists and their sympathizers. People opposed to gay marriage feel just as strongly about this issue, yet they restrain their behavior to civil discourse. It seems to me that activists on the left feel that all restraints on human behavior are wrong. This is not true, self restraint and legal restraint is what keeps us free, prosperous and strong.

Lets have a discussion where both sides are equally restrained in their rhetoric. Their may be some exceptions but,the only "hate speech" that I hear in this discussion comes from the left. The ends does not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?