Now that the President Of  The United States has become Robin Hood and the Congress and Senate are his band of Merry Men there will be wealth stolen and given away to those who did not earn it on a scale never seen before in history. And this is only the beginning there is much more to come. Soon all the resources will be gone and with the the power to control our own destiny. The real tragedy is that almost no one will recognize what is happening and most will lend their support.  Those who can see the seeds of destruction in these actions are nearly powerless to prevent it and their warnings are unheard or ridiculed. They will probably be nominalized and ridiculed until they can justly proclaim, "I told you so!"  Ms. Rand's character, Francisco d'Anconia speech quoted below was made to a crowd of useful idiots whose disdain for the wealthy was their banner and who were clamoring to bring about much the same agenda as we see being proposed or enacted by our government today.


The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted of obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out.

The above is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand.

Looking for something entertaining last night I stumbled upon a Disney documentary (so called) titled "Sacred Planet"  released in 2005 in the Apple iTunes Store on line. It was 46 minutes long, sold for $9.99 and had very high viewer ratings - the comments were astounding in their praise for this film. I thought wow I should see this -- 10 bucks is a little high but I gave in, purchased and downloaded it to my computer.  Amid gorgeous scenes of pristine nature and idyllic settings the Narrator (Robert Redford, no less) began weaving a fairy tale constructed to contrast an industrialized world with the primitive tribal societies past and present. The message was very subtle but quite clear, the industrial world and its societies are so far removed from nature that they not only lack respect for the "Sacred Planet" and are actually destroying the planet. The producer selected tribal  spokesman from various parts of the world where they are still living in tribal communities. These communities are still  practicing the old tribal customs and rituals "centuries" old,  often living in mud huts, hunting with spears, they are shown setting around the camp fires singing, some are naked but for their loin clothes. They are shown as happy people, living the good simple life and most of all CARING FOR THE SACRED PLANET. While the big cities are shown only with congested traffic in the street, blinding neon lights flashing endlessly, crowded streets with filled with people hustling aimlessly from place to place.

The message is clear - these simple tribal people are the epitome of how life should be lived -- they respect and care for the earth -- simply because they are closer to nature they understand better how to take care of the environment.  The citizens of the industrial world are too far from nature to understand or care about the planet and its environment!  Not said but surely implied, we must get back to the land and emulate these primitive people's way of life to "SAVE the PLANET". What utter nonsense this is!!

Those speaking so adamantly against Intelligent Design  and Creationism always denounce the use of the Bible stating that it is not scientific literature and therefore can not be cited as scientific evidence of creation. You are right about the use of the Bible in scientific discussions but you are absolutely wrong about ID and Creationism's use of the Bible as scientific evidence. Solid ID and Creationists alike all point to evidence OUTSIDE the bible that supports creationism. Creationists DO NOT hold that simply because something is written on the Bible that it is scientific evidence for creation. Creationists hold that there is plenty of extra biblical scientific evidence supporting the theory of creationism!

The science of studying "where we came from" (the origin of all life) is NOT the same science that gave us the great technological, medical, and engineering advances we all enjoy. The "Scientific Method" demands the ability to experiment with an idea and to develop conclusions based on the results of the experiments, reach conclusions. These experiments must be repeatable  by any one, and the results verifiable by anyone performing the experiment. Please see the following link (NOT and ID or Creationist web site) for a proper definition of the scientific method:

http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/9.html

Experimenting with our origins is not possible and since NO ONE was there at the beginning, all we can do is find evidence and interpret it. The rub is that interpretation by necessity begins with assumptions. Therefore any interpretation will be "tainted" by the assumptions used by the interpreter Both Evolutionists and Creations begin with different assumptions so that when they both look at the same evidence they each reach different conclusions! Neither group's conclusions are any more valid or legitimate than the other group's conclusions. Both groups are merely interpreting historical evidence, neither are doing true original research. The study of origins is more a review of historical evidence that it is science in its purest form.

In true science an hypothesis can only become a theory after exhaustive experimentation (repeated testing and retesting by a wide range of people)and peer review. Then only when most agree that the preponderance of the results fit the hypothesis can it become a THEORY (note this is NOT a LAW). The same process is repeated on the theory until it is such an established truth that it can become a LAW - such as the LAW of Gravity!
Note that Einstein's Theory of relativity is still a THEORY it is not yet a law!  We are able to successfully make use of his theory on many ways,  yet we have yet to conclude that it is a law.

Yet when it comes to Evolution which is still a theory it is everywhere being taught as FACT which in itself is  deceitful and very UNSCIENTIFIC! Evolutionist demand that ONLY evolution be taught in public schools and that Creationist are "trying to introduce religion" into the public classroom where it does not belong. True Creationists are NOT demanding that Creation be taught as fact or that it be the ONLY explanation of our origins to be taught in public schools. Creationist are saying that from a SCIENTIFIC review of available evidence more than ONE conclusions can be drawn - they are saying to teach BOTH Evolution and Creation as possible THEORIES of the origin of all life. Neither to the exclusion or detriment to the other.

Further Creationists are NOT seeking to introduce the Bible in ANY WAY in to the Public School science classroom! Creation as a scientific interpretation of the available evidence does not involve nor need to involve the Bible in any way. When I took my Oceanography course in College my science teacher taught BOTH creation and evolution with out a single reference to either the Bible or religion. It can be and should be done for the sake of intellectual HONESTY!

Our children need to be taught to recognize that   more than one conclusion can be made from reviewing the evidence before them. They need to know that a Theory is not yet a Fact in the scientific world, even if it is a widely accepted one. It was once widely accepted that the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Because of science we now know differently. Excluding one MAJOR theory in favor of another is neither scientific nor honest!

I challenge one person anywhere to prove conclusively that either Evolution or Creation is a FACT! If that can not be done, why in the world would we keep from teaching both in public schools? What are people afraid of? Why would we support duplicitous teaching of science that in itself disregards the basic principles of science?

DISCLAIMER:  If you have not yet figured it out I believe that the God of the Bible created the world in a literal 6 days (as He rested on the 7th day) and that evolution is not a valid explanation of the origin of life. I do not hate, resent or in any way detest those who have a different opinion. I also do support the right of every American to express his or her opinion with out the interference of the government and would defend with my life their right to do so. Such freedom however, does come as all freedoms do, with responsibility.  In this case not to yell Fire in a crowded theater!  

It seems to me that there is an element of revenge emanating primarily (but not exclusively) from the Left. When they were out of power, they were frustrated at their inability to achieve their goals. That frustration is normal and natural and is also felt by the Right when they are not in power.

The difference seems to be that when the Left is in charge, they not only want to achieve the goals, but they also want to do so by inflicting the greatest amount of damage, pain and suffering on those who disagree with them. Its not about wining its about revenge and punishing those on the right. Punishment often takes the form of character and/or political assassination! Its not enough for them to prevail, they must do so using a scorched earth policy and taking no prisoners. Before anyone says that the Right attempted to do the same thing to Bill Clinton let me point out that it was Bill Clinton who did it to himself and he admits it! Read his book. It would be incorrect to assert that the Right does not engage in revenge, but if one looks across recent history one would likely see that revenge of this  nature emanates predominately from the Left and at a magnitude that far exceeds that from the  Right. But they both have their draw backs.

Additionally, politically members of both of the Major Parties in attempting to prevail have used the  premise that the best defense is an offense to the point that neither group is acting for the welfare or our Nation but solely to win power for themselves and their party. From my observations  the local, state and federal politicians are blind to the will of the people except at election time. When they will espouse what is popular to get elected. If they are up for re-election they will attempt to pass token legislation to make themselves  look good. When elected or re-elected they will continue to pander to special interests and ignore their constituents. They will continue to make getting re-elected their number one priority. Over all neither party has significantly altered the Tax and Spend mentality of government, nor have they honestly and properly addressed the pending disasters of Social Security and Medicare, let alone the other "entitlements."  They have ignored the Constitution by exceeding their Constitutional authority (i.e. Eminent Domain as one of many examples), aided and abetted by the Supreme Court. They refuse to properly control our borders or to take actions to enforce the laws of immigration.  You know the picture.


From all of this it is easy to conclude that the ideals of either the Left or the Right as embodied by each political party are in fact not the ideals of the general voting population. Further that the general voting public still tends to believe that each political party is in fact embracing the true ideals thought of as Left or Right. So they keep voting the same people into office expecting things to change. I believe it was Einstein who said that "Insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results." Conclusion: We are insane to think things will change by giving our support to either political party. Its time to change the system - I do not believe we will change the Two Party system any time in the foreseeable future. So lets try a new approach let vote in a president that is not a member of ANY party!  Vote for Joe Oliva -- check him out at his web site
joeolivaforpresident.org.  I refer to the status of anyone running for any office who is not a member of any political party as a member of the UnParty.  We need to vote for as many UnParty candidates running for any office as we can - considering their suitability to hold office of course.  As I see it, thats the only hope we have. 

In regard to the war in Iraq, I simply can not accept the premise that one can support the troops and not support the war. They are mutually exclusive, because accepting one automatically includes the acceptance of the other. It defies logic that one can support our troops who are at war and not support the war as well. I firmly believe that those who embrace this idea, also believe that they are mutually exclusive but are taking this untenable position in the dubious belief that they will escape any sort of responsibility or accountability for the war.  This makes no more sense than if our founding fathers had supported the colonial troops but not the war of revolution! Some how they believe they are on "politically" safe grounds. They think they can wear the badge of patriotism with pride because they support the troops. They cry that dissension is patriotic. While dissension my very well be patriotic, what they are doing is not.

Today, I read where Senator Clinton and others are attempting to submit a bill to withdraw Congress' authorization for the President to use force in Iraq. This is nothing short of murder, it is a detestable, reprehensible, disgusting and hateful way to show support for our troops. I totally disagree with those who oppose the war in Iraq but I would defend their right to say so with my life. What I can not abide and will not accept is this blatant vicious political maneuver to undermine the already existing war in an attempt to force their will on the Executive Branch of the government.  They can deny it all they want but their hope is that they can pull the rug from underneath the President and then blame the fall on him at the same time..  This is not only wrong but is also evil and vile as-well-as unworthy of anyone who is a candidate for the presidency. It is cut throat politics at its worst.  The American people should not stand for it.

I am angry, appalled, and  fighting mad. I feel as though I have no way to fight back. They have stolen our heritage of standing for what is right and just rather than submit to tyranny. They have stolen honor and replaced it with selfishness and lust for power. The actions of those currently in power in Washington show they are bent upon amassing more and more power for themselves nothing more, nothing less, nothing else, at any cost! They will destroy anything ,everything, and everyone who gets in their way. They ignore the Constitution and the laws of our land as-well-as lie, cheat and steal to achieve their objectives. They are without conscience, morals, or integrity. They are clothed with an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority all the while practicing their underhanded and dirty tricks with impunity, believing they are untouchable. They are NOT loyal Americans, they are loyal only to themselves. They do NOT have America's best interests at heart or even on their minds. They will destroy American.  I recently read that after the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked, "What have you given us?"
his answer was, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Ladies and gentleman, I submit that we are in grave danger of losing this Republic, if we allow those currently in power to abolish the fact that all branches of the Federal Government are CO-EQUAL! That they function together even while they may disagree on actions and issues. We must insist that they keep the good of our Nation firmly in mind at all times even if it means their point of view does not prevail! That is what duty, honor and integrity are all about. We can not allow them to undermine or attempt to undermine other branches of government simply because they did not get their way or when they disagree with them. Their lust for power must not continue to be the basis for their actions any longer.

We the people ARE the government we must not standby and let this nation die a slow death. We must be prepared to sacrifice our own lusts for the easy life, and stop expecting the government to solve every problem, provide for every need, remove all risks, ensure every outcome is favorable, rescue us from every disaster, cure all of our diseases, provide us with a retirement, give us or guarantee us medical care, keep the cost of our prescription medicines down, ensure gas and electricity costs are low, feed our children, support our widows, or give us cheap housing! We must not allow the "pork barrel" spending  to exist as it just a means to buy our votes by subsidizing our local economy, a function that the government has no right or authority to be involved with.  We must instead demand that every officer of the government perform in a manner consistent with our constitution and laws as well as being  frugal with our money, as the government has no money of its own since it all comes from the pockets of we its citizens. And if they do not adhere to these minimum standards, they must be booted out of office and replaced with someone who can. . Better still we insist on Congress having TERM LIMITS just as the President now has.

If you think this can not be done, then you missed your U.S. History lessons. Thats exactly what our forefathers did when they were faced with a corrupt, unresponsive, confiscatory, fickle and feckless government that yoked them with excessive tax burdens. Its time we took back our nation from the hands of those who now lusting and  pandering after personal power and gain and could not care less about the state of our nation. In my next blog I will reveal the name of a presidential candidate who has the potential to return honesty, integrity, and rationality to the office and whom if elected could change the face of politics in this country. Interestingly he has no political party affiliation.

Our venerable federal representatives are considering requiring the FCC to re-implement the "Fairness" doctrine. Recall that this regulation required broadcasters to provide "equal time for opposing views'"  The objective being to enhance the right to free speech. The regulation served to do the exact opposite. In requiring broadcasters to provide equal time the regulation forced them to broadcast things for which they could not make even the money needed to cover the cost of providing air time. This forced them into doing one of two things, both of which served to LIMIT free speech rather than enhance it. They would either have to charge more for the airtime of popular broadcasts to cover their losses or change to a format that where they would not need to provide equal time. In the first case, the increased cost of airtime served to prohibit some who could not afford the air time even though their message was popular.  in the second case changing to. say an all music format, where there would be no need for "equal time" served to eliminate an opportunity to get the message out.

For me the bottom line is that "FAIRNESS" is totally subjective and therefore can never be regulated by laws. Life itself is not fair! I see no where in our constitution where we are guaranteed the right to be fairly treated! Our basic rights are neatly summed up by the Deceleration of Independence: The right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.  Our constitution backs that up with specifics, including the right to free speech. Note that we only have the right to PURSUE happiness and not the right to happiness itself.

As i see it  the Federal Government has unconstitutionally assumed the power to regulate speech under the nebulous guise of "Fairness."  Fairness to whom?, Fairness for whom? Who gets to define what fairness is?  All this can and has leads to the courts in our legal system defining what is fair!  One or a small group of men now chart the course of free speech. The government has NO RIGHT and NO AUTHORITY to regulate speech or for that matter fairness. Unless and until there is a constitutional amendment allowing for such regulation, any attempt to do so is illegal.

Yes I fully recognize that freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. But that has nothing to do with fairness and has every thing to do with safety security.   Also the market place of ideas exists in spite of whether people like the ideas or hate them and this can not be regulated - even total dictatorships can not effectively do that. Fair and balanced is a social concept and not a legal one and has no place in our laws. Equality under the law covers all we need to have in our legal system. Equality under the law ensures us of the right to be treated equally and justly under the law NOT FAIRLY as the law itself can not be judged by this undefinable concept.

Once again our society has been deceived by the manipulation of words, in this case fairness has  replaced equality and justice. Our more liberal friends have succeeded in duping most of us into believing that we have a right to being treated "fairly" when no such right or guarantee exists. Only children fight over what is fair, adults fight over what is just and equitable.

I am sick and tired of hearing that Christians who oppose homosexual activity HATE homosexuals. From a Christian prospective hating a person is not now and has never been with-in the fundamental tenets of Christianity. We are taught to hate SIN not a person. "We all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God" Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone" said Jesus. Those who accuse us of HATING homosexuals have clearly never met a true born again Christian. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Spare me the rhetoric about the Crusades, the "lynchings" in the South, and the abortion clinic  bombers. These people and those acts were never committed by born again Christians who loved God and followed Jesus.  They were and are Christians in name only, period.  The fact that they claimed to be Christians does not make them Christians. There are delusional people in every facet of life - but they are not typical of the group with whom they associate. And these people and their acts bare no resemblance to the life of a true Christian.

Secondly STOP saying that Christians want to IMPOSE their beliefs on others.  This is an absolute and total FABRICATION! A true born again Christian knows that God Himself does not IMPOSE His way on mankind! God gave us "free will" the absolute right to chose how we want to live and what we want to believe. The only thing is that we must accept the consequences of our choice - good or bad.  This is fundamental to all of life whether or not you believe in the God of the Cristian Bible! We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions and we can not escape them. Everyone has the right to chose how to live their own life. To impose our beliefs on others is antithetical to biblical Christian  teachings. A true Christian will share his/her understanding of God's truths with others who are willing to listen. A true Christian observes God's provision of Free Will and knows that you can not impose God's way on another person - in fact a True Christian knows that you can not even persuade a person to chose God. All a Christian can do and remain faithful to God is to share his understanding of God's truth. Anything else is contrary to God's own behavior.

It is true that God as revealed in the Old Testament did seem  indeed to impose many things upon His people and sometimes upon other people. The New Testament reveals the rest of God's truth and plan, to us and therefore one must judge Christians in the light of what Jesus taught and how He acted, not be the partial view of God in either of the testaments.

As to how we "know" that God's word is TRUTH - that indeed is a matter of faith. Just as even those who do not accept God's word as truth exercise faith in their daily lives - even when they deny they ever use faith as a basis for their actions.  For example when we get on board a plane to fly somewhere. Who among us investigates the pilots to be certain they are qualified? and how do we KNOW they are qualified even if they have a license?  Do we check the engines, kick the tires and investigate the airworthiness of the craft?    Do we check all the luggage to be sure there is no bomb on board? NO we get on and fly by faith!  We believe it the systems that are doing these things for us.  By the way the next time you walk into a room you have never been in before and set down in a chair -- you have just exercised your faith!  You BELIEVED that chair would hold your weight with out first investigating it to make certain. Faith is an everyday part of everyones life.

So we Christians believe that truth is not relative but absolute because truth is rooted in an infallible God. We are NOT DEMANDING you believe this as well. We will how ever share with anyone who is willing to listen how our lives have benefited by our adherence to these beliefs. Like Fox News, "We Report, You Decide" That is the true Christian way.

I have come to think that the government  "of the people, for the people, and by the people" no longer exists, if it ever existed. The illegal, immoral, and abusive use of public resources at every level of government bureaucracy from local all the way to federal is so common today that it is considered the normal and acceptable way of doing the "public" business. The fact that the "public" whether an action group or individual can not obtain the information they are legally entitled to is evidence that the laws are knowingly being violated by those who feel they are  untouchable and have a right to do what they are doing. It is evidence of flagrant, purposeful, arrogant and deliberate abuse of power.  While some  officials may be ignorant of the laws they are the useful idiots for the ones who know the law and do what they want anyway.

Our government officials are now openly displaying their disdain for the common ordinary citizen's wishes. If they can not fool the citizens into supporting their agenda through lies and deceit they will obtain their goals by any means they can conceive whether or not legal, moral, or honest. Trashing your opponent's reputation often based on lies and half truths is now the preferred method of getting what you want. The bruised and battered corpses of good men and women destroyed by rumor and innuendo that  are laying across our land is evidence to this fact.  

Our nation was founded in the face of tyranny by a government that did not represent the people it purported to govern. The King and the Parliament of England were arrogant bullies intent on draining the resources of the colonies in order to line their own pockets.  Their lust for power and disregard for their own laws, the heavy and ever increasing tax burden spawned the revolution. "No taxation without representation" was one of the by words of that day and for which the Boston Tea Party was held.  We have now come full circle -- today we most definitely have taxation without representation!

Those whom we have elected are not representing the people any more! They only loyal to their "party", personal,social agendas. They do not care if they bankrupt the nation just as long as they are in power and their agenda is achieved. Their lust for power knows no limit, they feel they are beyond the law and that they have the right to conduct the public business in any manner they see fit. And we the people have become no better than wards of the state, who require their guidance and assistance and yes even permission in order to live our lives in the pursuit of happiness.

Even though it was very subtle and gradual we have arrived at this despicable state by our own hands!  We elected and continued to elect the officials by who we are for all intents and purposes now enslaved. We allowed the creation of a nanny state - we wanted life to be risk free, to be provided for in our old age, in our sickness, in our education, our wages dictated by law, our businesses controlled by the government, and every social need funded and supported by the government. We got what we wanted and more. Now we look to the government to provide for or solve  every disaster, every disease with a long name, every social cause, every social need, and every pet cause. We are beholding to our government and dependent upon Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disaster Relief, rent subsidies, aid to dependent children, medical research, government subsidized commercial enterprise, government subsidized education, etc., etc., etc. All of which allows the government more and more control over our personal lives. This is the basis upon which our elected officials now can do what ever they please - they are in control of our lives!

So I am not surprised that we can not obtain information on what our government is doing -- they can with hold the truth and evidence of misbehavior with impunity. They have nothing to fear from us. Even if we could get the "goods" on them - the messengers would be shot - their reputations destroyed, their livelihood threatened, their life put on trial, and the beat goes on.

TIME FOR ANOTHER BOSTON TEA PARTY - ON A NATIONWIDE SCALE!

I strongly urge everyone to read the following two articles on townhall.com  - the first one is the origins for this blog and where I first made the comments I have made here.  The second one is the proof of  some of what I have been saying:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=let_the_sun_shine_in&ns=PaulJacob&dt=03/18/2007&page=full&comments=true

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/03/19/the_criminalization_of_politics

"Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me."   Its hard for me to imagine a Diet of Worms! It sounds so unappetizing. But nonetheless I too would prefer to stand rather than to  partake of a diet of worms. But of course, I have mangled and distorted the context of that quote attributed to Martin Luther.  In 1521 Martin Luther was asked to recant his criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, in the City of Worms where a Diet (a general assembly) was held and presided over by Emperor Charles V.  Most scholars now believe that Martin Luther likely never uttered these words as there are no contemporary records of them.  But that declaration implies the speaker's inalterable and unwavering commitment to his beliefs. Even if Martin Luther never spoke those words, his actions displayed them as surely as if he had uttered them.  The fact that he was committed was never in doubt.

Today it seems that there are few leaders or persons who are committed to much of anything. That is not to say that today's leaders are not involved in many things but they seem largely to lack commitment. What is the difference between commitment and involvement? Here is the best illustration I have ever heard that answers that question. If you had a breakfast of ham and eggs,  the chicken was involved but the pig was committed!  That sums it all up for me. I have been increasingly become more despondent and feeling helpless and hopeless over our political leaders. All I seem to see is a lot of involvement and little or no commitment to solving the problems facing our nation. I lack trust in any political party or any state or federal representatives, and in any member of the executive or the judicial branches of government. I still have faith in God, He being the only answer to all of our problems. But yesterday morning my faith given a boost. I saw that  leaders of our government can be committed to a just cause and they can be determined to champion such a cause their might and ability.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican and all though I am currently not a registered Libertarian, I am with a couple of exceptions in accord with that party's platform.  I occasionally attend the Tidewater Libertarian Party monthly meeting. I did so yesterday morning. The guest speaker was Delegate to the Commonwealth of Virgina's General Assembly, Johnny Joannou. His topic was the misuse and abuse of imminent domain. Unlike most politicians, Delegate Joannou , was clear, concise, candid and open without a hint of pandering to the audience. Most of all it was clear that he was committed to stopping the blatant violation of personal rights perpetrated by government through the abuse of imminent domain. His proposals, including an amendment of the Commonwealth's Constitution are squarely aimed at protecting the rights of individuals to own property and prohibiting the government's unconstitutional confiscation of one person's property for the benefit of another private citizen or entity. He is opposing big money from big developer's lobbyists as-well-as  lobbyists  for agencies of our Commonwealth!  He is facing some resistance from his own party and has been standing tall anyway. I am not easily fooled by the typical pandering of politicians, I can recognize insincerity, duplicity and empty promises. Delegate Joannou is not promising two chickens in every pot. He is clearly an honest and COMMITTED man. Thanks to him I have a little more hope than in our government that I have had in a very long time.  Would that we had more leaders in government that are committed rather that being merely involved.

When Jesus was before Pontius Pilate, Pilate asked, "Truth, what is Truth?" That question needs to be asked more today than ever before.  When even our legal authorities lie, cheat an steal to get elected (as in Duke University Field Hockey players). When our political leaders at all levels prefer to openly  lie, cheat, and steal for personal gain. When the former President of the United States openly lied about a sexual act with impunity. And then later claimed that the act was not sexual because it was not "legally" defined as such- and be supported by the main stream media in general - whats to be expected from either the MSM or other political persons?  I am sorry but in today's world I no longer believe anything from the MSM nor from any political figure. I now expect open blatant lies,distortions and half truths to be the absolute norm. In fact I believe the MSM and politicians are incapable of telling the truth unless it might benefit them in some way. I have come to expect the MSM and Politicians to deny any responsibility for their statements -  why all they need to do is declare their lie as "no longer an operative statement" and they are home free. Admit nothing and lie about everything seems to me the norm.

What bothers me even more is that all around me are people who just don't seem to care about this. In fact they leave me the impression that they knew but never cared that they were being lied to by their leaders. Or equally as bad those who do not seem to recognize a open blatant lie when it hits them in the face. I believe we have a generation or two of people who have never been taught how to evaluate a statement or claim made by anyone. They believe everything they hear, and if they take time to read anything, they believe everything they read with out evaluating it for merit or truth at all. Worse yet, if Oprah or other such "super star" says it -- then it must be the pure untainted truth - absolute fact. As though such super stars are the world's experts on every subject in the universe.  It seems to me we have a nation of sheep being lead to the slaughter by pseudo intellectuals who consider themselves to be the only authorities in the universe.  No one dare question what they say or they will be pilloried by the MSM as bigots or homo-phobes, or, God forbid, Right Wing Christian fanatics or the like. Truth no longer matters -- what  matters  is the furtherance of some agenda nothing more, nothing less, nothing else at any cost. - it matters not what the agenda may be - pick one (abortion, socialized medicine, government regulation of private business, etc. ad infinitum)  My point is that TRUTH is dead, long live the agenda!

How do we correct this? What can we do? Is it too late?  I hope to offer thoughts along these lines in future posts.

It was recently published in our local paper that my city is being courted by Korean developers with a massive plan to create an Asian Tourist Destination of our city.  Four huge hotels and all its attendant "perks" would turn our city into the new Orlando or Hawaii -- of course (at this point unsaid) we the taxpayers will foot the lion's share of the cost of development in spite of the developer's saying they will "invest" 2 Billion in the project. I am unalterably and diametrically opposed to spending one dam* dime of taxpayer's money for the commercial development of anything anywhere at any time. The city council should never be involved in this or any other scheme to "develop" the city. Their only job should be to ensure that the "common" needs of the people are met - notice I did NOT say society but people the individuals of this city.  The common needs should be limited to roads, utilities, personal safety (e.g. fire and police)and NOT to commercial or economical development issues. Our government at all levels has for decades far exceeded the bounds of governing authority and has established little more than a fascist system that is rapidly heading towards full blown socialism. We've allowed it, we've accepted it so now its the norm even if its not legal or constitutional. We see nothing wrong with this at all. We think it is the government at its best and doing what it should be doing. Where in our US Constitution, Sate/Commonwealth Constitutions, and city/county charters are such powers actually established.? While congress has the power to regulate commerce I don't believe it legitimately has the power to be a commercial enterprise. I can not say what state or commonwealth constitutions allow -- evidently in the Commonwealth of Virginia it may be constitutional to sell alcoholic beverages. But I hold this should also NOT be allowed.
This new project for our city is just one of many examples of our government attempting to  exercise what is now considered the legitimate power to fund commercial enterprises,  while its citizens willingly seem to give up their power to control their own destiny. I guess the citizens don't mind their money being spent on anything that can envisioned by the city council whether or not it is a legitimate thing to be doing. I have come to the point where I believe we no longer have either the understanding of the position we are in nor the guts to muster another Boston Tea Party and shout NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!  Because we are certainly NOT being represented by any of our government officials!

From age two until age six my mother was my sole caregiver. She worked five or six days a week every week to provide for me and I when I wasn’t in school a friend or an Aunt would look after me. I walked to school and back alone when I started First Grade and played in the park across the street from where my mom worked, unaccompanied after school and on weekends. Often I was out in the neighborhood playing with my friends without adult supervision of any kind. My parents did spank me with a belt on occasion when my behavior was very bad indeed When I was a child of about 8 or 9, I learned to ride a bike with out training wheels on gravel streets with no sidewalks. I had no helmet, no knee or elbow pads and I fell often, but learned to ride a bike. By the sixth grade I rode my bike to school almost every day. If I got into any sort of trouble at school, I was in bigger trouble at home after my parents found out.

What did I learn from those years that I was under my parent’s authority? For openers I learned that good parents work hard and sacrifice to raise their child. I learned to be where I was supposed to be and to be on time. I learned to entertain myself and not depend on others to entertain me. I learned to make my own friends and not be afraid to go out in the world to find them. I learned that often to achieve a goal one must take risks including the risk of personal injury. I learned that if you fall down and fail, you should to get up and try again. I learned that success through failing and taking risks will not only help you develop confidence but often brings new freedom. And finally, I learned that I was accountable for my actions and their effect upon others.

When I reflect upon all of the above I also realize that my parents did not try to shield me from the consequences of life. They did the hard things to support me and never complained about life being unfair or too hard. I learned that risk accompanies everything in life. I learned that I am responsible for my own progress or lack thereof. I also learned not to blame others for my failures and that failures will nearly always lead to success if one is persistent. And I learned that life can be hard and unfair but we can prevail and make life worth the living.

Sadly it seems that in today’s world most people believe life should never be hard, that everything must be fair, one should not have to take risks, and finally if you do not achieve what you want it must be somebody else’s fault! This attitude is why our government at all levels has now become “Robinhood.” The government takes by force from the “rich” to give to the “poor.” Today having a “need” is justification for the government to steal the assets of one person and give them to another, with impunity. It is also why so many people believe that the “rich” “owe” something to “society” and that the wealthy should “give back” to “society” as though something was taken from “society” by them. We seem to have forgotten that society is composed of individuals and that “society” is not a tangible entity. It is to the individual that we must look.

Just because an individual has a need does not justify stealing to fill that need. A need does not generate a right to be fulfilled and thereby grant permission to take what you did not earn. An individual who earned what he has does not have either a moral or social obligation to share it with others and definitely does not have a legal obligation to share it. An individual who has become successful and therefore wealthy has already given to “society” his contribution in either goods or services and furthermore has likely to have provided employment for a goodly number of individuals along the way. Businessman and corporations also do not have any obligation to pay an employee according to his “needs” but rather pay must be based on the worth of the job and the value that the employee adds to the business. To base wages upon individual needs is the definition of communism (i.e. “From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs” Karl Marx – I believe). For the government to force industry to pay a certain wage is fascism. Yet it seems that is the mindset of the vast majority of Americans today. This worries me.

I have been tempted for a very long time to establish my own blog. Not for the purpose of sharing a daily diary, my life is too dull for that and besides  I lack the discipline to do it. I have however frequently found my self reflecting on one topic or another and becoming  overwhelmed with the urge to share it with others. I doubt if I have anything so profound to say that it will attract many to read my musings here,  other than a few carefully chosen friends and family members and they may soon grown tired of reading them as well.   What I generally want to share would probably best come under a broadly defined heading: "philosophy." Perhaps a better term would be loosely defined to include, society, moral, religion, politics. mores, norms and relationships. What I have to say is based on my observations, impressions and opinions about all of the above. I hope that others will agree but I am not omnipotent, omniscient and certainly not omnipresent and I expect some will surely take exception to my comments. That will be a good thing since I probably will learn something when that happens.

I hope to write more specifically about things I will only mention in passing here, hoping to tempt others to come back and read the specifics and maybe comment. I have now lived 67 years and have become increasingly more concerned about any number of things taking place in our world today. I am neither an alarmist nor a conspiracy theorist nor do I subscribe to the belief that because I am older I am wiser. But nonetheless I am concerned with such things as the following:

What happened to "LEADERSHIP?" There was a time when a leaders not only accepted responsibility for their actions but also expected to be held accountable for their actions. A time where good leaders took action based on their considered judgment and accepted the consequences. Today it seems that those who are the "leaders" avoid commitment and refuse to take ownership of a problem or its solution. For example our politicians seem only to weasel word their statements to establish "deny-ability" so that no matter how a situation turns out they can say they supported it, if it was popular or they opposed it if it was unpopular.  I know this is not a new thing but it does seem to be extensively more so today than ever before.

What ever happened to "HONESTY?" More importantly what ever happened to "SHAME?" There was a time when dishonest people were ashamed of what they were caught doing. Today it seems that they are almost proud of it and very best barely express regret for being caught let alone having done something dishonest.

Why does seem that those today who takes a principled stand about anything, are the ones who are popularly ridiculed? Why is it that people who are unprincipled seem to get all the adulation and admiration? Again I know this is not a new thing but why is it now practically the only treatment seen?

What happened to honest "PRIDE?" I am not talking about vain pride, I am talking about the kind of pride a person can and should take in a job well done or a product well made, or a promise kept no matter what.

The top of my list of things that I detest is: "Political Correctness" followed by what I call "behaving like SHEEP."
No one seems to accept truths that hurt, nor facts that are unpleasant to know -- so we redefine the parameters so that no one is "offended" as if it were a constitutional right to "not be offended" and the SHEEP all follow along blindly believing they are "making a difference" and "respecting" others feelings. Our western society today is behaving like the crowd that saw the Emperors new Clothes when the Emperor was in fact naked> The only difference is that the first crowd probably knew they were lying, the second crowd seems to believe they are telling the truth or observing the facts.

I have much more I want to say but this has taken me a couple of hours to write and I have other tasks to attend to. But I will expound on some on this in my next post.