As I have written repeatedly, "when you accept and celebrate something that is abnormal and unhealthy, as if it were normal and positive, you turn reason and common sense on its head". An excellent example of this is a recent lawsuit and settlement by eHarmony.com . eHarmony, is an on-line Christian owned dating service, that was bullied into providing services for homosexual singles.
Michelle Malkin wrote in a recent article: "The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users".
E-Harmony obviously caved in due to the intimidation and bullying tactics that the gay activists have been using to influence businesses nationwide. As I have written in my previous article,"My Views on Homosexuality", this same tactic was used on the psychiatric profession, 40 years ago, in order to force them to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
The following is a comment on Malkin's article from a Prop. 8 supporter and an excellent rebuttal from a clear thinker.
eaglehaslanded said:
'This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.'
No, actually it’s like a lunch counter in Mississippi refusing to serve a Black person.
On November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am, NJ-Aviator said:
NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.
This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demanded a service the business DID NOT OFFER.
Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.
And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.
Here is the link to Malkin's entire article and comments page. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Why Tariffs and Regulations Should be Imposed on Foreign Imports
It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies, without tariffs and regulations on imports to level the playing field. Without tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. Our nation must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our safe and comfortable style of living in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
Without imposing tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, American manufacturers can not compete with foreign imports. This will result in a decrease of the US manufacturing base, and an increase on dependence on foreign goods.
I will list some of the major expenses and regulations that our government places on American business. These expenses and regulations grossly increase our cost of doing business as compared to foreign companies from China, Mexico and many other major trading partners.
1) The US places regulations on child labor in the work force.
2) The US places regulations on minimum hourly wages and overtime.
3) The US requires that companies pay for and provide, Workman's Compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Workers and companies also share the cost of Social Security and Medicare for all US workers.
4) US companies are strictly regulated to prevent them from dumping waste in waterways, in the air and in unregulated landfills. As a result, eco-friendly waste disposal has become a major expense for US businesses.
5) US companies must comply with strict OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, which protect workers from unsafe working conditions in factories, mines, and other businesses.
6) Us companies face product safety regulations which, among other things, prevent them from using lead based paint in children's toys or producing tires that are likely to blow out and cause crashes.
7) US food companies are strictly regulated for food safety.
8) US drug companies are required to have costly testing and trials. They must get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval before being allowed to put new medications on the market.
9) Factories, commercial buildings, homes, bridges and highways face stringent building code regulations. These regulations are intended to reduce collapses, fires, accidents and hazardous conditions. Also these regulations help buildings, bridges and roads stand up to hurricanes earthquakes and other natural disasters. US structures are among the safest in the world.
10) US auto manufactures face strict safety and environmental regulations to make sure that vehicles on American highways are as safe and pollution-free as possible. The US boasts safer and cleaner vehicles than most of the rest of the world.
These are just some of the US regulations that I can think of off the top of my head. Although many of these regulations go too far, and some may not be effective enough, for the most part these costly regulations on US business and infrastructure, help America to produce the safest products, under the safest, cleanest and most humane conditions. This is done in a manner that keeps American waterways, air and land, cleaner and healthier than most other nations of the world.
There are only two options that can level the playing field when competing with foreign businesses. The first would be to remove the regulations that I listed above, thus bringing down the cost of doing business in the US. The second option would be to place tariffs on foreign imports.
It would be a step back into the dark ages, to reduce or eliminate many of the regulations that have protected American workers and consumers in our modern era.
We can not control the way foreign countries choose to regulate their businesses. It is clear to me, that there is only one way to level the playing field, when competing with foreign businesses. It is to place tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, so that US industries can compete with them, while still maintaining our high American standards.
Without imposing tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, American manufacturers can not compete with foreign imports. This will result in a decrease of the US manufacturing base, and an increase on dependence on foreign goods.
I will list some of the major expenses and regulations that our government places on American business. These expenses and regulations grossly increase our cost of doing business as compared to foreign companies from China, Mexico and many other major trading partners.
1) The US places regulations on child labor in the work force.
2) The US places regulations on minimum hourly wages and overtime.
3) The US requires that companies pay for and provide, Workman's Compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Workers and companies also share the cost of Social Security and Medicare for all US workers.
4) US companies are strictly regulated to prevent them from dumping waste in waterways, in the air and in unregulated landfills. As a result, eco-friendly waste disposal has become a major expense for US businesses.
5) US companies must comply with strict OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, which protect workers from unsafe working conditions in factories, mines, and other businesses.
6) Us companies face product safety regulations which, among other things, prevent them from using lead based paint in children's toys or producing tires that are likely to blow out and cause crashes.
7) US food companies are strictly regulated for food safety.
8) US drug companies are required to have costly testing and trials. They must get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval before being allowed to put new medications on the market.
9) Factories, commercial buildings, homes, bridges and highways face stringent building code regulations. These regulations are intended to reduce collapses, fires, accidents and hazardous conditions. Also these regulations help buildings, bridges and roads stand up to hurricanes earthquakes and other natural disasters. US structures are among the safest in the world.
10) US auto manufactures face strict safety and environmental regulations to make sure that vehicles on American highways are as safe and pollution-free as possible. The US boasts safer and cleaner vehicles than most of the rest of the world.
These are just some of the US regulations that I can think of off the top of my head. Although many of these regulations go too far, and some may not be effective enough, for the most part these costly regulations on US business and infrastructure, help America to produce the safest products, under the safest, cleanest and most humane conditions. This is done in a manner that keeps American waterways, air and land, cleaner and healthier than most other nations of the world.
There are only two options that can level the playing field when competing with foreign businesses. The first would be to remove the regulations that I listed above, thus bringing down the cost of doing business in the US. The second option would be to place tariffs on foreign imports.
It would be a step back into the dark ages, to reduce or eliminate many of the regulations that have protected American workers and consumers in our modern era.
We can not control the way foreign countries choose to regulate their businesses. It is clear to me, that there is only one way to level the playing field, when competing with foreign businesses. It is to place tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, so that US industries can compete with them, while still maintaining our high American standards.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Racism, Reverse-racism and Race-Baiting
Carleton University student councillors voted almost unanimously in favour of a resolution that stated: Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men."
The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough. Click on above text, to read more.
This is another example of "political correctness" (censorship and bullying) run-a muck on university campuses. This problem is worse in Canada than the US. This is a clear case of reverse discrimination which is widespread in today's popular culture.
First of all, reverse discrimination is a misnomer, because discrimination is not defined as bias or bigotry targeted against under-privileged minorities. There is no such thing as forward or revers discrimination. Discrimination is simply discrimination.
Secondly, most discrimination is not harmful, to the contrary, discrimination is a helpful survival tool. We all discriminate in the friends we choose, the spouse we choose, where we choose to live, what neighborhoods we choose to "hang out in", what school we choose, what career we choose, who we choose to hire, who we choose to to lend money to, who we choose to live with and who we choose to rent to. Illegal discrimination is another story and should not be tolerated, but discrimination is not a dirty word. Most typical discrimination is a good, necessary and and important survival tool.
One more thing on this topic. Liberals are constantly using the words bigot, racist, homophobes, and chauvinist indiscriminately. One needs to use discrimination, when launching these vitriolic attacks. I believe that a false accusation of racism is equally harmful as an act of racism. Falsely accusing people of racism has become casual and popular. However, the consequences are just as damaging as racist words and actions. The casual accusation of racism, when not warranted, stifles(censors) public and private conversations, for fear of being called a racist. Being labeled a racist is one of the worst stereotypes in today's popular culture. This label can affect ones career and lifestyle. This accusation can even affect where one is welcome and allowed to work and live. To casually accuse a well meaning person of racism has far-reaching affects that is tantamount to true racism.
It is time that "race-baiters" be held to the same standard as true racists.
The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough. Click on above text, to read more.
This is another example of "political correctness" (censorship and bullying) run-a muck on university campuses. This problem is worse in Canada than the US. This is a clear case of reverse discrimination which is widespread in today's popular culture.
First of all, reverse discrimination is a misnomer, because discrimination is not defined as bias or bigotry targeted against under-privileged minorities. There is no such thing as forward or revers discrimination. Discrimination is simply discrimination.
Secondly, most discrimination is not harmful, to the contrary, discrimination is a helpful survival tool. We all discriminate in the friends we choose, the spouse we choose, where we choose to live, what neighborhoods we choose to "hang out in", what school we choose, what career we choose, who we choose to hire, who we choose to to lend money to, who we choose to live with and who we choose to rent to. Illegal discrimination is another story and should not be tolerated, but discrimination is not a dirty word. Most typical discrimination is a good, necessary and and important survival tool.
One more thing on this topic. Liberals are constantly using the words bigot, racist, homophobes, and chauvinist indiscriminately. One needs to use discrimination, when launching these vitriolic attacks. I believe that a false accusation of racism is equally harmful as an act of racism. Falsely accusing people of racism has become casual and popular. However, the consequences are just as damaging as racist words and actions. The casual accusation of racism, when not warranted, stifles(censors) public and private conversations, for fear of being called a racist. Being labeled a racist is one of the worst stereotypes in today's popular culture. This label can affect ones career and lifestyle. This accusation can even affect where one is welcome and allowed to work and live. To casually accuse a well meaning person of racism has far-reaching affects that is tantamount to true racism.
It is time that "race-baiters" be held to the same standard as true racists.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Two Concise Reasons Why We Face Certain Economic Doom
The two main reasons why our economy is doomed for failure are:
1) America (and Americans) consumes more than it produces.
2) America (and Americans) borrows more than it saves.
Under these conditions, the American standard of living can only be sustained by selling off assets that we have accumulated in the past, and/or borrowing money with a promise to repay it in the future. Obviously this can not go on indefinitely, there will come a day of reckoning. This day may be postponed slightly with government bailouts. But bailouts will only exacerbate the problem because they will undermine the foundation of our capitalist system. Also, the demand for continuing government bailouts will become insatiable. Bailouts will lead to the eventual insolvency of the federal government.
The only way for us to build a sustainable economy, that will come back healthy and strong, is to produce more, consume less, save more and borrow less. Politicians and citizens are unwilling to face this undeniable hard truth. We must manufacture more, import less, consume less, borrow less and save more. This will mean higher consumer prices, higher interest rates, lower wages and less amenities for most Americans in the foreseeable future. We must also become energy independent, by drilling for more oil, building more nuclear power plants and through technological innovation. This will mean higher energy costs in the short term.
If we do not collectively make these sacrifices, the results will be devastating.This strong medicine will stabilize our current economic woes and build a stronger and more prosperous American future.This is the only responsible way to insure economic stability and the future prosperity of America.
However, politicians on both sides of the isle, are calling for the exact opposite. They are lowering interest rates, which discourage savings and encourages borrowing. They are encouraging consumers to borrow more and spend more, by making consumer credit more widely available. The government is borrowing trillions of dollars, through huge federal budget deficits, to finance "economic stimulus packages", bailouts and ever-growing government programs. Federal bailouts will reward mismanaged, corrupt and unprofitable corporations. Bailouts also tempt businesses and government officials with corruption. Bailouts also stifle the growth of healthy, profitable companies, because they are competing at a disadvantage with government subsidized companies, who are crowding them out of the market.
The government is also signing "free trade agreements", rather than putting tariffs on imports. This motivates us to buy cheaper goods from overseas, rather than producing more goods here. Often American companies can not compete with foreign companies. Foreign companies often do not have the same high environmental standards, safety standards, labor standards and high taxes that American companies face. It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies without tariffs to level the playing field. Without tariffs, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. We must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our economy in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
The American "standard of living " is unsustainable under the current conditions. Rather than accepting this "truth" and making appropriate sacrifices, government is mortgaging America's future, in order to buy us a little more time of "living beyond our means".
A fitting analogy would be, the prospect of surgery and subsequent chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Surgery and chemotherapy will ensure pain and suffering in the short term, but the patient will have an excellent chance of recovery. Postponing the surgical option, and improving the patients "quality of life" with painkillers, will certainly insure the patients death. If, we as a nation, do not choose the more painful option in the short term, we face almost certain catastrophic economic failure and possibly the end of America as we know it.
1) America (and Americans) consumes more than it produces.
2) America (and Americans) borrows more than it saves.
Under these conditions, the American standard of living can only be sustained by selling off assets that we have accumulated in the past, and/or borrowing money with a promise to repay it in the future. Obviously this can not go on indefinitely, there will come a day of reckoning. This day may be postponed slightly with government bailouts. But bailouts will only exacerbate the problem because they will undermine the foundation of our capitalist system. Also, the demand for continuing government bailouts will become insatiable. Bailouts will lead to the eventual insolvency of the federal government.
The only way for us to build a sustainable economy, that will come back healthy and strong, is to produce more, consume less, save more and borrow less. Politicians and citizens are unwilling to face this undeniable hard truth. We must manufacture more, import less, consume less, borrow less and save more. This will mean higher consumer prices, higher interest rates, lower wages and less amenities for most Americans in the foreseeable future. We must also become energy independent, by drilling for more oil, building more nuclear power plants and through technological innovation. This will mean higher energy costs in the short term.
If we do not collectively make these sacrifices, the results will be devastating.This strong medicine will stabilize our current economic woes and build a stronger and more prosperous American future.This is the only responsible way to insure economic stability and the future prosperity of America.
However, politicians on both sides of the isle, are calling for the exact opposite. They are lowering interest rates, which discourage savings and encourages borrowing. They are encouraging consumers to borrow more and spend more, by making consumer credit more widely available. The government is borrowing trillions of dollars, through huge federal budget deficits, to finance "economic stimulus packages", bailouts and ever-growing government programs. Federal bailouts will reward mismanaged, corrupt and unprofitable corporations. Bailouts also tempt businesses and government officials with corruption. Bailouts also stifle the growth of healthy, profitable companies, because they are competing at a disadvantage with government subsidized companies, who are crowding them out of the market.
The government is also signing "free trade agreements", rather than putting tariffs on imports. This motivates us to buy cheaper goods from overseas, rather than producing more goods here. Often American companies can not compete with foreign companies. Foreign companies often do not have the same high environmental standards, safety standards, labor standards and high taxes that American companies face. It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies without tariffs to level the playing field. Without tariffs, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. We must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our economy in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
The American "standard of living " is unsustainable under the current conditions. Rather than accepting this "truth" and making appropriate sacrifices, government is mortgaging America's future, in order to buy us a little more time of "living beyond our means".
A fitting analogy would be, the prospect of surgery and subsequent chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Surgery and chemotherapy will ensure pain and suffering in the short term, but the patient will have an excellent chance of recovery. Postponing the surgical option, and improving the patients "quality of life" with painkillers, will certainly insure the patients death. If, we as a nation, do not choose the more painful option in the short term, we face almost certain catastrophic economic failure and possibly the end of America as we know it.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thanksgiving
Do today's students know the noble origin of the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving? Do they think that incompetent Europeans were saved by the benevolent, yet naive "Indians", who were then repaid with cruelty, swindling and annihilation by the European settlers, once they got the upper hand?
Do you think that if Europeans had never conquered and "tamed" the American landscape, the world would be better off? Do you know that many Native American tribes were in a continuing state of battle with each other until Europeans brought peace to this continent. Do you know that lasting peace is almost always purchased with bloodshed? If Europeans had never settled America, would another powerful, yet benevolent nation have risen up to save Europe from Hitler during the second world war? Would the Native Americans have built such a strong economy, that they would have been able to donate billions of dollars annually, in foreign aid for the merciful missions of providing, food, medicine and aid for natural disasters? Would Native Americans, and migrating Mexicans, have built and financed universities that educate millions of people each year, many from foreign nations, who help spread modern technology that brings prosperity, medicine and modern farming techniques to our huge land mass, as well as to all corners of the globe. Would native Americans have offered, political, religious and economic refugees from all corners of the Earth, a chance to immigrate to America and assimilate into their tribe? Would the American dollar have reached out to purchase goods and services from all corners of the world, thus raising the standard of living worldwide? Has any other nation paid reparations to the descendants of a nation that they conquered in battle?
I suppose those things are possible. However, to date, America, founded by Christian European settlers, is the only nation that has ever attained exceptionalism in all of these areas and then some. It is sad to see the traditional American culture, which is uniquely exceptional, being replaced by multiculturalism, diversity without virtue, and a secular culture rooted in moral depravity. I am sorry to say that the latter culture is not only unexceptional, but it is unsustainable.
Click here for "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" as told by Rush Limbaugh. Rush talks about how capitalism and American exceptionalism was born in the early 1600s.
Click here for President Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Click here for President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Do you think that if Europeans had never conquered and "tamed" the American landscape, the world would be better off? Do you know that many Native American tribes were in a continuing state of battle with each other until Europeans brought peace to this continent. Do you know that lasting peace is almost always purchased with bloodshed? If Europeans had never settled America, would another powerful, yet benevolent nation have risen up to save Europe from Hitler during the second world war? Would the Native Americans have built such a strong economy, that they would have been able to donate billions of dollars annually, in foreign aid for the merciful missions of providing, food, medicine and aid for natural disasters? Would Native Americans, and migrating Mexicans, have built and financed universities that educate millions of people each year, many from foreign nations, who help spread modern technology that brings prosperity, medicine and modern farming techniques to our huge land mass, as well as to all corners of the globe. Would native Americans have offered, political, religious and economic refugees from all corners of the Earth, a chance to immigrate to America and assimilate into their tribe? Would the American dollar have reached out to purchase goods and services from all corners of the world, thus raising the standard of living worldwide? Has any other nation paid reparations to the descendants of a nation that they conquered in battle?
I suppose those things are possible. However, to date, America, founded by Christian European settlers, is the only nation that has ever attained exceptionalism in all of these areas and then some. It is sad to see the traditional American culture, which is uniquely exceptional, being replaced by multiculturalism, diversity without virtue, and a secular culture rooted in moral depravity. I am sorry to say that the latter culture is not only unexceptional, but it is unsustainable.
Click here for "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" as told by Rush Limbaugh. Rush talks about how capitalism and American exceptionalism was born in the early 1600s.
Click here for President Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Click here for President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Universities Are Churning Out Intellectual But Misinformed Graduates
It saddens me to see the lack of accurate political information that is in the minds of today's students and graduates. It seems that the more our collective intelligence accumulates, the less individual wisdom we possess. Thomas Jefferson said: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” According to Jefferson's statement, today's electorate can not be trusted.
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Is Charitable Giving On The Rise?
In today's day and age, politicians are preaching that it is patriotic to pay taxes and that "rich people" have an obligation tho share their wealth. However, I believe that that true charitable giving only exists when it is done voluntarily. Today's forced charities, through taxpayer financed social programs, are crowding out many genuine charities from helping people on a voluntary and personal level. Forced giving, through high taxes and government social programs, embitters both the givers and receivers, who feel resentment for the other group.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Why Bail-Outs Don't work
The Quintessential definition of insanity is to repeat the same mistake and expect different results.
In a free market, companies will not take on undue risk, because it will eventually come back to hurt them financially. The main reason why the real-estate market took on so many risky loans, was because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were empowered to buy these risky loans, freeing the banks from their risk. The only reason why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky loans, was because the federal government guaranteed the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the government guarantees that a company will not be allowed to fail, no matter how risky its behavior, this promotes more risky behavior without restrictions or limits. As a result, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought up 50% of all home mortgages, mostly the riskiest ones. This was no longer a free market, because the risk has been taken out of doing business. If the financial risk is taken out of any business transaction, money is bound to be lost, because there is nothing to stop any deal from going through. The reason why most banks carefully check out a clients credit worthiness before making a loan, is that they will lose money if the loan is not repaid, not because of regulations. If enough loans are not repaid, they will go out of business. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had no such constraints. Commissions were made, every time a mortgage was bought or sold and the company was making lots of money while the real estate market was on the rise and they were protected from failure, should the market fall.
Liberal politicians and community organizers, pressured banks into making risky loans to minorities, poor people. Banks were inclined to acquiesce, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to relieve them of their risk. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually became insolvent, banks were stuck with the risky loans that they had on hand. Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been repackaging many of these risky loans into a financial instrument called "Mortgage Backed Securities" and they sold them on the securities market. This is how these risky loans circulated throughout the financial industry and eventually put many financial institutions at risk.
The lesson to be learned here is not that the markets require more regulation. The lesson is that the government will distort any market by guaranteeing any business from failure. That guarantee, guarantees risky behavior on the part of that institution. It will inevitably lead to insolvency.
The current trend toward government bail-outs, government acquisitions and loan guarantees is exactly the same behavior that caused these financial institutions to fail in the first place. I can see no other outcome than the eventual failure of more businesses and financial institutions resulting from this increased government interference in free markets.
In a free market, companies will not take on undue risk, because it will eventually come back to hurt them financially. The main reason why the real-estate market took on so many risky loans, was because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were empowered to buy these risky loans, freeing the banks from their risk. The only reason why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky loans, was because the federal government guaranteed the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the government guarantees that a company will not be allowed to fail, no matter how risky its behavior, this promotes more risky behavior without restrictions or limits. As a result, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought up 50% of all home mortgages, mostly the riskiest ones. This was no longer a free market, because the risk has been taken out of doing business. If the financial risk is taken out of any business transaction, money is bound to be lost, because there is nothing to stop any deal from going through. The reason why most banks carefully check out a clients credit worthiness before making a loan, is that they will lose money if the loan is not repaid, not because of regulations. If enough loans are not repaid, they will go out of business. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had no such constraints. Commissions were made, every time a mortgage was bought or sold and the company was making lots of money while the real estate market was on the rise and they were protected from failure, should the market fall.
Liberal politicians and community organizers, pressured banks into making risky loans to minorities, poor people. Banks were inclined to acquiesce, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to relieve them of their risk. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually became insolvent, banks were stuck with the risky loans that they had on hand. Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been repackaging many of these risky loans into a financial instrument called "Mortgage Backed Securities" and they sold them on the securities market. This is how these risky loans circulated throughout the financial industry and eventually put many financial institutions at risk.
The lesson to be learned here is not that the markets require more regulation. The lesson is that the government will distort any market by guaranteeing any business from failure. That guarantee, guarantees risky behavior on the part of that institution. It will inevitably lead to insolvency.
The current trend toward government bail-outs, government acquisitions and loan guarantees is exactly the same behavior that caused these financial institutions to fail in the first place. I can see no other outcome than the eventual failure of more businesses and financial institutions resulting from this increased government interference in free markets.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Feminizing of Society
Children being brought up by homosexuals, may be no better off than those raised by a single mom or single dad. Men and women are distinctly different. It takes both the strength and reason of a father, and the nurturing, care and emotional support of a mother to raise a healthy child. Of course this is the ideal, and no family lives up to it, but children that grow up in an overly feminine or masculine family, are not in balance in their reason and emotion.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
This is not due to discrimination or stereotyping, these are the choices that men and women make based on their preferences, natural instincts and desires. The point is that men and women are intrinsically different in their strengths and weaknesses. Men and women serve to complement and restrain each-other in an ideal family. A family that does not include both feminine and masculine influences, will result in children that are out of balance in some way.
Currently, I see our society out of balance in favor of femininity over masculinity. The problem with this is that the negative aspects of femininity are not restrained by male attributes, while the positive attributes of the male are not as widely encouraged as the natural feminine attributes. Examples are:
- Natural male aggressiveness, curiosity and mischievousness is discouraged. Boys that act too much like boys, are often diagnosed with ADD and subdued with psychotropic medications such as Ritalin.
- In the past, it was usually the fathers role to physically discipline children. It was the mothers role to protect them. In today's feminized culture, corporal punishment of children has been stigmatized and outlawed in most cases. Everyone protects children, but no one is likely to discipline them.
- Men are encouraged to be more sensitive. They are told that it is OK for men to cry.
- Competition is discouraged. In school sports, most all participants are recognized with awards and trophies, whether they are on the winning or losing team.
- Men are becoming more vane with regards to their physical appearance. It has become commonplace for men to wear jewelry, dye their hair and wear sexy clothing.
- Seductive clothing and behavior is unrestrained in both women and men.
- Today's popular culture has a mother's instinct, who wants her children to be safe at all costs. Our soldiers are regarded as victims, rather than courageous heroes, willing to risk their lives in a selfless effort to protect women and children on the home front for a noble cause greater than themselves.
- Often, honesty plays second fiddle to self-esteem. Dishonesty is OK if it spares hurt feelings. Self esteem often trumps brutal honesty, regardless of the unintended consequences.
- Often, political persuasion relies heavily on emotion, rather than reason. Symbolism over substance is the mainstay of many political campaigns. Slogans such as "I can feel your pain" or I stand for "hope" are common political rhetoric.
- Creating class envy between rich and poor, minority and majority, men and women, gay and straight, legal citizen and illegal alien, have become common political strategies. Jealousy and envy are emotions that are often played upon by a feminized society.
- Often, TV shows and commercials portray women as cool, smart and stylish, while traditional men are portrayed as clumsy and stupid. But, if the men are feminized in appearance and emotional sensitivity, they are also portrayed as cool and smart.
- Hunting, fishing ,eating meat, and using animals' hides for clothing, is often considered cruelty to animals. A more sensitive, emotional and feminized approach, is not to harm any living thing.
Again, I'm sure that you can find exceptions, but the current trend is definitely moving toward femininity and away from masculinity. This imbalance will leave feminine shortcomings to go unchecked and will also place restraint on masculine strengths. This shift can only weaken, impoverish and reduce the freedoms that are only possible and practical for "humanity in balance".
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Prediction: Israel Will Bomb Iran Within 72 Days
I have a prediction to make. I believe that Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear development facilities, before George Bush leaves office.
Iran has not responded to global economic sanctions and political pressure to halt its development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmanadinejad, boasts that he has over 3,000 centrifuges at work producing nuclear material. Ahmanadinejad frequently makes speeches in Iran, promising to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He refers to Israel as the little Satin, and the US as the Great Satin. Recently, Ahmanadinejad addressed the UN in New York City. Before his speech, he said a little prayer in Arabic , as usual. It was not widely reported that the purpose of this prayer was to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, a spiritual figure, who will eventually usher in a new era of peace, under worldwide Islamic law. The next step necessary to summon the Mahdi, according to Ahmanandinejad's beliefs, is to create world-wide havoc and the death and destruction of those who refuse to convert to Islam (the religion of peace).
What I have written above is nothing new. However, what is new, is our new President-elect Obama and that he is backed by two Democratic houses in Congress. Obama believes that negotiation will lead to peace, just as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler prior to World war two, in hopes of peace with Germany. Secondly, Obama has been friendly with pro-Palestinian activists such as Sheik Rashid Khalidi, and Louis Farrakhan. For these reasons, many people believe that Obama might not stand up to Iran, before it is too late.
If Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is certain that they will use them on Israel and likely that they will give them to terrorists to cause world-wide havoc. Iran already supplies the terrorist organization "Hezbollah" with bombs, weapons, funding and training. Recently, Hezbollah terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, provoked a war with Israel in Lebanon. Since the cease fire, two years ago, Hezbollah has grown stronger and better equipped, thanks to help from Iran and an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping agreement.
By all accounts, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities seems to be inevitable, unless Iran halts its nuclear ambitions. However, many feel that this will not happen under an Obama administration. Currently Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of weapons, intelligence, training and funding. I believe that Israel is keenly aware of the imminent threat that it faces from Iran. Should Iran successfully develop a nuclear weapon, they would surely use it on Israel. However, Israel is wary that President Obama might not lend US support, if Israel were to launch a preemptive attack against Iran.
Therefore, I strongly believe that Israel, with the support and behind-the-scenes help form the US, will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities within the next 72 days, before president-elect Obama is sworn into office.
Iran has not responded to global economic sanctions and political pressure to halt its development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmanadinejad, boasts that he has over 3,000 centrifuges at work producing nuclear material. Ahmanadinejad frequently makes speeches in Iran, promising to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He refers to Israel as the little Satin, and the US as the Great Satin. Recently, Ahmanadinejad addressed the UN in New York City. Before his speech, he said a little prayer in Arabic , as usual. It was not widely reported that the purpose of this prayer was to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, a spiritual figure, who will eventually usher in a new era of peace, under worldwide Islamic law. The next step necessary to summon the Mahdi, according to Ahmanandinejad's beliefs, is to create world-wide havoc and the death and destruction of those who refuse to convert to Islam (the religion of peace).
What I have written above is nothing new. However, what is new, is our new President-elect Obama and that he is backed by two Democratic houses in Congress. Obama believes that negotiation will lead to peace, just as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler prior to World war two, in hopes of peace with Germany. Secondly, Obama has been friendly with pro-Palestinian activists such as Sheik Rashid Khalidi, and Louis Farrakhan. For these reasons, many people believe that Obama might not stand up to Iran, before it is too late.
If Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is certain that they will use them on Israel and likely that they will give them to terrorists to cause world-wide havoc. Iran already supplies the terrorist organization "Hezbollah" with bombs, weapons, funding and training. Recently, Hezbollah terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, provoked a war with Israel in Lebanon. Since the cease fire, two years ago, Hezbollah has grown stronger and better equipped, thanks to help from Iran and an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping agreement.
By all accounts, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities seems to be inevitable, unless Iran halts its nuclear ambitions. However, many feel that this will not happen under an Obama administration. Currently Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of weapons, intelligence, training and funding. I believe that Israel is keenly aware of the imminent threat that it faces from Iran. Should Iran successfully develop a nuclear weapon, they would surely use it on Israel. However, Israel is wary that President Obama might not lend US support, if Israel were to launch a preemptive attack against Iran.
Therefore, I strongly believe that Israel, with the support and behind-the-scenes help form the US, will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities within the next 72 days, before president-elect Obama is sworn into office.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Proposition 8 passes, Homosexuals Raise a Ruckus
As I predicted, the homosexual activists are raising a ruckus because Proposition 8 in California passed. Similar propositions that ban gay marriage, also passed in Florida and Arizona. Also, Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting children. Wherever the issue of homosexual marriage has been put to a vote, it has been defeated. The states where homosexual marriage is legal, is due to courts that have overturned ballot propositions, in opposition to the will of the people. In my opinion, these judges are using convoluted-logic in order to promote a liberal agenda. Click on this link for a good article about this by Orson Scott Card called "Upholding the Constitution".
Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.
Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.
It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.
To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.
Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.
Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.
Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.
As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.
Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.
The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.
The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?
There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.
Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.
Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.
It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.
To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.
Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.
Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.
Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.
As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.
Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.
The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.
The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?
There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sarah Palin, Hate Crimes and Halloween
I have written in the past about how I disagree about the concept of "hate crimes". I have written that crimes should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the nature of the crime itself. Punishment should not be more sever if the motivation for the crime is deemed to be bigotry. Crimes of vandalism, violence and those that incite violence, are serious crimes, and should be prosecuted and punished zealously, regardless of the motive. I believe that it is wrong to dole out additional punishment in order to appease certain minorities groups and be more lenient to other criminals due to political correctness.
A good example of why hate crimes are intrinsically unfair, is an incident that is occurring in Los Angeles this week. A "waste of human flesh" (I hope that I did not commit a hate crime with that description),decided to decorate his house for Halloween. This decoration included a mannequin, that was made to resemble Sarah Palin, hanging in effigy from the top of his house. Of course when this "waste of human flesh" was interviewed, he said that his display was merely his expression of art.
This display is not considered a hate crime, despite the recent outcry that displaying a noose, is an expression of hate against African Americans. These claims of noose related hate crimes were stirred up by the controversy and misinformation circulated about the Jena six, and subsequent nooses that turned up around the country, many of which later proved to be hoaxes. These random nooses, were all investigated as hate crimes.
Surprisingly,many commentators have agreed that if Barack Obama was hung in effigy, that would be considered a "hate crime", because Obama is black. Current law classifies hate crimes as crimes that are specifically targeted against people because of their race, religion or national origin. Women are not protected under hate crime laws.
Interestingly, the man who decorated his house for Halloween, with a dead replica of Sarah Palin, swinging from a noose, appears to be a homosexual, a minority that is not currently protected under hate crime laws. However, if proposition 8 fails in California on election day, homosexuals could become a protected minority under hate crime laws. Homosexual activists feel that churches, that preach that homosexual behavior is sinful, would like to see these churches and their ministers prosecuted under hate crime laws. The US senate is considering a bill that would expand hate-crime legislation to include homosexuals. Legislation is being proposed in England, allowing parishioners to sue ministers for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.
What will come next? Will preachers be charged with hate crimes for preaching that premarital sex is sinful? Will preachers be sued for preaching that adultery is sinful? Will Christianity be banned due to its "hateful" beliefs? This is absurd, because Christianity promotes love and fellowship between all men an women. Christianity preaches love, compassion, forgiveness, self improvement and helping your fellow man. Christianity acknowledges that all men are sinners, and offers us a path to eternal salvation. Christianity does not stand for hate in any way, shape or form.
I believe that laws already exist on the books that outlaw public displays that are abhorrent, repulsive, detestable, obscene. It is obvious to anyone with common sense, that this display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, violates these laws. Calling this "art" for a Halloween display, is convoluted logic and defies reason. It is obviously a political statement that crosses the line, because this display is abhorrent, repulsive, detestable and obscene.
As well as being a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is also someone's daughter, wife and mother. How would you like to see your loved-one hanging in effigy, as part of someone's twiated idea of a Halloween display? Would this so-called "artist" stand for a likeness of his lover hanging from the roof of a neighbors house, who merely claims that he has the right to express himself with that kind of a Halloween art display? I think not. Allegations of gay-bashing and hate crimes would likely ensue. Hate crime laws are unfair. They are not necessary, if we merely enforce the laws that already exist, dispassionately and reasonably.
To go down a path that prosecutes crimes to appease vocal minorities, while ignoring others, is dangerous, unfair and un-American. We should be judged on our behavior, rationally and reasonably, not emotionally. Justice should be dispensed dispassionately and without prejudice, according to the "actions" of the perpetrator and not the emotions that his crime stirs up.
A good example of why hate crimes are intrinsically unfair, is an incident that is occurring in Los Angeles this week. A "waste of human flesh" (I hope that I did not commit a hate crime with that description),decided to decorate his house for Halloween. This decoration included a mannequin, that was made to resemble Sarah Palin, hanging in effigy from the top of his house. Of course when this "waste of human flesh" was interviewed, he said that his display was merely his expression of art.
This display is not considered a hate crime, despite the recent outcry that displaying a noose, is an expression of hate against African Americans. These claims of noose related hate crimes were stirred up by the controversy and misinformation circulated about the Jena six, and subsequent nooses that turned up around the country, many of which later proved to be hoaxes. These random nooses, were all investigated as hate crimes.
Surprisingly,many commentators have agreed that if Barack Obama was hung in effigy, that would be considered a "hate crime", because Obama is black. Current law classifies hate crimes as crimes that are specifically targeted against people because of their race, religion or national origin. Women are not protected under hate crime laws.
Interestingly, the man who decorated his house for Halloween, with a dead replica of Sarah Palin, swinging from a noose, appears to be a homosexual, a minority that is not currently protected under hate crime laws. However, if proposition 8 fails in California on election day, homosexuals could become a protected minority under hate crime laws. Homosexual activists feel that churches, that preach that homosexual behavior is sinful, would like to see these churches and their ministers prosecuted under hate crime laws. The US senate is considering a bill that would expand hate-crime legislation to include homosexuals. Legislation is being proposed in England, allowing parishioners to sue ministers for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.
What will come next? Will preachers be charged with hate crimes for preaching that premarital sex is sinful? Will preachers be sued for preaching that adultery is sinful? Will Christianity be banned due to its "hateful" beliefs? This is absurd, because Christianity promotes love and fellowship between all men an women. Christianity preaches love, compassion, forgiveness, self improvement and helping your fellow man. Christianity acknowledges that all men are sinners, and offers us a path to eternal salvation. Christianity does not stand for hate in any way, shape or form.
I believe that laws already exist on the books that outlaw public displays that are abhorrent, repulsive, detestable, obscene. It is obvious to anyone with common sense, that this display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, violates these laws. Calling this "art" for a Halloween display, is convoluted logic and defies reason. It is obviously a political statement that crosses the line, because this display is abhorrent, repulsive, detestable and obscene.
As well as being a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is also someone's daughter, wife and mother. How would you like to see your loved-one hanging in effigy, as part of someone's twiated idea of a Halloween display? Would this so-called "artist" stand for a likeness of his lover hanging from the roof of a neighbors house, who merely claims that he has the right to express himself with that kind of a Halloween art display? I think not. Allegations of gay-bashing and hate crimes would likely ensue. Hate crime laws are unfair. They are not necessary, if we merely enforce the laws that already exist, dispassionately and reasonably.
To go down a path that prosecutes crimes to appease vocal minorities, while ignoring others, is dangerous, unfair and un-American. We should be judged on our behavior, rationally and reasonably, not emotionally. Justice should be dispensed dispassionately and without prejudice, according to the "actions" of the perpetrator and not the emotions that his crime stirs up.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
John McCain and the Mainstream Media, Shill for Obama
The following is a great article, from greensboro.rhinotimes.com , about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and the deliberate misreporting of the truth by the mainstream media. The facts in this article are exactly in line with what I have been hearing on most all conservative talk radio programs that I listen to. These facts and names are blatantly missing from most mainstream media reports, and also, surprisingly missing from John McCain's talking points that I have heard in his stump speeches and debates with Obama.. Only once did I hear McCain implicate Congressman Barney Frank [D] (Chairmen house banking committee) and Senator Chris Dodd [D] ( chairman, Senate committee on banking) , in this financial meltdown. This was in response to an irate supporter at a McCain rally, who demanded that McCain tell the truth about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and demanded that McCain name names. McCain also conspicuously omits speaking about his own role in pushing for legislation to reign in the out of control GSEs (Government Supported Enterprises), of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two years ago. It seems to me that McCain actually wants Obama to win the election. It is clear to me that the mainstream media, and even John McCain himself, are influencing this election in favor of the Democrats.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.................
Click here for the link to the entire article by Orson Scott Card.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.................
Click here for the link to the entire article by Orson Scott Card.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joe the Plumber
I had written the following article just prior to tonight's third and final presidential debate. The name of an Ohio plumber was mentioned 20 times between the two candidates. I was very disappointed as the debate progressed, to find that neither candidate was able to truly understand the perspective of plumber Joe and the strengths of capitalism Vs. socialism.
Last week, at a recent Obama campaign event, an unscripted question was asked by an ambitious hardworking plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. This ambitious plumber says he works 10 to 12 hours per day and lives in a modest 90 to 140 thousand dollar home. He asked Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year, Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama's surprising response was: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Click on the video below to hear the entire exchange between Obama and "Plumber Joe"
Obama's response is wrong on many levels. What is worse is that Obama does not understand what motivates this plumber to work so long and hard, sacrifice for so many years and risk everything he has for a chance at success.
This plumber has clearly sacrificed for years, in terms of his time, effort, lifestyle and the saving of his money to purchase the company that he now works for. His motivation is clearly that if he works hard, long and honestly, and sacrifices fancy cars, clothing, houses, fancy meals and expensive vacations, he has a chance to become wealthy. Of course the chances are just as good, that after all of his sacrifices and hard work, he loses it all, and must start over from square one. This is what is meant by "risk Vs. reward". This is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Our capitalist system often rewards those who are motivated to offer their customers better service and value than their competition, and accommodate their customers by finishing jobs on time, even if it means working evenings and weekends and charging less than their competion. Democratic capitalism is capable of motivating people to do “the extraordinary”, while providing jobs, innovation and wealth for their community and their country. American capitalism has led to innovations that have truly raised the standard of living worldwide. Risk Vs. reward is at the core of American capitalism.
Innovation, honesty, hard work and excellence in service are used by a motivated individuals, in order to surpass their competition. Obama clearly showed his ignorance about American capitalism as well as human motivation when he said: "It's not that I want to punish your success," I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
The last thing that this plumber wants is for his competition to have an advantage that he never had nor needed. He got where he is today by working harder, smarter, longer and better than those behind him. He wants them to continue to be behind him, that's how he gets ahead. Staying ahead is what motivates him to get up earlier than his competition, work longer than his competition, and offer a better value than his competition.
If the guy behind “Joe the plumber” wants a chance at success, all he has to do is to wake up earlier than Joe, work harder than Joe, be more innovative than Joe, hire better employees than Joe and offer his customers a better value than Joe. Joe knows this, and that is what motivates him to “walk the extra mile”. Millions of people like Joe, who walk the extra mile, is what has brought America the prosperity that we now enjoy. Obama is asking people like Joe to share the wealth, without asking others to share the risk, sacrifice, talent and priorities. Taxing a man's sacrifices, hopes, dreams and ambitions and giving the money to those who are less ambitious and averse to risk, is tantamount to larceny. It can also crush one's spirit.
When you “spread the wealth around”, you de-motivate people like this plumber to do extraordinary work, come up with extraordinary innovations, and demand excellence from employees in exchange for better wages.
By taking from the successful people and giving to people who “haven't made it”, you are rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence. It is extremely clear to me that there can only be one end result. That result is more mediocrity and less excellence. This is exactly what you will get with socialism.
Democratic capitalism leads to innovation, high wages, efficiency, motivated workers, high rates of employment, good wages, excellent products, opportunity and greater wealth for all classes of society.
Socialism promises equality, which has never been attained. But more importantly, socialism guarantees mediocrity in goods, services, pay rates, employment opportunities and individual motivation. Most importantly, when you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up with less rich people and more poor people.
Democratic capitalism provides greater wealth for all classes of society. People all have the opportunity to find their own way to the top if they choose to make sacrifices by spending their own money, time, effort and their natural God-given talents to improve their own lot in life. Most people do not choose this “tough row to hoe”, but those who do, have a chance at success. This is the very definition of freedom. The best, brightest, most innovative and hardest working people will rise to the top. Any system that leads these type of people to the top, will lift up everyone in the system. They have provided wealth for all of the people who work for them and the companies who they purchase goods from in the course of business. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps the company that manufactures and sells pipes, toilets, water heaters, etc. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps all of the people who enjoy the goods, services and innovations that it provides. Not that long ago, plumbers invented and made available, toilets, water heaters and indoor plumbing.
Each and every advancement was made by people like Joe, who were striving to get ahead by staying ahead of their competition. Obama says that Joe should want to help the people behind him. In fact, people like Joe, spend every waking moment trying to stay ahead of the people behind him, not trying to help them. Obama does not understand capitalism, business nor human motivation.
It is paramount that we educate all Americans to these truths. Unfortunately, many schools and universities are teaching our children that capitalism is corrupt and unfair but government regulation and social engineering programs, including “spreading the wealth”, is fair and helps the little guy. In this sense, our educational system is harmful to our economic well being and the future of our nation. Politicians use this theme to win elections because there are more little guys and less wealthy people. There have always been more common people than wealthy people. This is the way it is, and the way that history shows it has always been. Outcomes will never be equal because human motivation, passion, competency, priorities and desires vary among all of us. History has shown that human passions and motivation can only be stifled by government. Our individual abilities, passions and desires are given to us by God and are boundless when left unfettered by government regulation and taxes. Democratic capitalism, restrained and tempered by religious morals as exemplified in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is what has led to America becoming the freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation that this world has ever seen. America's wealth, innovation and compassion has improved the lot of people worldwide. Obama's socialist ideas of “ spreading the wealth around”, actually insures that there will be less wealth for everyone and will create regulations that breed corruption, waste and inefficiency. Our individual and collective prosperity can only increase, if government stands clear of plumber Joe's noble passions. Government may be able to redistribute existing wealth, but only motivated people like plumber Joe can create it.
Click on the video below to hear Neil Cavuto interview "Plumber Joe"
Last week, at a recent Obama campaign event, an unscripted question was asked by an ambitious hardworking plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. This ambitious plumber says he works 10 to 12 hours per day and lives in a modest 90 to 140 thousand dollar home. He asked Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year, Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama's surprising response was: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Click on the video below to hear the entire exchange between Obama and "Plumber Joe"
Obama's response is wrong on many levels. What is worse is that Obama does not understand what motivates this plumber to work so long and hard, sacrifice for so many years and risk everything he has for a chance at success.
This plumber has clearly sacrificed for years, in terms of his time, effort, lifestyle and the saving of his money to purchase the company that he now works for. His motivation is clearly that if he works hard, long and honestly, and sacrifices fancy cars, clothing, houses, fancy meals and expensive vacations, he has a chance to become wealthy. Of course the chances are just as good, that after all of his sacrifices and hard work, he loses it all, and must start over from square one. This is what is meant by "risk Vs. reward". This is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Our capitalist system often rewards those who are motivated to offer their customers better service and value than their competition, and accommodate their customers by finishing jobs on time, even if it means working evenings and weekends and charging less than their competion. Democratic capitalism is capable of motivating people to do “the extraordinary”, while providing jobs, innovation and wealth for their community and their country. American capitalism has led to innovations that have truly raised the standard of living worldwide. Risk Vs. reward is at the core of American capitalism.
Innovation, honesty, hard work and excellence in service are used by a motivated individuals, in order to surpass their competition. Obama clearly showed his ignorance about American capitalism as well as human motivation when he said: "It's not that I want to punish your success," I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
The last thing that this plumber wants is for his competition to have an advantage that he never had nor needed. He got where he is today by working harder, smarter, longer and better than those behind him. He wants them to continue to be behind him, that's how he gets ahead. Staying ahead is what motivates him to get up earlier than his competition, work longer than his competition, and offer a better value than his competition.
If the guy behind “Joe the plumber” wants a chance at success, all he has to do is to wake up earlier than Joe, work harder than Joe, be more innovative than Joe, hire better employees than Joe and offer his customers a better value than Joe. Joe knows this, and that is what motivates him to “walk the extra mile”. Millions of people like Joe, who walk the extra mile, is what has brought America the prosperity that we now enjoy. Obama is asking people like Joe to share the wealth, without asking others to share the risk, sacrifice, talent and priorities. Taxing a man's sacrifices, hopes, dreams and ambitions and giving the money to those who are less ambitious and averse to risk, is tantamount to larceny. It can also crush one's spirit.
When you “spread the wealth around”, you de-motivate people like this plumber to do extraordinary work, come up with extraordinary innovations, and demand excellence from employees in exchange for better wages.
By taking from the successful people and giving to people who “haven't made it”, you are rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence. It is extremely clear to me that there can only be one end result. That result is more mediocrity and less excellence. This is exactly what you will get with socialism.
Democratic capitalism leads to innovation, high wages, efficiency, motivated workers, high rates of employment, good wages, excellent products, opportunity and greater wealth for all classes of society.
Socialism promises equality, which has never been attained. But more importantly, socialism guarantees mediocrity in goods, services, pay rates, employment opportunities and individual motivation. Most importantly, when you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up with less rich people and more poor people.
Democratic capitalism provides greater wealth for all classes of society. People all have the opportunity to find their own way to the top if they choose to make sacrifices by spending their own money, time, effort and their natural God-given talents to improve their own lot in life. Most people do not choose this “tough row to hoe”, but those who do, have a chance at success. This is the very definition of freedom. The best, brightest, most innovative and hardest working people will rise to the top. Any system that leads these type of people to the top, will lift up everyone in the system. They have provided wealth for all of the people who work for them and the companies who they purchase goods from in the course of business. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps the company that manufactures and sells pipes, toilets, water heaters, etc. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps all of the people who enjoy the goods, services and innovations that it provides. Not that long ago, plumbers invented and made available, toilets, water heaters and indoor plumbing.
Each and every advancement was made by people like Joe, who were striving to get ahead by staying ahead of their competition. Obama says that Joe should want to help the people behind him. In fact, people like Joe, spend every waking moment trying to stay ahead of the people behind him, not trying to help them. Obama does not understand capitalism, business nor human motivation.
It is paramount that we educate all Americans to these truths. Unfortunately, many schools and universities are teaching our children that capitalism is corrupt and unfair but government regulation and social engineering programs, including “spreading the wealth”, is fair and helps the little guy. In this sense, our educational system is harmful to our economic well being and the future of our nation. Politicians use this theme to win elections because there are more little guys and less wealthy people. There have always been more common people than wealthy people. This is the way it is, and the way that history shows it has always been. Outcomes will never be equal because human motivation, passion, competency, priorities and desires vary among all of us. History has shown that human passions and motivation can only be stifled by government. Our individual abilities, passions and desires are given to us by God and are boundless when left unfettered by government regulation and taxes. Democratic capitalism, restrained and tempered by religious morals as exemplified in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is what has led to America becoming the freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation that this world has ever seen. America's wealth, innovation and compassion has improved the lot of people worldwide. Obama's socialist ideas of “ spreading the wealth around”, actually insures that there will be less wealth for everyone and will create regulations that breed corruption, waste and inefficiency. Our individual and collective prosperity can only increase, if government stands clear of plumber Joe's noble passions. Government may be able to redistribute existing wealth, but only motivated people like plumber Joe can create it.
Click on the video below to hear Neil Cavuto interview "Plumber Joe"
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Character and Adversity
During the great depression of the 1930's, the crime rate was relatively low despite 30% unemployment and widespread poverty. The reason for the low crime rate was that people, for the most part, believed in a power greater than themselves and practiced spiritual principles. I have heard many stories from the great depression era where a child would steal food, and bring it home to share with his hungry family. In most cases, the child was admonished by his parents and instructed to return the food to it's rightful owner and admit to, and apologize for his shameful thievery, while his family went hungry that night. The child was punished so that he might learn the lesson that "one's character" is his most valuable asset in the eyes of God and his fellow human beings. This generation of Americans grew up to be called "the greatest generation" and went on to make sacrifices on the battlefield and back home, during the second world war. Their sacrifice led to peace and prosperity for the next generation, the "baby-boomers".
On the other hand, today's generation, for the most part, does not know the meaning of true sacrifice, self-discipline, restraint, patience, "God" and "reward in heaven". Their whole life has been spent during a period of peace and prosperity. Even today's so-called poor, have all of life's necessities and many luxuries, provided for them. We live in a time material prosperity combined with spiritual bankruptcy.
Should our economy slip into a depression on the scale of the great depression of the thirties, I predict that widespread looting, lawlessness and anarchy will result from a generation that was never taught that are things more important than beauty, intellect, physical talent, popularity, personal success, happiness and self-esteem. We will be selfishly fighting over food, fuel and the scraps of a once great society.
How will you react if a deep depression strikes our country? True character always comes to light during times of adversity. I hope that Americans will rise to the occasion, if adversity strikes. However, without enduring spiritual principles to guide us, we will likely turn into collection of angry mobs who are just out for ourselves, our kin and our kind, during a lasting period of hardship where food is scarce.
However, adversity might be the thing that is needed to temper our collective souls and bring us back to the principles that made our nation and our people great during past periods of nation-wide hardship.
On the other hand, today's generation, for the most part, does not know the meaning of true sacrifice, self-discipline, restraint, patience, "God" and "reward in heaven". Their whole life has been spent during a period of peace and prosperity. Even today's so-called poor, have all of life's necessities and many luxuries, provided for them. We live in a time material prosperity combined with spiritual bankruptcy.
Should our economy slip into a depression on the scale of the great depression of the thirties, I predict that widespread looting, lawlessness and anarchy will result from a generation that was never taught that are things more important than beauty, intellect, physical talent, popularity, personal success, happiness and self-esteem. We will be selfishly fighting over food, fuel and the scraps of a once great society.
How will you react if a deep depression strikes our country? True character always comes to light during times of adversity. I hope that Americans will rise to the occasion, if adversity strikes. However, without enduring spiritual principles to guide us, we will likely turn into collection of angry mobs who are just out for ourselves, our kin and our kind, during a lasting period of hardship where food is scarce.
However, adversity might be the thing that is needed to temper our collective souls and bring us back to the principles that made our nation and our people great during past periods of nation-wide hardship.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Spiritual Root Cause of America's Economic Woes
I believe that all problems can be boiled down to a simple root cause. To effectively fix a problem, one must find and fix the root cause or else the problem will reoccur. Not only is this common sense, I also learned this principle in Ford technician training school. It was drummed into my head during every class that I took.
I was taught that every problem had a root cause that must be corrected or the problem will reoccur. For example: if I diagnosed that an electronic module was malfunctioning, what was the root cause of the malfunction? Was there condensation from the A/C system dripping water on the circuits? If I would replace the module, without fixing the root cause(the water leak), the problem would reoccur. If I diagnosed a defective fuel pump, what was the root cause of the failure? Was the fuel filter plugged causing excessive back pressure that overloaded the pump? If I replaced the fuel pump, without fixing the root cause (replacing the filter), the problem would reoccur. If a fan belt was prematurely worn out, what was the root cause? Was a bearing in an idler pulley defective causing excessive wear on the belt? If I would slap a new belt on, without fixing the idler pulley, the problem would reoccur. One time, a van was towed in, with a drive shaft that was severed in half. I found the root cause to be a plastic drainage hose, from a piece of equipment permanently installed in the back of the van, was routed through a hole in the floorboard and was rubbing against the top of the drive shaft. If I didn't fix the root cause (re-routing the drainage hose) the problem would reoccur. A simple root cause can often lead to severe damage if not fixed.
I can boil the root cause of our current financial turmoil down to one sentence. The bible says: in times of plenty, we must prepare for famine. You may call this idea overly simplistic, however, I believe it to be the root cause that will ultimately impoverish America, if not heeded, on a grand scale. The rest of this article spells out why I believe that we all have lived during "times of plenty" and now we must prepare for "times of famine". If we do not address this simple, root cause, the results could be devastating.
My whole life has been lived in a time and place that has arguably been the most prosperous and "safe from danger", that this world has ever seen. Proof of this lies in the fact that the world has never before been able to support such a huge population. There are 6.7 billion human inhabitants on planet Earth and the population is still growing. Even the poorest citizens of our country have more food available to them that they could possibly eat. Modern day homelessness is mostly voluntary. Homeless people have chosen to live in a way that is incompatible with society. Most homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally ill with antisocial behavior. No one dare take them in, lest they risk harm to themselves, their family and their property. I know this from personal experience. Not as a sympathetic do-gooder volunteering in a soup kitchen, not as a college student doing research for a thesis paper, but from my personal experience living as a homeless person myself, as a consequence of my long time drug addiction.
People who claim that they are a paycheck away from homelessness, in this "time of plenty" are blatantly lying. These people would surely be taken in or helped by family, friends, The Church, or government if they do not practice anti-social or illegal behavior. If you were to become homeless and penniless today; Would you be sleeping on a park bench, or would you find a friend or family member to house and feed you, and help you get back on your feet? In today's America, homelessness is a mental and spiritual problem, not an economic problem.
The US currently has, arguably, the most prosperous homeless class, and poor class that the world has ever seen. Poor people in today's America have more food, property, living space and leisure time than average people in times-gone-by. The simple root cause of poverty, illiteracy, crime and homelessness, in this prosperous land of limitless opportunity called America, is of a spiritual nature, not of an economic nature. However, liberals often call for equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity. This corrupts man's spirit by encouraging victim-hood rather than courage, self-discipline, restraint, honor, humility, faith, perseverance and patience (all spiritual principles). I constantly hear politicians, activists, educators and the media obfuscate these simple and obvious truths with complicated and nuanced messages that are convoluted, inconsistent, and contrary to reason, common sense and my personal experience. During this presidential campaign, which I have been following for almost 2 years now, I have not heard one candidate suggest that the root cause of many of our nations problems, is of a spiritual nature, which requires a spiritual solution, not a political one.
Universal spiritual principles are constant and unchanging through-out the ages. They are just as valid today, as they were during biblical times. The same spiritual principles that this nation was founded on, and led us to become the greatest nation on earth, are still valid today. You need not believe in universal spiritual principles, for them to have influence over you. Just as you need not believe in the law of gravity, for it to have influence over you.
We currently live in the most prosperous time and place that this world has ever seen. There is no excuse for our government and citizens not to save for a rainy day. To the contrary, our government is spending more than it takes in. Government borrows huge sums of money to make up the shortfall. Citizens are also spending more than they earn. For the first time in US history, personal debt has exceeded personal savings. We are collectively living in a time of plenty and spending beyond our substantial means.
Just like with the housing market, our government and citizens are highly laden with debt. The national debt is over 11 trillion dollars, plus an additional 55 trillion dollars in the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare. A moderate downturn in the economy is liable to render the federal government insolvent. Yet most of the politicians are calling for more spending, more borrowing and punitive taxes on business and investment.
The insane solution that the government has recently implemented was a 160 billion dollar economic stimulus package, which gave 600 dollars to most adults, and encouraged them to spend it, in order to stimulate the economy. Also, over a trillion dollars was appropriated to bail out the troubled financial markets. Since the country is operating at a deficit, all of this money must be borrowed. The root cause of today's economic turmoil was people and financial institutions borrowing and spending beyond their means. The insane solution that the government is implementing, is to borrow and spend beyond it's means, and to encourage the people to do the same, in order to stimulate the economy.
Today, 70% of America's Gross National Product, is represented in the service industries. A service industry that includes hotels, casinos, restaurants, nail salons, party planners, dog walkers, night clubs, auto detailers, interior decorators, yoga lessons and karate lessons, will not see us through hard times. The U.S. needs to produce wealth if its citizens are to continue to enjoy wealth. Wealth is not a number on a balance sheet. Wealth requires people producing physical things such as : factories, food, clothing, automobiles, electronic products, machinery, machine parts, fuel, lumber, minerals, appliances, buildings, building materials, houses, aircraft, ships, trains, pipes, plumbing parts, wires, steel, aluminum, plastics, fabrics, roads, bridges, tunnels, damns, power plants, refineries, steel mills, lighting, and weapons for time of war.
The US economy is living off the wealth of a previous era by liquidating entire industries, and allowing infrastructure to fall into disrepair. We are also borrowing from the future with huge budget deficits, in order to finance today. It is clear to me that this can not go on indefinitely. This is the exact opposite direction we need to go in as a country. We need to live within our means as a nation and as individuals. We need to encourage, manufacturing, exploiting our natural resources, and producing food and energy, not more casinos and nail salons. Saving should be encouraged, not borrowing to buy extravagant things beyond our means. Personal debts as well as the national debt must be payed off.
There are tens of millions of people who manage their finances properly. They carry the economic burden of this nation on their back. The top ten percent of all wage earners pay over 70% of federal income taxes. Soon their backs will no longer be able to carry the load. If our government and citizens do not manage their finances, we will undoubtedly devolve into a corrupt and impoverished third world nation with a huge peasant class. Step back and look at the big picture, I see no other outcome.
The bible says: in times of plenty, we must prepare for famine. Simple? Yes. Can this simple root cause, lead to economic devastation? Certainly
I was taught that every problem had a root cause that must be corrected or the problem will reoccur. For example: if I diagnosed that an electronic module was malfunctioning, what was the root cause of the malfunction? Was there condensation from the A/C system dripping water on the circuits? If I would replace the module, without fixing the root cause(the water leak), the problem would reoccur. If I diagnosed a defective fuel pump, what was the root cause of the failure? Was the fuel filter plugged causing excessive back pressure that overloaded the pump? If I replaced the fuel pump, without fixing the root cause (replacing the filter), the problem would reoccur. If a fan belt was prematurely worn out, what was the root cause? Was a bearing in an idler pulley defective causing excessive wear on the belt? If I would slap a new belt on, without fixing the idler pulley, the problem would reoccur. One time, a van was towed in, with a drive shaft that was severed in half. I found the root cause to be a plastic drainage hose, from a piece of equipment permanently installed in the back of the van, was routed through a hole in the floorboard and was rubbing against the top of the drive shaft. If I didn't fix the root cause (re-routing the drainage hose) the problem would reoccur. A simple root cause can often lead to severe damage if not fixed.
I can boil the root cause of our current financial turmoil down to one sentence. The bible says: in times of plenty, we must prepare for famine. You may call this idea overly simplistic, however, I believe it to be the root cause that will ultimately impoverish America, if not heeded, on a grand scale. The rest of this article spells out why I believe that we all have lived during "times of plenty" and now we must prepare for "times of famine". If we do not address this simple, root cause, the results could be devastating.
My whole life has been lived in a time and place that has arguably been the most prosperous and "safe from danger", that this world has ever seen. Proof of this lies in the fact that the world has never before been able to support such a huge population. There are 6.7 billion human inhabitants on planet Earth and the population is still growing. Even the poorest citizens of our country have more food available to them that they could possibly eat. Modern day homelessness is mostly voluntary. Homeless people have chosen to live in a way that is incompatible with society. Most homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally ill with antisocial behavior. No one dare take them in, lest they risk harm to themselves, their family and their property. I know this from personal experience. Not as a sympathetic do-gooder volunteering in a soup kitchen, not as a college student doing research for a thesis paper, but from my personal experience living as a homeless person myself, as a consequence of my long time drug addiction.
People who claim that they are a paycheck away from homelessness, in this "time of plenty" are blatantly lying. These people would surely be taken in or helped by family, friends, The Church, or government if they do not practice anti-social or illegal behavior. If you were to become homeless and penniless today; Would you be sleeping on a park bench, or would you find a friend or family member to house and feed you, and help you get back on your feet? In today's America, homelessness is a mental and spiritual problem, not an economic problem.
The US currently has, arguably, the most prosperous homeless class, and poor class that the world has ever seen. Poor people in today's America have more food, property, living space and leisure time than average people in times-gone-by. The simple root cause of poverty, illiteracy, crime and homelessness, in this prosperous land of limitless opportunity called America, is of a spiritual nature, not of an economic nature. However, liberals often call for equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity. This corrupts man's spirit by encouraging victim-hood rather than courage, self-discipline, restraint, honor, humility, faith, perseverance and patience (all spiritual principles). I constantly hear politicians, activists, educators and the media obfuscate these simple and obvious truths with complicated and nuanced messages that are convoluted, inconsistent, and contrary to reason, common sense and my personal experience. During this presidential campaign, which I have been following for almost 2 years now, I have not heard one candidate suggest that the root cause of many of our nations problems, is of a spiritual nature, which requires a spiritual solution, not a political one.
Universal spiritual principles are constant and unchanging through-out the ages. They are just as valid today, as they were during biblical times. The same spiritual principles that this nation was founded on, and led us to become the greatest nation on earth, are still valid today. You need not believe in universal spiritual principles, for them to have influence over you. Just as you need not believe in the law of gravity, for it to have influence over you.
We currently live in the most prosperous time and place that this world has ever seen. There is no excuse for our government and citizens not to save for a rainy day. To the contrary, our government is spending more than it takes in. Government borrows huge sums of money to make up the shortfall. Citizens are also spending more than they earn. For the first time in US history, personal debt has exceeded personal savings. We are collectively living in a time of plenty and spending beyond our substantial means.
Just like with the housing market, our government and citizens are highly laden with debt. The national debt is over 11 trillion dollars, plus an additional 55 trillion dollars in the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare. A moderate downturn in the economy is liable to render the federal government insolvent. Yet most of the politicians are calling for more spending, more borrowing and punitive taxes on business and investment.
The insane solution that the government has recently implemented was a 160 billion dollar economic stimulus package, which gave 600 dollars to most adults, and encouraged them to spend it, in order to stimulate the economy. Also, over a trillion dollars was appropriated to bail out the troubled financial markets. Since the country is operating at a deficit, all of this money must be borrowed. The root cause of today's economic turmoil was people and financial institutions borrowing and spending beyond their means. The insane solution that the government is implementing, is to borrow and spend beyond it's means, and to encourage the people to do the same, in order to stimulate the economy.
Today, 70% of America's Gross National Product, is represented in the service industries. A service industry that includes hotels, casinos, restaurants, nail salons, party planners, dog walkers, night clubs, auto detailers, interior decorators, yoga lessons and karate lessons, will not see us through hard times. The U.S. needs to produce wealth if its citizens are to continue to enjoy wealth. Wealth is not a number on a balance sheet. Wealth requires people producing physical things such as : factories, food, clothing, automobiles, electronic products, machinery, machine parts, fuel, lumber, minerals, appliances, buildings, building materials, houses, aircraft, ships, trains, pipes, plumbing parts, wires, steel, aluminum, plastics, fabrics, roads, bridges, tunnels, damns, power plants, refineries, steel mills, lighting, and weapons for time of war.
The US economy is living off the wealth of a previous era by liquidating entire industries, and allowing infrastructure to fall into disrepair. We are also borrowing from the future with huge budget deficits, in order to finance today. It is clear to me that this can not go on indefinitely. This is the exact opposite direction we need to go in as a country. We need to live within our means as a nation and as individuals. We need to encourage, manufacturing, exploiting our natural resources, and producing food and energy, not more casinos and nail salons. Saving should be encouraged, not borrowing to buy extravagant things beyond our means. Personal debts as well as the national debt must be payed off.
There are tens of millions of people who manage their finances properly. They carry the economic burden of this nation on their back. The top ten percent of all wage earners pay over 70% of federal income taxes. Soon their backs will no longer be able to carry the load. If our government and citizens do not manage their finances, we will undoubtedly devolve into a corrupt and impoverished third world nation with a huge peasant class. Step back and look at the big picture, I see no other outcome.
The bible says: in times of plenty, we must prepare for famine. Simple? Yes. Can this simple root cause, lead to economic devastation? Certainly
Monday, September 29, 2008
Bailouts Vs. The Old-Fashioned Way
Last night I happened to catch radio talk show host, David Ramsey, as a guest on a new talk show on the FOX TV news channel, hosted by Mike Huckabee.
Dave Ramsey has a nationally syndicated radio talk show that probably ranks within the top 20 nationwide. I occasionally listened to his show while driving across the country. His theme is always the same. The slogan of his show is "Around here, the paid home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice". Ramsey is a practicing Christian who has a talk show about personal finance. Ramsey believes that everyone should make being "debt free" their financial goal. Of course this is completely contradictory to most popular wisdom in the financial and political world. He encourages listeners to pay off all of their debts, including home loans, car loans, student loans, credit cards, etc. During each program I have listened to, several callers proudly proclaim that they are now totally debt free. Often these callers are of modest income. They explain how they achieved this goal over a period of years while paying off their various creditors, and are now living in a home that is totally paid off, drive an automobile that belongs to them with no lien-holders, have education accounts for their children and retirement accounts for themselves.
In many ways, Dave Ramsey's advice is similar to the way previous generations of Americans have led their financial lives. Dave often recommends that people sell their luxury cars privately (not as a trade in to a dealer) and purchase an economy car in it's place. Often when people are stuck with one or more homes that they can not afford, he recommends that they forget about the cheese and "get out of the trap". He tells them that they have now become motivated sellers and they must sell immediately, even if it is at a loss. Ramsey recommends that families write out a budget for the following month so that they know where each and every dollar will go. If something is not on the list, they simply can not afford it that month. He recommends a 10,000 dollar emergency fund, should unexpected emergencies arise. If a decline in income should occur during a month, the list should be written with priorities on top, such as food, rent, gasoline, etc., sometimes circumstances call for low priority items to be sacrificed. Ramsey's followers are happy, content and enjoy all of the luxuries of the 21st century, however, they have learned to live within their means and become debt-free.
If you compare Ramsey's tried and true recommendations, with the way the our federal government does business, you will see a stark contrast. Ramsey's recommendation is to maintain the prosperity of our nation by putting the government's financial house in order. First we must drastically cut the size of government by listing our priorities in order of the most important, and only fund what we can afford as a nation each year. He also recommends that we pay off the national debt, and that we encourage business investment by eliminating capitol gains taxes. We should let the markets self-correct themselves without government intervention. This will leave the strongest institutions standing and will eliminate businesses that have become burdensome and corrupt. This will also clear the financial dead wood out of the economic forest and make room for new, young, vibrant and effective new players. On the other hand, to prop up what has already proven to be a failure, will leave no room in the market for the necessary changes, improvements and growth to take place.
Everything that the federal government is recommending with their 700 billion dollar bail-out program will exacerbate the financial difficulties that we find ourselves in today. A bailout will reward all of the players who have caused this economic downturn, including the politicians.
The politicians unwittingly encouraged the current downturn in financial markets with the Community Reinvestment Act, so called "Fair Lending Laws", and other well intentioned but misguided programs. The government and community activist organizations, pressured banks to give mortgages to people who had no down payment and who could not afford to make the payments. Politicians did this in an effort to make home ownership possible for all Americans. Unfortunately, in the booming economy of the 90's, the reasons why many people could not afford to own their own homes, was usually due to lack of income, lack of discipline or lack of a sound economic plan. Either way, the Community Reinvestment Act did not address these concerns and was doomed for failure from it's very inception.
However, banks were encouraged to make many loans that were not likely to be paid back. The government offered banks incentives for lending to poor people and minorities. The banks were protected against loss from risky loans, because two investment banks were chartered by the government, that would buy these loans from private banks. These government chartered investment banks were called Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It was understood from the start that the government would not allow these institutions to fail.
This made the entire mortgage industry ripe for corruption, because the risk was taken out of the free market, because it was understood that Fanny May and Freddie Mac would not be allowed to fail. "Risk vs. reward" is the foundation of our capitalist system. When risk was removed by Fannie May and Freddie Mac buying up theses risky mortgages, providing government bail-outs and not allowing certain critical businesses to fail, the entire economic system became corrupted. This is where we stand now.
In 1995 and 1999 laws were changed that permitted investment banks to purchase mortgage backed securities on margin, with a very small cash reserve. This encouraged speculation in the real estate market. Also, many families who did not qualify for mortgages in the past, were now qualified, thus the demand for housing rose sharply. Home prices rose sharply as a result of increased the demand, and speculation. As long as real estate prices were rising, everyone was making money. However, since investment banks were so highly leveraged, a small drop in real estate prices would wipe out all of their equity. Common sense dictates: "what goes up, must come down", and that is exactly what happened.
The laws that they changed, that now allows small cash reserves, were originally enacted in 1930, in order to protect against future devastating stock market crashes. If the definition of insanity is: "making the same mistake and expecting different results", our lawmakers are truly insane.
The government has already bailed out Fannie May and Freddie Mac to the tune of 300 billion dollars. This in itself is corrupting to our economic system. If the government guarantees additional mortgage backed securities, to the tune of 700 billion dollars in the pending bail-out, we will no longer be a capitalist society. The government will have ownership and control over much of our financial industry. Centralized government control of industry has never worked over the long run. This is what led to the fall of the Soviet Union and caused poverty in Cuba, North Korea, China and other communist nations.
This bail-out plan is nothing more than politicians trying to maintain their power and stave off investigations, when what is needed is a correction in government and the financial industry. Our entire group of lawmakers in Washington has become so misguided by their own self-interest, that they can no longer govern effectively. They feel that it is in their own self-interest to gin up a financial emergency, that was years in the making, a month before a presidential election. If passed, this bail-out, will only buy some time before a more serious consequences will take hold. This plan only offers more of the same policies that created this economic turmoil in the first place. Since our federal government is operating at a deficit, they will either have to borrow or print over a trillion dollars to pay for this bail-out. This is sure to have unintended negative consequences.
Politicians are using emotion to sell their bail-out plan. They are forecasting unprecedented worldwide economic failure if they don't get their plan passed this week. This is the most blatant example of fear-mongering that I have ever witnessed. I am suspect of anyone who pressures me to buy now, or else it will be too late. Common sense and experience tells me that a bill that calls for 700 billion in spending, should not be rushed through the Congress in one week. They are also ginning up angst against executives of troubled firms for their high level compensation. Executive pay packages had nothing to do with the predicament that we find ourselves in today, yet the media and the politicians spend much time chastising these executives for high pay, bonuses and golden parachutes. They are using jealous emotions in order to sway the public's opinion, while keeping our attention diverted from the actual reasons why our financial systems are in turmoil.
The current meltdown in our financial institutions is the direct result of the unintended consequences of liberal social engineering policies, the inevitable corruption that followed and the gutless inaction of intimidated conservatives.
Conservative radio talk show hosts have varying opinions on what to do about the current meltdown of the financial markets. However, they all seem to agree on how we ended up in this predicament in the first place. I found an excellent music video which sums up the conservative prospective about how we arrived at this place. This video has few spoken words. It is mostly printed words and newspaper articles flashed on the screen that describe the history that led to the current financial mess in our banking industry. Rock and roll music is played in the background. The name of the video is "Burning Down the House".
This video names only Democrats as culprits, and describes how some republicans tried to bring about reform, but failed. Of course, I think that this video is overly one-sided politically. Republicans too, were obviously complicit in allowing this to happen. Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency between 2000 and 2006. I'm sure that some republicans were also corrupt, and many other republicans have been intimidated into silence. As I have written in previous articles, the left often uses intimidation and demonetization to stifle opposing views. In this case, politicians who called for reform and investigation, were labeled as heartless bigots and racists who cared only about the rich banks and not the poor people. To fight the Democrats on this issue would have been political suicide. In a society that places emotion above reason, I see no other outcome possible.
In my opinion, the only plan that will see us through this economic and moral crisis, is the one that Dave Ramsey recommends. It is unlikely that Ramsey's plan will be considered because it requires sacrifice, self-discipline, courage, and patience. Although these spiritual principles are what made our country great, I'm afraid that they are no longer revered in today's America.
Dave Ramsey has a nationally syndicated radio talk show that probably ranks within the top 20 nationwide. I occasionally listened to his show while driving across the country. His theme is always the same. The slogan of his show is "Around here, the paid home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice". Ramsey is a practicing Christian who has a talk show about personal finance. Ramsey believes that everyone should make being "debt free" their financial goal. Of course this is completely contradictory to most popular wisdom in the financial and political world. He encourages listeners to pay off all of their debts, including home loans, car loans, student loans, credit cards, etc. During each program I have listened to, several callers proudly proclaim that they are now totally debt free. Often these callers are of modest income. They explain how they achieved this goal over a period of years while paying off their various creditors, and are now living in a home that is totally paid off, drive an automobile that belongs to them with no lien-holders, have education accounts for their children and retirement accounts for themselves.
In many ways, Dave Ramsey's advice is similar to the way previous generations of Americans have led their financial lives. Dave often recommends that people sell their luxury cars privately (not as a trade in to a dealer) and purchase an economy car in it's place. Often when people are stuck with one or more homes that they can not afford, he recommends that they forget about the cheese and "get out of the trap". He tells them that they have now become motivated sellers and they must sell immediately, even if it is at a loss. Ramsey recommends that families write out a budget for the following month so that they know where each and every dollar will go. If something is not on the list, they simply can not afford it that month. He recommends a 10,000 dollar emergency fund, should unexpected emergencies arise. If a decline in income should occur during a month, the list should be written with priorities on top, such as food, rent, gasoline, etc., sometimes circumstances call for low priority items to be sacrificed. Ramsey's followers are happy, content and enjoy all of the luxuries of the 21st century, however, they have learned to live within their means and become debt-free.
If you compare Ramsey's tried and true recommendations, with the way the our federal government does business, you will see a stark contrast. Ramsey's recommendation is to maintain the prosperity of our nation by putting the government's financial house in order. First we must drastically cut the size of government by listing our priorities in order of the most important, and only fund what we can afford as a nation each year. He also recommends that we pay off the national debt, and that we encourage business investment by eliminating capitol gains taxes. We should let the markets self-correct themselves without government intervention. This will leave the strongest institutions standing and will eliminate businesses that have become burdensome and corrupt. This will also clear the financial dead wood out of the economic forest and make room for new, young, vibrant and effective new players. On the other hand, to prop up what has already proven to be a failure, will leave no room in the market for the necessary changes, improvements and growth to take place.
Everything that the federal government is recommending with their 700 billion dollar bail-out program will exacerbate the financial difficulties that we find ourselves in today. A bailout will reward all of the players who have caused this economic downturn, including the politicians.
The politicians unwittingly encouraged the current downturn in financial markets with the Community Reinvestment Act, so called "Fair Lending Laws", and other well intentioned but misguided programs. The government and community activist organizations, pressured banks to give mortgages to people who had no down payment and who could not afford to make the payments. Politicians did this in an effort to make home ownership possible for all Americans. Unfortunately, in the booming economy of the 90's, the reasons why many people could not afford to own their own homes, was usually due to lack of income, lack of discipline or lack of a sound economic plan. Either way, the Community Reinvestment Act did not address these concerns and was doomed for failure from it's very inception.
However, banks were encouraged to make many loans that were not likely to be paid back. The government offered banks incentives for lending to poor people and minorities. The banks were protected against loss from risky loans, because two investment banks were chartered by the government, that would buy these loans from private banks. These government chartered investment banks were called Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It was understood from the start that the government would not allow these institutions to fail.
This made the entire mortgage industry ripe for corruption, because the risk was taken out of the free market, because it was understood that Fanny May and Freddie Mac would not be allowed to fail. "Risk vs. reward" is the foundation of our capitalist system. When risk was removed by Fannie May and Freddie Mac buying up theses risky mortgages, providing government bail-outs and not allowing certain critical businesses to fail, the entire economic system became corrupted. This is where we stand now.
In 1995 and 1999 laws were changed that permitted investment banks to purchase mortgage backed securities on margin, with a very small cash reserve. This encouraged speculation in the real estate market. Also, many families who did not qualify for mortgages in the past, were now qualified, thus the demand for housing rose sharply. Home prices rose sharply as a result of increased the demand, and speculation. As long as real estate prices were rising, everyone was making money. However, since investment banks were so highly leveraged, a small drop in real estate prices would wipe out all of their equity. Common sense dictates: "what goes up, must come down", and that is exactly what happened.
The laws that they changed, that now allows small cash reserves, were originally enacted in 1930, in order to protect against future devastating stock market crashes. If the definition of insanity is: "making the same mistake and expecting different results", our lawmakers are truly insane.
The government has already bailed out Fannie May and Freddie Mac to the tune of 300 billion dollars. This in itself is corrupting to our economic system. If the government guarantees additional mortgage backed securities, to the tune of 700 billion dollars in the pending bail-out, we will no longer be a capitalist society. The government will have ownership and control over much of our financial industry. Centralized government control of industry has never worked over the long run. This is what led to the fall of the Soviet Union and caused poverty in Cuba, North Korea, China and other communist nations.
This bail-out plan is nothing more than politicians trying to maintain their power and stave off investigations, when what is needed is a correction in government and the financial industry. Our entire group of lawmakers in Washington has become so misguided by their own self-interest, that they can no longer govern effectively. They feel that it is in their own self-interest to gin up a financial emergency, that was years in the making, a month before a presidential election. If passed, this bail-out, will only buy some time before a more serious consequences will take hold. This plan only offers more of the same policies that created this economic turmoil in the first place. Since our federal government is operating at a deficit, they will either have to borrow or print over a trillion dollars to pay for this bail-out. This is sure to have unintended negative consequences.
Politicians are using emotion to sell their bail-out plan. They are forecasting unprecedented worldwide economic failure if they don't get their plan passed this week. This is the most blatant example of fear-mongering that I have ever witnessed. I am suspect of anyone who pressures me to buy now, or else it will be too late. Common sense and experience tells me that a bill that calls for 700 billion in spending, should not be rushed through the Congress in one week. They are also ginning up angst against executives of troubled firms for their high level compensation. Executive pay packages had nothing to do with the predicament that we find ourselves in today, yet the media and the politicians spend much time chastising these executives for high pay, bonuses and golden parachutes. They are using jealous emotions in order to sway the public's opinion, while keeping our attention diverted from the actual reasons why our financial systems are in turmoil.
The current meltdown in our financial institutions is the direct result of the unintended consequences of liberal social engineering policies, the inevitable corruption that followed and the gutless inaction of intimidated conservatives.
Conservative radio talk show hosts have varying opinions on what to do about the current meltdown of the financial markets. However, they all seem to agree on how we ended up in this predicament in the first place. I found an excellent music video which sums up the conservative prospective about how we arrived at this place. This video has few spoken words. It is mostly printed words and newspaper articles flashed on the screen that describe the history that led to the current financial mess in our banking industry. Rock and roll music is played in the background. The name of the video is "Burning Down the House".
This video names only Democrats as culprits, and describes how some republicans tried to bring about reform, but failed. Of course, I think that this video is overly one-sided politically. Republicans too, were obviously complicit in allowing this to happen. Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency between 2000 and 2006. I'm sure that some republicans were also corrupt, and many other republicans have been intimidated into silence. As I have written in previous articles, the left often uses intimidation and demonetization to stifle opposing views. In this case, politicians who called for reform and investigation, were labeled as heartless bigots and racists who cared only about the rich banks and not the poor people. To fight the Democrats on this issue would have been political suicide. In a society that places emotion above reason, I see no other outcome possible.
In my opinion, the only plan that will see us through this economic and moral crisis, is the one that Dave Ramsey recommends. It is unlikely that Ramsey's plan will be considered because it requires sacrifice, self-discipline, courage, and patience. Although these spiritual principles are what made our country great, I'm afraid that they are no longer revered in today's America.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Should We Legalize Crack or Outlaw Ritalin?
I don't think that legalizing drugs is a good idea. I believe that legitimizing psychotropic medications, whether legal or illegal, will have negative unintended consequences. I spelled out some of the negative consequences that have arisen from the medical and pharmaceutical industries pushing medications on the general public in an article called "Legal Drug Pushers and Their Victims". Also, not mentioned in this article, are millions of children that are now being put on Ritalin and other stimulants to treat so called attention deficit disorder (ADD) in an effort to control unruly behavior by school-age children.
I believe that a feminized school system is attempting to reduce boys' natural unruly, defiant, masculine nature with medication. The unintended consequence, is to stifle the natural inquisitive, adventurous, and mischievous behavior of young men. Albert Einstein was unable to concentrate on his schoolwork as a boy, he got bad grades and was quite restless. If Ritalin was available during Albert Einsteins youth, he could very well been diagnosed with ADD and putt on on this medication. This would have undoubtedly have affected his creativity and intellectual curiosity. If Einstein had been medicated as a child, he may never have made the discoveries which have had a profound positive impact on our country, and humanity. I think that encouraging and legitimizing the use of psychotropic medications, will have unintended consequences beyond our current understanding. Perhaps these unintended consequences would limit our ability to stand up to, and defeat, the "bad elements" in our global society. Another unintended consequence could be that we become, as a nation, one of these "bad elements". This is likely to happen if we drift away from the universal spiritual principles that this country was founded upon, and become a nation of people who chase thrills and pleasures, and seek to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness at all costs. Well intentioned liberals and libertarians often seek a quick fix, without considering the unforeseen and unintended negative consequences.
While an active member in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), I learned that drug addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual illness. The physical nature of the disease is the physical addiction. Physical addiction causes withdrawal symptoms, physical discomfort, and sometimes severe illness if you stop taking the drug. The mental aspect of the disease of addiction, leads the addict to continually make the same mistakes and expect different results. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking the risks that we do, yet no matter how severe the consequences, we continue to use drugs and put our families, our freedom and even our own lives in jeopardy. Although our lives are clearly unmanageable, we are often in complete denial of our apparent circumstance. The spiritual nature of addiction is the most insidious. We learned that we were addicts long before we took our first drink, drug or pill. Spiritual bankruptcy accompanies active drug addiction. This is is what allows us to do whatever it takes, to get our next fix. As practicing addicts, our whole life centers around the using of drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. As addicts we lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive people, use people and put people around us in danger in order to get our next fix. Some of us have killed or rapped as a consequence of our addiction. There is no bottom the the depths of the spiritual depravity of an active drug addict. I have heard many personal stories in NA, and I have shared my own. Many of these aspects of addiction are true in all the stories that I have heard including my own.
The ongoing recovery offered by NA is based on spirituality as spelled out in the twelve steps and the twelve traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. In NA, we come to understand how our lives have become unmanageable. We come to see how drugs controlled every aspect of our lives. We were out of control. We had no control. Drugs had all control and power over us. At the same time we were powerless to stop using drugs. We tried to stop on our own over and over again but we couldn't. We were powerless. We could not stop or control our using them and once we were under the influence we could not control our actions. Our whole life centered around getting and using drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. After attending NA meetings for a period of time,with a sponsor, it became clear to me that drugs are a power greater than myself. The solution that NA offered was to believe that another power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. That power is God. I was taught to "Let go and let God". Don't fight it, just do God's will and all will be well. Basically those are the first 3 of the 12 steps in the NA or AA program. God is mentioned in most of the steps. The other 9 steps deal with practical ways that you can do God's will. First by taking a personal inventory, next by asking God to remove our shortcomings, then, when we were wrong we promptly admitting it, then making a list of people we have harmed and making amends to them all and then by helping other addicts get and stay clean. Thus, when your words and actions are in line with God's will, you will have serenity. Basically that is the NA program in a nutshell.
NA is a spiritual program, based on an all powerful God. NA and AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) have the best track record of success with drug and alcohol problems? Every rehab that I have been in, and I've been in about a dozen over the years, include NA or AA meetings as part of their treatment and they strongly recommend continuation of AA or NA meetings after leaving the program. Many drug and alcohol offenders are required by the courts to attend these spiritually based meetings as part of their probation. I was court ordered on several occasions. When the public sees Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan go off to rehab, do they know that the treatment is based on spirituality and a belief in God? Why is there no outrage on the part of the liberals and atheists because the state (the court) is ordering offenders to attend a spiritual program based on an all powerful God? Perhaps because the program works, but I think that the more likely reason is that the program is anonymous and it is not widely publicized that these programs are based on spiritual principles and God.
I know from my own 25 year experience as an active drug addict, that drug addiction is a spiritual disease, with serious consequences for the addict and everyone that he comes in contact with. I believe that widespread use of drugs in the US is only possible due to the spiritual depravity that is widespread in our nation. As with most problems, a solution that addresses the root cause of the problem is most effective. Legalizing and legitimizing drug use in our country will only exacerbate the spiritual depravity that we are experiencing and will undoubtedly lead to unforeseen, negative consequences. Addressing the spiritual depravity in our nation is the solution that I think will be most effective in fighting drug addiction. This solution will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics as well as reducing the widespread use of legal psychotropic medications . This is the only solution that has been proved to work as demonstrated by the fellowships of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.
The US has grown into a situation of unprecedented economic abundance, coupled with spiritual depravity. This is what has led us to be the leading consumer of illicit drugs as well as legal psychotropic medications. This unique situation can not and will not be self sustaining. We must grow spiritually, as individuals and as a nation, or we will lose our individual and collective prosperity as well as our freedom.
I believe that a feminized school system is attempting to reduce boys' natural unruly, defiant, masculine nature with medication. The unintended consequence, is to stifle the natural inquisitive, adventurous, and mischievous behavior of young men. Albert Einstein was unable to concentrate on his schoolwork as a boy, he got bad grades and was quite restless. If Ritalin was available during Albert Einsteins youth, he could very well been diagnosed with ADD and putt on on this medication. This would have undoubtedly have affected his creativity and intellectual curiosity. If Einstein had been medicated as a child, he may never have made the discoveries which have had a profound positive impact on our country, and humanity. I think that encouraging and legitimizing the use of psychotropic medications, will have unintended consequences beyond our current understanding. Perhaps these unintended consequences would limit our ability to stand up to, and defeat, the "bad elements" in our global society. Another unintended consequence could be that we become, as a nation, one of these "bad elements". This is likely to happen if we drift away from the universal spiritual principles that this country was founded upon, and become a nation of people who chase thrills and pleasures, and seek to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness at all costs. Well intentioned liberals and libertarians often seek a quick fix, without considering the unforeseen and unintended negative consequences.
While an active member in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), I learned that drug addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual illness. The physical nature of the disease is the physical addiction. Physical addiction causes withdrawal symptoms, physical discomfort, and sometimes severe illness if you stop taking the drug. The mental aspect of the disease of addiction, leads the addict to continually make the same mistakes and expect different results. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking the risks that we do, yet no matter how severe the consequences, we continue to use drugs and put our families, our freedom and even our own lives in jeopardy. Although our lives are clearly unmanageable, we are often in complete denial of our apparent circumstance. The spiritual nature of addiction is the most insidious. We learned that we were addicts long before we took our first drink, drug or pill. Spiritual bankruptcy accompanies active drug addiction. This is is what allows us to do whatever it takes, to get our next fix. As practicing addicts, our whole life centers around the using of drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. As addicts we lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive people, use people and put people around us in danger in order to get our next fix. Some of us have killed or rapped as a consequence of our addiction. There is no bottom the the depths of the spiritual depravity of an active drug addict. I have heard many personal stories in NA, and I have shared my own. Many of these aspects of addiction are true in all the stories that I have heard including my own.
The ongoing recovery offered by NA is based on spirituality as spelled out in the twelve steps and the twelve traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. In NA, we come to understand how our lives have become unmanageable. We come to see how drugs controlled every aspect of our lives. We were out of control. We had no control. Drugs had all control and power over us. At the same time we were powerless to stop using drugs. We tried to stop on our own over and over again but we couldn't. We were powerless. We could not stop or control our using them and once we were under the influence we could not control our actions. Our whole life centered around getting and using drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. After attending NA meetings for a period of time,with a sponsor, it became clear to me that drugs are a power greater than myself. The solution that NA offered was to believe that another power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. That power is God. I was taught to "Let go and let God". Don't fight it, just do God's will and all will be well. Basically those are the first 3 of the 12 steps in the NA or AA program. God is mentioned in most of the steps. The other 9 steps deal with practical ways that you can do God's will. First by taking a personal inventory, next by asking God to remove our shortcomings, then, when we were wrong we promptly admitting it, then making a list of people we have harmed and making amends to them all and then by helping other addicts get and stay clean. Thus, when your words and actions are in line with God's will, you will have serenity. Basically that is the NA program in a nutshell.
NA is a spiritual program, based on an all powerful God. NA and AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) have the best track record of success with drug and alcohol problems? Every rehab that I have been in, and I've been in about a dozen over the years, include NA or AA meetings as part of their treatment and they strongly recommend continuation of AA or NA meetings after leaving the program. Many drug and alcohol offenders are required by the courts to attend these spiritually based meetings as part of their probation. I was court ordered on several occasions. When the public sees Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan go off to rehab, do they know that the treatment is based on spirituality and a belief in God? Why is there no outrage on the part of the liberals and atheists because the state (the court) is ordering offenders to attend a spiritual program based on an all powerful God? Perhaps because the program works, but I think that the more likely reason is that the program is anonymous and it is not widely publicized that these programs are based on spiritual principles and God.
I know from my own 25 year experience as an active drug addict, that drug addiction is a spiritual disease, with serious consequences for the addict and everyone that he comes in contact with. I believe that widespread use of drugs in the US is only possible due to the spiritual depravity that is widespread in our nation. As with most problems, a solution that addresses the root cause of the problem is most effective. Legalizing and legitimizing drug use in our country will only exacerbate the spiritual depravity that we are experiencing and will undoubtedly lead to unforeseen, negative consequences. Addressing the spiritual depravity in our nation is the solution that I think will be most effective in fighting drug addiction. This solution will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics as well as reducing the widespread use of legal psychotropic medications . This is the only solution that has been proved to work as demonstrated by the fellowships of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.
The US has grown into a situation of unprecedented economic abundance, coupled with spiritual depravity. This is what has led us to be the leading consumer of illicit drugs as well as legal psychotropic medications. This unique situation can not and will not be self sustaining. We must grow spiritually, as individuals and as a nation, or we will lose our individual and collective prosperity as well as our freedom.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
An Irrefutable Case Against Abortion
Recently I spoke with a liberal woman distressing over the recent VP choice of John McCain. Although his VP pick was a woman, Sarah Palin, this liberal woman lamented that Palin was a horrible choice because she was against abortion. My sarcastic yet concise response was " you are right, we need more abortions". She had no comeback and I said no more, but I thought about it.
I came to the conclusion that choosing an abortion is an extremely selfish act. Three of the many spiritual principles that I frequently mention are "courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice". A woman who chooses to have an abortion is committing one of the most cowardly and selfish acts that I can think of. Abortion trumps child abandonment and child abuse, because the child has no chance. It is tantamount to killing another soul because he/she interferes with your own plans and dreams for your future.
Even in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, the child could be the one good thing to come from this horrific act. I have heard from children born from rape, who have grown up to lead happy productive lives due to their mothers courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice.
The authors of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, had no intention of legitimizing the snuffing out of human lives through abortion. Proponents of abortion rights often claim that a woman's right to choose is spelled out in the fourteenth amendment. I have read that amendment over and over again. I see no such words or intentions in the fourteenth amendment. Often liberals and feminized men and women make judgment based on emotions, rather than reason. The pro-choice lobby, as well as their lawyers, use convoluted reasoning to justify their selfish views. Only in a society where the ends justify the means and spiritual principles are trivialized as unnecessary impediments, can the highest court in the land rule that abortion is justified by the fourteenth amendment which states: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no question that as a result of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, forty million people have been "deprived of life", through the implementation of legal abortion.
Also, many states have enacted laws that charge assailants with murder, for the assault of pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn fetus. Harriet Ryan from Court TV wrote: There are fetal homicide laws on the books in more than two dozen states, but they vary widely. In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" — when movement is first felt in the womb — occurs.
These laws are clearly inconsistent with federal law that claim an unborn fetus is not yet a human life. However, I have yet to hear any feminists or pro-abortion rights groups protest against these laws, which give unborn fetuses protection under the law. This inconsistency clearly proves that pro-abortion proponents are basing their arguments on emotion, based on selfishness, rather than on the spiritual principles of courage and selflessness.
I came to the conclusion that choosing an abortion is an extremely selfish act. Three of the many spiritual principles that I frequently mention are "courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice". A woman who chooses to have an abortion is committing one of the most cowardly and selfish acts that I can think of. Abortion trumps child abandonment and child abuse, because the child has no chance. It is tantamount to killing another soul because he/she interferes with your own plans and dreams for your future.
Even in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, the child could be the one good thing to come from this horrific act. I have heard from children born from rape, who have grown up to lead happy productive lives due to their mothers courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice.
The authors of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, had no intention of legitimizing the snuffing out of human lives through abortion. Proponents of abortion rights often claim that a woman's right to choose is spelled out in the fourteenth amendment. I have read that amendment over and over again. I see no such words or intentions in the fourteenth amendment. Often liberals and feminized men and women make judgment based on emotions, rather than reason. The pro-choice lobby, as well as their lawyers, use convoluted reasoning to justify their selfish views. Only in a society where the ends justify the means and spiritual principles are trivialized as unnecessary impediments, can the highest court in the land rule that abortion is justified by the fourteenth amendment which states: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no question that as a result of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, forty million people have been "deprived of life", through the implementation of legal abortion.
Also, many states have enacted laws that charge assailants with murder, for the assault of pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn fetus. Harriet Ryan from Court TV wrote: There are fetal homicide laws on the books in more than two dozen states, but they vary widely. In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" — when movement is first felt in the womb — occurs.
These laws are clearly inconsistent with federal law that claim an unborn fetus is not yet a human life. However, I have yet to hear any feminists or pro-abortion rights groups protest against these laws, which give unborn fetuses protection under the law. This inconsistency clearly proves that pro-abortion proponents are basing their arguments on emotion, based on selfishness, rather than on the spiritual principles of courage and selflessness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
