There is a dirty little secret about "free college tuition" that liberals like Hillary and socialists like Bernie are hiding.
Here is the scenario:
John Doe wants a college education so he can get a good job making big money. He wants free tuition, naturally, so he votes for someone like Hillary or Bernie. What he does not understand is that nothing can truly be "free" - someone, somewhere is going to pay, by way of ever increasing taxes, and it will be the people who have money who will pay - the kind of people John Doe is going to college to become.
John succeeds, and becomes a CEO making good money. But it does him no good, because the policies that gave him a free education are the same policies that will now take his money from him, in high taxes, so liberals like Hillary can give free college, free health care and free whatever to the NEXT young person.
People need to understand - there is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to pay, one way or another, sooner or later, for everything you get.
But the worst part is this - there is only just so much room at the top. Over 90% of those who get a college education will never end up at the top. They get their "free education" only to end up none the better off for it. With free college, even MORE people will go, and even more college grads will end up flipping burgers. Because there is just so much room at the top.
If you do get free tuition, you will eventually become the one that liberals steal from in order to "pay it forward" to the next guy. You WILL pay, many times over.
Of course, none of the liberals will tell you this - they just offer "free" stuff in order to extort votes from people under false pretenses.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The NH Primary is NOT the NH Primary
With the New Hampshire primary less than a week away, it's importance is the latest entree for the news media. But what the media overlooks (because they are ignorant of it) is that the New Hampshire primary is NOT the New Hampshire primary - it is the Massachusetts primary, held early.
I was raised in New Hampshire and spent over 50 years in that beautiful, rugged state. And up until recently (the last 25 years), New Hampshire was populated by rugged, individualist Yankee conservatives. But as happens with all good things, people who covet what you have will come and take it from you.
The people of Massachusetts - particularly Lowell, Lawrence and Methuen - who had already ruined their own state with their liberal policies and politics, saw and envied the freedoms and lifestyle of New Hampshire. They wanted that for themselves, as they grew sick of the results of their own liberalism. So, they began emigrating into the cities of southern New Hampshire - first Nashua, then on to Manchester.
That, in and of itself, is not bad, but for the fact they brought with them those same liberal values that they were running from. Flooding the New Hampshire cities and becoming the vocal majority (conservatives tend to actually BE conservative and are seldom vocal), these liberal emigrants soon elected liberal politicians, resulting in the same policies that caused the rot in Massachusetts.
And because liberals tend to be pushier, louder and more prone to bullying than conservatives, it did not take long to turn "red" New Hampshire into a "blue" mini-Massachusetts.
This same scenario occurred in Vermont. A peaceful, quiet farming state, where cows outnumbered people until the 1960's, the liberals of New York saw it as a better place for raising children, and living peacefully. Many emigrated to the cities of Vermont, wresting control from the quiet conservatives. And now, Vermont has become so liberal that they elect socialists like Bernie Sanders into office.
When I first visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, it was little more than an intersection in a beautiful landscape, in the foothills of the Rockies. It was TOO beautiful, because as others discovered it, many moved there to partake of its beauty every day. In fact, so many moved there that it has become a roiling, busy city. The backdrop of the Rockies is still there, but the simple, quiet beauty of Jackson Hole is long gone.
People ruin what they treasure most. It's a lot like the old saying, "You always hurt the one you love".
So, for the sakes of those quiet, rugged individualists who have managed to survive the liberal onslaught from Massachusetts, I want you to know I empathize with you, recognize you, and sorely wish we could return New Hampshire to its roots and the values that made it so attractive in the first place. Perhaps conservatives should make a stab at being more vocal, pushier, and not quietly sit back and let others take what we treasure.
/
I was raised in New Hampshire and spent over 50 years in that beautiful, rugged state. And up until recently (the last 25 years), New Hampshire was populated by rugged, individualist Yankee conservatives. But as happens with all good things, people who covet what you have will come and take it from you.
The people of Massachusetts - particularly Lowell, Lawrence and Methuen - who had already ruined their own state with their liberal policies and politics, saw and envied the freedoms and lifestyle of New Hampshire. They wanted that for themselves, as they grew sick of the results of their own liberalism. So, they began emigrating into the cities of southern New Hampshire - first Nashua, then on to Manchester.
That, in and of itself, is not bad, but for the fact they brought with them those same liberal values that they were running from. Flooding the New Hampshire cities and becoming the vocal majority (conservatives tend to actually BE conservative and are seldom vocal), these liberal emigrants soon elected liberal politicians, resulting in the same policies that caused the rot in Massachusetts.
And because liberals tend to be pushier, louder and more prone to bullying than conservatives, it did not take long to turn "red" New Hampshire into a "blue" mini-Massachusetts.
This same scenario occurred in Vermont. A peaceful, quiet farming state, where cows outnumbered people until the 1960's, the liberals of New York saw it as a better place for raising children, and living peacefully. Many emigrated to the cities of Vermont, wresting control from the quiet conservatives. And now, Vermont has become so liberal that they elect socialists like Bernie Sanders into office.
When I first visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, it was little more than an intersection in a beautiful landscape, in the foothills of the Rockies. It was TOO beautiful, because as others discovered it, many moved there to partake of its beauty every day. In fact, so many moved there that it has become a roiling, busy city. The backdrop of the Rockies is still there, but the simple, quiet beauty of Jackson Hole is long gone.
People ruin what they treasure most. It's a lot like the old saying, "You always hurt the one you love".
So, for the sakes of those quiet, rugged individualists who have managed to survive the liberal onslaught from Massachusetts, I want you to know I empathize with you, recognize you, and sorely wish we could return New Hampshire to its roots and the values that made it so attractive in the first place. Perhaps conservatives should make a stab at being more vocal, pushier, and not quietly sit back and let others take what we treasure.
/
Saturday, January 16, 2016
The Great Auto Insurance Rip-Off
Maybe you have not noticed, because it is so "standard", and accepted as the norm. But auto insurance is a huge rip-off.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Common Sense Immigration Reform
What with terrorists trying to get here, drug cartels bringing in almost 80% of all narcotics, and other "illegal" or "undocumented" workers driving American citizens out of the workforce, immigration reform is perhaps the most crucial issue of our time. The problem lies in the fact that it appears no two people, let alone parties, can agree on how to fix the problem. That is strange, when you consider all it requires is a modicum of common sense and a willingness to be reasonable. The following plan provides all sides with a good deal of satisfaction - those on the right get a secure border, while those on the left get a system that allows honest, working families to to come here and better themselves. It also protects American citizens from terrorists, gang members and those who "steal" jobs from citizens who may need those jobs. All sides get about 80% of what they want.
Bear in mind, NO reasonable, common sense plan is going to give everyone everything they want. The best we can do is compromise in a way that addresses the most important issues for all sides. This plan does that. Any person unwilling to "give" a little is someone who has nothing to offer.
I propose the following, and if any politician finds fault with it, I request they state those objections AND THE VALID REASONS FOR THEM! The first portion of this plan may not make liberals happy, but the second portion addresses those concerns.
So, here are the main points:
1) Securing the border
2) Providing honest, hard working families with the opportunity to stay here and work
3) Weed out the criminals, terrorists, and gang/cartel members
4) Prevent "illegal" immigrants from participating in the welfare system
5) Prevent them from voting in any election, or holding any public office
6) In no case shall any adult person who came here illegally be permitted to achieve citizenship, only legal work status, since they knowingly broke the law to get here. Children under the age of 16, brought here WITH their parent(s), may apply for citizenship at age 18 and follow the same process as any other legal immigrant. If children of illegal immigrants, upon reaching adulthood shall choose to serve at least 4 years in the United States military, and serves honorably, they shall be granted citizenship.
First and foremost, we must secure the border only because of the terrorist threat. If not for terrorists trying to access our soft targets, it really would not be necessary under this plan to secure the border. But in these times, no immigration reform can be put into place until the border is secure - we must stop the bleeding before we can heal the body.
Once we are relatively certain that our borders are capable of keeping out terrorists (yes, I know - they have other ways of getting in, but THIS plan is about immigration reform, not just national security), we can then deal with the immigrants already here and confront the visa system and other methods of entry to our nation. And here is how we effectively deal with those "harmless immigrants" already here.
First and foremost, all illegal immigrants who are criminals, gang members, and/or have been convicted of any felony would be immediately deported. If they ever return, they will be imprisoned for not less than 5 years, and then deported again. And if they still return, they are imprisoned for 10 years.
No reform measures shall be put into place that will do any harm to American citizens. Period. Americans come first. Always. To this end, we should first make it unlawful to provide any type of welfare or public assistance to anyone without legal status to be here (green card, for example). If they are here for work, and make a better life for their families, then they need to work. Nor can their children attend school unless the parent(s) are following the rule of legal status (see below). And then we must make it a serious felony for anyone to employ any illegal immigrant without legal status. Anyone employing any other person must be required under penalty of law to verify the legal status of any applicant. If someone hires an immigrant who does not have legal status, that person shall be fined heavily and, if a second offense, jailed for a minimum of one year. This weeds out those who are not here to improve themselves (criminals, terrorists and cartel/gang members), and forces all others to obtain some form of legal status.
Now here is why this is important - if a person cannot find work, they will self-deport, since they need to eat.
So far, this plan is not adequate for those with a liberal mindset, so here's where we accommodate them in a common sense way.
At this point, every immigrant who does not have legal status will have a choice - gain legal status, or leave. And this plan makes it a simple matter to gain legal status.
First, every illegal immigrant who chooses to stay must apply for a "semi-permanent" worker visa. Immunizations will be provided and a records check will be done, and anyone with a felony will be deported. And if they ever return, it's 5 years in prison. And anyone with any ties to terrorist or cartel organizations would be deported or jailed, depending on the circumstances of that association.
Hard working, honest families will receive their work visa which would allow them to compete for jobs and gain employment. With a work visa, immigrants may work and send their children to school. But there is still a hitch - they must be self-supporting. If they fail to be self-supporting, their work visa would be revoked and they would be deported.
Now here is an important facet of the plan that no one is talking about, but it is critical - paying taxes versus no access to welfare benefits, or voting in our elections. Our nation was founded because we did not accept "taxation without representation", and we cannot subject others to that, either. So, here is a "new bone" for both the right and the left - in exchange for these immigrants having to be self-supporting and unable to collect from the public coffers, and to prevent them from voting (they are not citizens), these immigrants would be free from income taxes (local, state & federal), but they would be required to pay FICA/Medicare taxes, so they can collect Social Security & Medicare benefits upon retirement and do not become dependent upon welfare. This gives liberals a strong point - these immigrants, not being taxed, will have an even better chance of bettering themselves and their families. But only if they are self-supporting!
To further insure these worker immigrants do not vote, they may obtain state or federal issued ID's, including a driver's license, provided that all state and federal ID's are "chipped" - embedded with a chip that identifies the legal status of the individual. A legal immigrant is not a citizen, and cannot vote, and their chip will indicate that. All people choosing to vote would be required to produce such an ID and all voting centers would be required to check the ID against the state/federal database. There is no LEGITIMATE reason for not requiring a valid ID, provided that at least one form of state/federal ID is available free, upon request, to any citizen or immigrant with a work visa. Any citizen, or immigrant with a work visa, who is unable to appear to make such a request and prove their legal status may demand that their local or state government provide them with the means to appear and apply, at no cost to the individual.
Bear in mind, NO reasonable, common sense plan is going to give everyone everything they want. The best we can do is compromise in a way that addresses the most important issues for all sides. This plan does that. Any person unwilling to "give" a little is someone who has nothing to offer.
I propose the following, and if any politician finds fault with it, I request they state those objections AND THE VALID REASONS FOR THEM! The first portion of this plan may not make liberals happy, but the second portion addresses those concerns.
So, here are the main points:
1) Securing the border
2) Providing honest, hard working families with the opportunity to stay here and work
3) Weed out the criminals, terrorists, and gang/cartel members
4) Prevent "illegal" immigrants from participating in the welfare system
5) Prevent them from voting in any election, or holding any public office
6) In no case shall any adult person who came here illegally be permitted to achieve citizenship, only legal work status, since they knowingly broke the law to get here. Children under the age of 16, brought here WITH their parent(s), may apply for citizenship at age 18 and follow the same process as any other legal immigrant. If children of illegal immigrants, upon reaching adulthood shall choose to serve at least 4 years in the United States military, and serves honorably, they shall be granted citizenship.
First and foremost, we must secure the border only because of the terrorist threat. If not for terrorists trying to access our soft targets, it really would not be necessary under this plan to secure the border. But in these times, no immigration reform can be put into place until the border is secure - we must stop the bleeding before we can heal the body.
Once we are relatively certain that our borders are capable of keeping out terrorists (yes, I know - they have other ways of getting in, but THIS plan is about immigration reform, not just national security), we can then deal with the immigrants already here and confront the visa system and other methods of entry to our nation. And here is how we effectively deal with those "harmless immigrants" already here.
First and foremost, all illegal immigrants who are criminals, gang members, and/or have been convicted of any felony would be immediately deported. If they ever return, they will be imprisoned for not less than 5 years, and then deported again. And if they still return, they are imprisoned for 10 years.
No reform measures shall be put into place that will do any harm to American citizens. Period. Americans come first. Always. To this end, we should first make it unlawful to provide any type of welfare or public assistance to anyone without legal status to be here (green card, for example). If they are here for work, and make a better life for their families, then they need to work. Nor can their children attend school unless the parent(s) are following the rule of legal status (see below). And then we must make it a serious felony for anyone to employ any illegal immigrant without legal status. Anyone employing any other person must be required under penalty of law to verify the legal status of any applicant. If someone hires an immigrant who does not have legal status, that person shall be fined heavily and, if a second offense, jailed for a minimum of one year. This weeds out those who are not here to improve themselves (criminals, terrorists and cartel/gang members), and forces all others to obtain some form of legal status.
Now here is why this is important - if a person cannot find work, they will self-deport, since they need to eat.
So far, this plan is not adequate for those with a liberal mindset, so here's where we accommodate them in a common sense way.
At this point, every immigrant who does not have legal status will have a choice - gain legal status, or leave. And this plan makes it a simple matter to gain legal status.
First, every illegal immigrant who chooses to stay must apply for a "semi-permanent" worker visa. Immunizations will be provided and a records check will be done, and anyone with a felony will be deported. And if they ever return, it's 5 years in prison. And anyone with any ties to terrorist or cartel organizations would be deported or jailed, depending on the circumstances of that association.
Hard working, honest families will receive their work visa which would allow them to compete for jobs and gain employment. With a work visa, immigrants may work and send their children to school. But there is still a hitch - they must be self-supporting. If they fail to be self-supporting, their work visa would be revoked and they would be deported.
Now here is an important facet of the plan that no one is talking about, but it is critical - paying taxes versus no access to welfare benefits, or voting in our elections. Our nation was founded because we did not accept "taxation without representation", and we cannot subject others to that, either. So, here is a "new bone" for both the right and the left - in exchange for these immigrants having to be self-supporting and unable to collect from the public coffers, and to prevent them from voting (they are not citizens), these immigrants would be free from income taxes (local, state & federal), but they would be required to pay FICA/Medicare taxes, so they can collect Social Security & Medicare benefits upon retirement and do not become dependent upon welfare. This gives liberals a strong point - these immigrants, not being taxed, will have an even better chance of bettering themselves and their families. But only if they are self-supporting!
To further insure these worker immigrants do not vote, they may obtain state or federal issued ID's, including a driver's license, provided that all state and federal ID's are "chipped" - embedded with a chip that identifies the legal status of the individual. A legal immigrant is not a citizen, and cannot vote, and their chip will indicate that. All people choosing to vote would be required to produce such an ID and all voting centers would be required to check the ID against the state/federal database. There is no LEGITIMATE reason for not requiring a valid ID, provided that at least one form of state/federal ID is available free, upon request, to any citizen or immigrant with a work visa. Any citizen, or immigrant with a work visa, who is unable to appear to make such a request and prove their legal status may demand that their local or state government provide them with the means to appear and apply, at no cost to the individual.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The REAL Reason for Violence in the Middle East
It is not so difficult to figure out why there is always such violence between Muslims and Jews, provided you know either the actual history or are familiar with the story of Abraham - considered the Father of both religions.
Sorry anti-Semites - these facts may tick you off.
Abraham's wife was barren, so Abraham had an illegitimate son (Ishmael) with an Arab hand maiden. Later, God reportedly intervened and allowed Abraham's barren wife to have a son (Isaac). Now there were two sons - Ishmael, an Arab, and Isaac, a Jew.
At one point Abraham is ordered to sacrifice Isaac - either by God, as a test of faith, or by Satan, to eliminate the righteous. But at the last moment by God's intervention an angel stopped him.
Years later, blind and on his death bed, Abraham called for his son, Isaac, to bestow upon him the entire wealth and land Abraham had accumulated, since Isaac was his only legitimate heir. But Ishmael came instead, and fooled his blind father into thinking he was Isaac. And Abraham mistakenly bestowed the inheritance upon Ishmael.
Ishmael, the Arab son, had stolen Isaac's inheritance.
Ishmael went on to lead the Arab tribes (from which Muhammad was descended), while Isaac went on to lead the Jewish tribes (from which Jesus was descended).
To insure that he would keep that which he had stolen, Ishmael spent his life trying to destroy Isaac and the Jews.
Fast forward a few thousand years, the Disciples of Jesus write the Books of the Bible, and a few hundred years later Muhammad writes the Qu'ran, bringing the Arab tribes together to form a caliphate and to destroy all Jews and infidels. The violence against the Jews continued with a passion, as Arabs still feared losing that which they had stolen. The fighting between them has never stopped, and will not until one or the other - or both - are destroyed.
The Crusades began because the Arabs waged war against the Jews and were intent on taking Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. As Christians, King Richard and the Knights Templar waged war against the Arabs (and lost).
ALL the violence in the Middle East is instigated by the Arab Muslims, intent on destroying every vestige of the Jewish people, as they represent the true heirs of Abraham. In fact, the Qu'ran actually requires the destruction of the Jews. The Bible, on the other hand, does not call for the destruction of the Arab tribes.
What we have here is the eternal war between two sons, one Good, the other Evil. And when the "End Times" come, it will be brought about by these two factions in their final battle to destroy one another, and the entire world will be caught up in it.
/
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Obama - Christian or Not
A schill recently posed a question to Donald Trump stating that President Obama is a Muslim in an attempt to create a "gotcha" for Trump. But that is not the real story here. The story is whether or not there is any credence to the man's assertion that Obama is a Muslim. Here are the facts:
1) Mr Obama was born and raised during his formative years as a Muslim. He admits that.
2) At a later age Obama claims to have converted to Christianity
3) He still claims he is a Christian.
And here is where many find a problem. What a person learns in his formative years (through age 7) stays with the person, as those are the core beliefs and experiences upon which all future experiences are judged. It is the lens a person sees through, and it is nearly impossible to erase those early beliefs. Therefore, it is highly likely that Obama's beliefs, and certainly his actions, are colored by those early beliefs.
Moreover, a lot of people take exception to calling the church of Reverend Wright, which Obama attended for 22 years, as being in any way Christian. It is a church where hate and bigotry is preached.
But the most powerful indictment is Mr. Obama's actions. You can call yourself whatever you wish, but you are judged by your actions, not your words. And it is impossible to discount that President Obama has acted in ways that discriminate against Christianity. Many of his actions directly attack Christianity at every level.
And we cannot turn a blind eye to his constant favoring of Muslims in his actions - it seems every foreign policy decision he has made in the Middle East has favored Muslims over Christians, even backing the Muslim Brotherhood, not taking out ISIS, pulling out of the Middle East, the Iran Deal, and his disdain and disrespect of the Israeli government. His disdain for Israel is apparent.
And that is the case for those who claim he is still, in his heart, Muslim. His actions, not his words, would so indicate.
BUT...
And here is something to chew on before a person chooses to indict Mr Obama...
In America, a person is innocent until PROVED otherwise. If a person says he is innocent, he is to be believed, until and unless evidence is produced that proves something different. Whereas Obama states he is Christian, we are obligated to accept that until proof comes out to the contrary. And while there is substantial circumstantial evidence that he is Muslim at heart, that does not constitute proof.
So, here is my take - Mr Obama has converted to Christianity, but he was raised Muslim and those early core beliefs remain with him, affecting his decisions and actions and making it difficult for him to actually BE a Christian. As it says in the Bible, "No man can serve two masters". If a person's brain says "Christian" but his heart says "Muslim", there is a tremendous struggle within.
And until Mr Obama is able to resolve that within himself, there will always be doubts as to where his faith truly lies. And in the meantime, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
/
1) Mr Obama was born and raised during his formative years as a Muslim. He admits that.
2) At a later age Obama claims to have converted to Christianity
3) He still claims he is a Christian.
And here is where many find a problem. What a person learns in his formative years (through age 7) stays with the person, as those are the core beliefs and experiences upon which all future experiences are judged. It is the lens a person sees through, and it is nearly impossible to erase those early beliefs. Therefore, it is highly likely that Obama's beliefs, and certainly his actions, are colored by those early beliefs.
Moreover, a lot of people take exception to calling the church of Reverend Wright, which Obama attended for 22 years, as being in any way Christian. It is a church where hate and bigotry is preached.
But the most powerful indictment is Mr. Obama's actions. You can call yourself whatever you wish, but you are judged by your actions, not your words. And it is impossible to discount that President Obama has acted in ways that discriminate against Christianity. Many of his actions directly attack Christianity at every level.
And we cannot turn a blind eye to his constant favoring of Muslims in his actions - it seems every foreign policy decision he has made in the Middle East has favored Muslims over Christians, even backing the Muslim Brotherhood, not taking out ISIS, pulling out of the Middle East, the Iran Deal, and his disdain and disrespect of the Israeli government. His disdain for Israel is apparent.
And that is the case for those who claim he is still, in his heart, Muslim. His actions, not his words, would so indicate.
BUT...
And here is something to chew on before a person chooses to indict Mr Obama...
In America, a person is innocent until PROVED otherwise. If a person says he is innocent, he is to be believed, until and unless evidence is produced that proves something different. Whereas Obama states he is Christian, we are obligated to accept that until proof comes out to the contrary. And while there is substantial circumstantial evidence that he is Muslim at heart, that does not constitute proof.
So, here is my take - Mr Obama has converted to Christianity, but he was raised Muslim and those early core beliefs remain with him, affecting his decisions and actions and making it difficult for him to actually BE a Christian. As it says in the Bible, "No man can serve two masters". If a person's brain says "Christian" but his heart says "Muslim", there is a tremendous struggle within.
And until Mr Obama is able to resolve that within himself, there will always be doubts as to where his faith truly lies. And in the meantime, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
/
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Would Extraterrestrial Visitors Be Friendly?
Most people who believe there is alien life (which may or may not have visited us) believe they are likely to be friendly. They figure any society that has advanced so far must have long ago lost any need for aggression. As with almost all liberal thought, that is absurd, for two indisputable reasons.
1) All life, regardless of its form, consumes other life in order to survive. All life must have a source of fuel. Whether an animal that feeds on other animals, or on vegetation, or even vegetation that feeds on the decaying remnants of life, all living things must feed.
That said, any species that becomes dominant on their planet, if left unchecked, and simply by virtue of that dominance, will eventually reproduce beyond the planet's ability to sustain the numbers. The only way to avoid starvation and to expand is to go to war and take the resources of others. War and killing is nature's way of keeping a dominant specie in check. This is the First Law of Nature - survival of the fittest. The strong will live, the weak will perish. Cruel, perhaps, but every bit as necessary to survival as eating. Every living thing must be "prey" to some other living thing, and when you are at the top of the food chain, the only predator that can keep our numbers in check is ourselves.
2) Add to this the simple fact that all technology and advancements are the result of survival needs and war. Someone invents a spear, so his adversary must invent the crossbow, which, in turn results in an adversary inventing a gun. The gun results in an adversary having to invent bombs, then planes to drop bombs, and then rocket-powered bombs like those Hitler used against London.
Those rocket bombs led to rocketry for space exploration, which, in reality, is really a race for dominance in space for purposes of "defense" and war, and gaining resources.
Despite the ideological people who try to claim space exploration is for "scientific and educational purposes", that is actually a ruse. All scientific and educational research is conducted for one reason - the same reason: SURVIVAL. We need room to expand. We need resources to sustain our growing number. And that brings with it a need for aggression. If you are not superior, you become prey. And humans do not fare well as prey.
Our space exploration has been made possible only from a need to survive, which requires superiority. Created by war and aggression.
When you combine both of these facts of nature, you would realize that only the ultimate predator would ever be capable of space exploration.
For example, because our own resources are dwindling, we are already considering the possibility of mining on asteroids to take what we need. We are even considering the colonization of other celestial bodies. You either move forward, or perish.
We should assume that in the event there is other intelligent life "out there", that they, too, are motivated by survival. They, too, must consume. Any living thing that does not consume will perish. In short, there is only one viable way for any dominant life form to survive - by conquest.Think of the "Old West". White men needed the land to expand. They needed the gold to pay for the expansion. So the native Americans were conquered. Just like the Aztecs before them. Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Caesar - throughout history, progress was marked by conquest.
It still is. That is what the First Law of Nature (survival of the fittest) means.
/
1) All life, regardless of its form, consumes other life in order to survive. All life must have a source of fuel. Whether an animal that feeds on other animals, or on vegetation, or even vegetation that feeds on the decaying remnants of life, all living things must feed.
That said, any species that becomes dominant on their planet, if left unchecked, and simply by virtue of that dominance, will eventually reproduce beyond the planet's ability to sustain the numbers. The only way to avoid starvation and to expand is to go to war and take the resources of others. War and killing is nature's way of keeping a dominant specie in check. This is the First Law of Nature - survival of the fittest. The strong will live, the weak will perish. Cruel, perhaps, but every bit as necessary to survival as eating. Every living thing must be "prey" to some other living thing, and when you are at the top of the food chain, the only predator that can keep our numbers in check is ourselves.
2) Add to this the simple fact that all technology and advancements are the result of survival needs and war. Someone invents a spear, so his adversary must invent the crossbow, which, in turn results in an adversary inventing a gun. The gun results in an adversary having to invent bombs, then planes to drop bombs, and then rocket-powered bombs like those Hitler used against London.
Those rocket bombs led to rocketry for space exploration, which, in reality, is really a race for dominance in space for purposes of "defense" and war, and gaining resources.
Despite the ideological people who try to claim space exploration is for "scientific and educational purposes", that is actually a ruse. All scientific and educational research is conducted for one reason - the same reason: SURVIVAL. We need room to expand. We need resources to sustain our growing number. And that brings with it a need for aggression. If you are not superior, you become prey. And humans do not fare well as prey.
Our space exploration has been made possible only from a need to survive, which requires superiority. Created by war and aggression.
When you combine both of these facts of nature, you would realize that only the ultimate predator would ever be capable of space exploration.
For example, because our own resources are dwindling, we are already considering the possibility of mining on asteroids to take what we need. We are even considering the colonization of other celestial bodies. You either move forward, or perish.
We should assume that in the event there is other intelligent life "out there", that they, too, are motivated by survival. They, too, must consume. Any living thing that does not consume will perish. In short, there is only one viable way for any dominant life form to survive - by conquest.Think of the "Old West". White men needed the land to expand. They needed the gold to pay for the expansion. So the native Americans were conquered. Just like the Aztecs before them. Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Caesar - throughout history, progress was marked by conquest.
It still is. That is what the First Law of Nature (survival of the fittest) means.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)