Halloween, Not my Favorite Day OK.

Other than the fact my sister was born on Halloween the day itself is my least favorite day of the year. Why you ask? The days of fall festivals and little kids ringing doorbells and dressing as innocent fairy tale figures  and cartoon characters have taken a backseat to the supernatural forces such as vampires, monsters, ghosts, skeletons, witches, and devils.  Halloween has strong roots in paganism and is now associated closely with worship of the Enemy of This World, Satan. It is a holiday that generally glorifies the evil things of this world, rather than the good and wholesome. I ask the reader these questions; Is it not apparent that 21st century America is consumed with interest in the "the dark side" of the paranormal? Is it not true that the mysterious realm of demonic spirits and other-worldly beings literally fills our culture? If you think otherwise, you obviously are not watching television or going to the movies during the weeks leading up to Halloween. The world operates virtually unaware of the oppression, depression and very tangible torment daily added to millions of lives by unseen spiritual forces – often filtering through the portal of popular entertainment. As Christians we play into the hand of Satan and his demonic hosts when we approach demonic warfare as a theoretical game of curiosity rather than a life-threatening conspiracy from the netherworld. It is hard not to liken our culture as a mischievous or evil spirit on speed.

Pro-Gun Arguement

Let me share with you, the reader, what I consider the best written pro-gun argument that I have ever read. Prior to casting your next ballot for a candidate think about what follows and research what the candidates reveal about their sentiments towards 2d Amendment Rights. 

"As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against Gun Bans, I offer you another stellar example of a letter written by a 2d Amendment Rights Advocate, that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much... Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much television, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.  

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act!! "

Freedom of Speech and Religious Conscience

This blog is a continuation of what was written previously, reference; Perspective on economic representation and casting our ballot based on conscience. I will briefly address another area, we as both Americans and Christians need to examine prior to voting in our upcoming elections.

There is no doubt that the rights the First Amendment protects–freedom of speech and freedom of religion–are increasingly the most attacked. Some of the most recent high profile cases have revolved around the ongoing attempts by the government via Obamacare to force religious groups to provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans and taxpayers to fund elective abortion coverage in theirs.

Just this month, the mayor of Houston demanded pastors turn over any sermons related to the topics of equal rights, civil rights, gay rights, and gender identity. These requests threaten to have a chilling effect on religious and political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.   Apparently, speaking about other cultures, other religions and issues of personal conscience is no longer acceptable-we must now accept them. And as we are seeing with the issue of same-sex marriage in this country, acceptance no longer means live and let live, the tolerance monitors want you to embrace and endorse. I can except one’s choice of lifestyles as I can one’s choice of religious belief but not necessarily endorse it as inclusive for the whole.

Now I ask you, the reader, is religious freedom and freedom of speech not one of our most important Constitutional rights?  Without question, promoting and defending it is one of our most important battles. Just as gay rights and other religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment so it is with all elements of society to include persons of Christian faith. This writer believes one group is not exclusive of the other.

In conclusion, we as Americans and Christians should accept differing views of other people, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward people who hold differing views but not acquiesce to the will of those who espouse a divergent position which is consciously antagonistic to our belief system. 

Think about what is written and cast your vote for the candidate or candidates who would most represent the inclusive rights of all Americans to include those of Christian faith based conscience. 

More pre-election thoughts worth pondering to follow in future blogs.

A Perspective on Economic Representation

As my readers know I am an opinionated blogger. My opinions are based on what I perceive as being relevant in the world of socio-political-economic and theological importance, both in the world in general and America specifically.

 I agree with many political pundits that America’s elected representatives have lost their bearing and are going in the wrong direction. Why, are so many of our representatives no longer standing on the principles that made our nation great? Why are we pouring money down the drain on Federal Government programs that are ineffective, inefficient, wasteful and ripe with fraud? Why not rid ourselves of all programs that are duplicate in nature, ineffectual, unproductive, uneconomical, and are susceptible to fraud. What our representatives need to do is “treat the real disease.” Put a halt to the waste of tax payer’s money. To waste money on broken programs and ineffectual programs is morally reprehensible, especially when the debt of such programs steals the future of the next two or three generations to follow. America has reached a decisive moment. We will either start living within the confines of realism and responsibility or we will participate in this nation’s downfall.  

The Surppression of Freedom of Speech

Has political ineptness reached an all-time low when government officials don’t realize a sermon is a speech? It has reached that depth in Houston, Texas. Heretofore, I thought Texas was the state leading the way in fighting for constitutional freedoms. Incidentally, I respect all people and persuasions even though I may disagree with their way of thinking, but Houston Texas mayor’s subpoena move against several area pastors is nothing but a political maneuver to suppress dissenting voice and religious opinion.

I dislike and find, vulgar, sacrilegious and hate language as much as anyone. But America has a protection for its expression: It’s called the First Amendment, and I am tired of people trampling it by improperly interpreting it as a right for only feel-good expression or political correct reasons. Even repulsive language is protected under that leading tenet of our Bill of Rights. And if that constitutional decree does not protect the basest of language, then what is freedom of speech all about? It was not a coincidence that America’s Founding Fathers saw that liberty and power – corrupted in the wrong hands – could even be used to suppress the very liberties and power they were trying to secure and protect we the people.

The Ever Present Influence List

Have you not noticed how media people love to appoint people they like to positions of influence? The media elite decide what matters, even if what it says matters does not in fact matter to the average person. But then, who has influence has little to do with how many people care about or follow that person. It has everything to do with who the media decides to anoint with the signature “influential.” Conversely, if the media elite decides it doesn't want something or someone to be significant, they won’t be. Hence, Time magazine this week released its list of “The 25 Most Influential Teens of 2014.” Some on the list are impressive; others are known for accomplishing nothing. The list also is populated with singers, actors, a transgender-ed kid, bloggers, etc., like you’d expect. But, with a few exceptions, the list involves people who do nothing or next to it. It makes sense for the participation award generation to hold up people with little to no achievements, but should the media be presenting them like they've done something or are laudable of veneration? I think not. But then again, I have failed to make anyone’s list of who’s who for doing anything and doing nothing. 

So, What's Left

With the mid-term elections just weeks away I will be addressing issues that are germane to not only this blogger but to all who possess a strong work ethic and believe in liberty, honor, patriotism, country and faith in the God of our Founding Fathers.

 Can you tell me why American citizens should respect the law? Is it because it's the right thing to do? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in America, it is not unusual for laws to be unjust, unfair, and immoral. Is it because laws represent the will of the people? It is not always so. Currently, the law is too often precipitously created from vague statutes written by bureaucrats who face little or no consequences for ruining people’s lives. Well, is the law equally applied? Not on your life. One's political affiliation and how well someone is connected to the powers to be can have a direct impact on whether an individual is prosecuted for breaking the law and the seriousness of the penalty to be enacted. This being the case, what's left? Why should anyone respect capricious, immoral laws that are not correspondingly applied and do not mirror the will of the people? It has become apparent, under President Obama and the Democratic Senate majority , the law in America has become nothing short of what one can get away with. And we are likely to reap what we have sown (consequences) for many years to come. I will close with a George Orwell line; "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Think about what is written and cast your vote accordingly.

Our Military's Mission is not Virus Prevention

What is going on in the mind of President Obama? Why is he sending U.S. military personnel to wage war on Ebola? Has he lost his ability to reason? My concern, and I assure the reader it is shared by others, is that these soldiers, who will be exposed to an environment where the virus is prevalent, could bring it to the United States and potentially spread the malady as they rotate back to America.

The American public is being told that the deployed service members would be responsible for command, control, logistics, civil affairs and medical assistance, even though U.S. officials emphasized that their exposure to Ebola would be limited. Who of right mind and sound reasoning actually believes exposure would be limited. Does anyone really think in Washington and CDC? Apparently not.

This is a president who thinks like a community organizer and portrays a commander-in-chief who takes his responsibility for his military service members seriously. At a time when our military has been at war for more than a decade, suicide among veterans is occurring at alarming rates, PTSD is out of control and families are being destroyed as a result of decade long wars. The last thing the president should be doing is sending soldiers, airman, sailors and Marines into West Africa to fight Ebola.

The vast majority of deploying military personnel do not possess the criteria to fight in an endemic setting. As Douglas MacArthur once told West Point Cadets, “Your mission remains fixed, determined and inviolable. It is to fight and to win the nation’s wars.” In other words, the mission of the military is to fight wars not viruses. 

Ebola Concisely Defined but Uncertainty Remains

The news of Ebola virus has been unsettling to most Americans and the developed nations of the world in particular. Hence, I decided to research it enough to gain a basic understanding of said virus and the potential peril to a nation’s populous if Ebola is not contained. The repercussions of Ebola outbreaks to any country’s citizens is alarming in the least. Ebola has been described by “authorities” as a rather simple virus (as simple as a firestorm). Ebola is distantly related to measles, mumps and rabies. It is also related to certain pneumonia viruses: to the para-influenza virus, which causes colds in children, and the respiratory syncytial virus, which can cause fatal pneumonia in a person who has AIDS. Ebola seems to have developed the worst elements of all the above viruses and probably more. Again, this is information I have heard, read and researched, albeit, on a limited basis. It may be as simple to contain and as many experts claim. Then again, do they really know? Or, is it the highly infectious, deadly virus that will suddenly appear in this nation’s or other nation’s cities and towns and rapidly infect its population? Is there a viable cure that will save the majority of a country’s citizens? If there is no cure, why then are we allowing infected persons into our nation and its medical treatment facilities? Why not limit access to those from West Africa and treat the disease in West Africa if for no other reason than public safety. I contend that America and the rest of the world's developing nations can wage a successful campaign against this ravaging disease in West Africa without endangering their own people. Then again, maybe we are a day late and a dollar short in prevention and containment. 

Success and Failure is Choice.

If ever there was a display of envy by an American president it was when Obama pledged the rest of his term fighting income inequality (when not fund raising and golfing). Imagine the audacity one possesses when they publicly proclaim that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not "just."  Maybe it is just me, but Obama's statement appears to be the rationale for pilfering an economic system on the verge of collapse, not social justice. The other guy has it, you want it, I will take it. President Obama's words speak volumes of his economic philosophy, and fundamental ideology. It conceals a most important deviation from American ideals and common sense because it ends up not advancing, but betraying, those who support it. Obama and his pawns have not empowered their legion of followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, victimization and anger, instead of adeptness and hope. 

President Obama’s premise that you diminish income inequality by demeaning the successful, seeks to deny the successful the outcomes of their choices. Why, you may ask? Because, for the most part, income variation in a free society in general and America in particular is a result of different choices leading to different outcomes or consequences. Simply put; those who choose prudently and sensibly have a greater likelihood of success; those who choose unwisely and recklessly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Choose wisely my friends, your future depends on it.