Does God Exist.
"This story came to me in an email:
This is one of the best explanations on the
nature of God that I have ever seen..
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair
cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: 'I don't believe that God exists.'
'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.
'Well, you just have to go out in the street to
realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would
allow all of these things.'
The customer thought for a moment, but
didn't respond because he didn't want to
start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a
man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer
turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber:
'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised
barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I
just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't
exist because if they did, there would be no
people with dirty long hair and untrimmed
beards, like that man outside.'
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens
when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
I disagree with the premise of this story which is that people suffer because "god" is not in their lives, Or because they do not go to "god" for help when they are in trouble.
I believe in the existence of "god" as the power that lives inside of everything. The prophet Jesus teaches this very thing in his parable about the Last Judgement. (which can be found in Matt. 26 starting at vs 31) It's really the opposite of this email. Jesus says that you will be judged on how you treat others. He says, "You saw me hungry and gave me no food, you saw me thirsty and gave me no drink, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was away from home and you gave me no welcome. I was ill or in prison and you did not come to comfort me. And they will ask the Lord, When did we see you hungry or thirsty or naked or away from home or ill or in prison and not attend to you? And He will answer them, As often as you neglected these least ones, you neglected to do it to me."
So you see, it's not those people who are sick and poor who do not have "god". We all have "god". But Jesus teaches that we should attend the needs of others because of the presence of "god" within them. Reaching out to them, says that you understand that when you give attendance to your fellow man, it is really "god" living within them who is honored and respected.
This story's moral is just the opposite: It says,
'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'
At least according to Jesus, there is pain and suffering in the world because we do not see "god" in everyone and everything that exists! We do not honor the world or the power that exists within it or within ourselves.
Monday, August 27, 2012
What the Tea Party Means
From the season finale of “The Newsroom” (August 26, 2012)
Ideological purity
Belief in scriptural literalism
Deny science
Unmoved by facts
Undeterred by new information
Hostile fear of progress
Demonization of Education
Need to control women’s bodies
Severe Xenophobia
Tribal Mentality
Intolerance of decent
Pathological hatred of the United States Government
These things define those who call themselves the Tea Party,
and they may call themselves Conservatives.
They can even call themselves Republicans (though Republicans certainly
shouldn’t).
But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban
Which cannot survive if YOU (insert character’s name) are
allowed to vote.
Disclaimer: This is
not the exact wording of the main character but comes as close as I can get
listening to the program several times.
This list, however, is correct as spoken by the character and cannot be
any clearer as to the nature of those who call themselves the Tea Party. And I do believe their correct name should be
the American Taliban. Their fear based
platform has disrupted our politics and done nothing to improve the working of
our government. They like to think of
themselves as Patriots but patriots to what cause is yet to be specified. I do not like what I am seeing or hearing
from their representatives. We have a
choice this fall and we should use our choice to remove them from any and all
offices: local, state or national before they can do any more harm to what we
have called democracy. The most
disturbing effect that we have been experiencing in almost every state is their
determination to prevent people from voting by changing laws that make it easy
for people to vote, by requiring identification that many people cannot afford
to get or by physically removing people from the voting rolls without any
reason other than their gender or race.
We must not only vote this fall, we must make sure that anyone who needs
help to get to the polls, gets the help they need. Are you with me?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Communist Party Endorses Obama!
I just receive one of "those" emails claiming that the Communist party endorses Mr. Obama. It was from the generation that was made to feel threatened by Communism and whose champion was a guy name Joe McCarthy who wasted tax payer money on a "witch" hunt for Communist infiltrators in our society, our government and anywhere they could exert their Communist influence. Turns out all he did was ruin decent people's lives and stir up a fear that had no basis in reality.
This was my answer to the email:
So, Communist party endorses Obama. So what?
That's the "fear" of your generation. Our fear is "terrorist" based thanks to the previous president.
Who cares if Communists endorse Obama. They have no agenda here except to be accepted as citizens who have the right like multi-billion dollar corporations, to "endorse" a candidate (either one) and believe me, the billionaires have more power in our political system than anyone belonging to any other group of people. Their influence is way more frightening to me than some small, inconsequential political party. You should be worried about the millionaires and billionaires who have a say that far outweighs you or me or even all of us together. What can they do....look at the Bush presidency and what happened at the end. They will run this country into the ground while you all sing their praises. There really is no cure for stupid but ignorance is a different story. When you are ignorant of the facts, you can easily become informed. But stupid people don't realize when they are being taken to the cleaners and often praise the people who hurt us all!
I just receive one of "those" emails claiming that the Communist party endorses Mr. Obama. It was from the generation that was made to feel threatened by Communism and whose champion was a guy name Joe McCarthy who wasted tax payer money on a "witch" hunt for Communist infiltrators in our society, our government and anywhere they could exert their Communist influence. Turns out all he did was ruin decent people's lives and stir up a fear that had no basis in reality.
This was my answer to the email:
So, Communist party endorses Obama. So what?
That's the "fear" of your generation. Our fear is "terrorist" based thanks to the previous president.
Who cares if Communists endorse Obama. They have no agenda here except to be accepted as citizens who have the right like multi-billion dollar corporations, to "endorse" a candidate (either one) and believe me, the billionaires have more power in our political system than anyone belonging to any other group of people. Their influence is way more frightening to me than some small, inconsequential political party. You should be worried about the millionaires and billionaires who have a say that far outweighs you or me or even all of us together. What can they do....look at the Bush presidency and what happened at the end. They will run this country into the ground while you all sing their praises. There really is no cure for stupid but ignorance is a different story. When you are ignorant of the facts, you can easily become informed. But stupid people don't realize when they are being taken to the cleaners and often praise the people who hurt us all!
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Right or Responsibility
Right or Responsibility?
The Second Amendment is about Right but it is mostly about Responsibility. The Amendment is a clarification of something in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution on the powers of Congress and one of those powers is, "To provide for calling forth the Militia (for 3 purposes), to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions." This should now be followed by the 2nd Amendment which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In a sense the "idea" of a Militia is now obsolete since we have a well-armed professional military made up of branches of defined areas of service. The National Guard is as close to the "idea" of a Militia that remains. The 2nd Amendment tells all citizens that they have the right to bear arms because they have the responsibility to serve their country if called to do so by Congress. But we are now a Nation able to provide a standing army with the necessary weapons for the defense and security of a free State. Our "militia" is well regulated and well armed but I agree that if we are going to keep the 2nd Amendment then we need people to not only register their guns but to register to serve in any branch of the military they may choose should Congress call on them to do so.
The reason we no longer understand the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment is two fold. First it was written at a time when most people did have their own guns (they were necessary to provide food for the table as well as self-protection in a country not yet able to protect it's citizens from criminals or those dreaded native peoples who only wanted to live where they had always lived). So the Country called on them to serve by bringing their own gun to the fight. Unless they took up that responsibility, the country might have remained part of the British Empire. The Second reason is like the first, we are not familiar with the context in which it's written, interpretations have crept in to replace how it was understood by those who wrote the words.
So, if we keep the 2nd Amendment it only makes sense that those not qualified to be a Member of the Militia, should not keep and bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment defines our Right but mainly our Responsibility to serve our country.
The NRA fear-filled prognostications demean the Constitution as well as the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA lobby's Congress for laws that protect, not gun owners, but gun SALES. And the government, which by the way is US (You know, We the people....), aids the gun salesmen by not regulating guns and ammunition as they should be regulated. The NRA promotes the "Right" only and ignores and wants you to ignore the "Responsibility" of gun ownership. Your ownership cannot be infringed because of the deep responsibility the amendment lays on that ownership.
The NRA has twisted the meaning for so long that I don't expect you to see it clearly but I hope that you will try for the sake of all of us.
Are you with me?
I'm adding this addendum because it's time to recognize the truth. A mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, December 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of 20 children, none older than 6 and 6 adults forces us to face once again the results of our gun-worshipping culture. When the Bush Administration let the Assault weapons ban expire in 2004, the door was opened to allow military grade weapons to be in the hands of non-military personnel. So now we must look at what we have done. No one stood up to try to stop this atrocity or if they did, the effort was weak and ineffectual so now what....well I want you to read an excerpt from an article by Cass R. Sunstein, the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University which reads: "...Warren Burger was a conservative Republican appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that 'the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all.' In his view, the purpose was only 'to ensure that the state armies---the militia---would be maintained for the defense of the state.'
A year before Burger went even further on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Burger said the Second Amendment, 'has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.' "
Sunstein goes on to say, "It is striking that before the 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court had NEVER held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. For almost seven decades the Court's leading decision was U.S. vs Miller. The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a saw-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's 'obvious purpose' was 'to assure the constitution and render possible the effectiveness of'' the militia."
Professor Sunstein ends his article by saying, "It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs."
Personally I am glad to find that there is judicial support for my stand on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, unless we as a people see the "fraud" perpetrated on us by special interest groups to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to mean something it was never intended to mean, we will continue to face the horrors of mass shootings involving our children, our friends and our fellow Americans of all colors and ages. Is that what we want? I know I don't want it so....
Are you still with me?
Addendum: They have ALL forgotten or been taught to ignore the CONDITION upon which the "right" to bear arms is predicated..."A well-regulated Militia. being necessary to the security of a free state," Personally, since the "free state" now has money enough to arm any number of military personnel, the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. It is, in fact, a totally unnecessary Amendment to the Constitution. But the problem is that the common belief about the 2nd Amendment has now trumped it's original intent. And no one wishes to correct it because people believe the Constitution gives them the right to keep and bear arms, when in fact it doesn't, not for any reason. Does it restrict people from gun ownership? It does not but in this day and age, since it is apparent that quite a number of gun owners fear the government will take their gun rather than regulate, require registration, and licensing....we have a huge job of re-education ahead of us. Meanwhile, the police are going to have one heck of a job keeping these nuts and the rest of the nuts off the streets in order to protect citizens without guns.
The Second Amendment is about Right but it is mostly about Responsibility. The Amendment is a clarification of something in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution on the powers of Congress and one of those powers is, "To provide for calling forth the Militia (for 3 purposes), to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions." This should now be followed by the 2nd Amendment which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In a sense the "idea" of a Militia is now obsolete since we have a well-armed professional military made up of branches of defined areas of service. The National Guard is as close to the "idea" of a Militia that remains. The 2nd Amendment tells all citizens that they have the right to bear arms because they have the responsibility to serve their country if called to do so by Congress. But we are now a Nation able to provide a standing army with the necessary weapons for the defense and security of a free State. Our "militia" is well regulated and well armed but I agree that if we are going to keep the 2nd Amendment then we need people to not only register their guns but to register to serve in any branch of the military they may choose should Congress call on them to do so.
The reason we no longer understand the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment is two fold. First it was written at a time when most people did have their own guns (they were necessary to provide food for the table as well as self-protection in a country not yet able to protect it's citizens from criminals or those dreaded native peoples who only wanted to live where they had always lived). So the Country called on them to serve by bringing their own gun to the fight. Unless they took up that responsibility, the country might have remained part of the British Empire. The Second reason is like the first, we are not familiar with the context in which it's written, interpretations have crept in to replace how it was understood by those who wrote the words.
So, if we keep the 2nd Amendment it only makes sense that those not qualified to be a Member of the Militia, should not keep and bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment defines our Right but mainly our Responsibility to serve our country.
The NRA fear-filled prognostications demean the Constitution as well as the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA lobby's Congress for laws that protect, not gun owners, but gun SALES. And the government, which by the way is US (You know, We the people....), aids the gun salesmen by not regulating guns and ammunition as they should be regulated. The NRA promotes the "Right" only and ignores and wants you to ignore the "Responsibility" of gun ownership. Your ownership cannot be infringed because of the deep responsibility the amendment lays on that ownership.
The NRA has twisted the meaning for so long that I don't expect you to see it clearly but I hope that you will try for the sake of all of us.
Are you with me?
I'm adding this addendum because it's time to recognize the truth. A mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, December 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of 20 children, none older than 6 and 6 adults forces us to face once again the results of our gun-worshipping culture. When the Bush Administration let the Assault weapons ban expire in 2004, the door was opened to allow military grade weapons to be in the hands of non-military personnel. So now we must look at what we have done. No one stood up to try to stop this atrocity or if they did, the effort was weak and ineffectual so now what....well I want you to read an excerpt from an article by Cass R. Sunstein, the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University which reads: "...Warren Burger was a conservative Republican appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that 'the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all.' In his view, the purpose was only 'to ensure that the state armies---the militia---would be maintained for the defense of the state.'
A year before Burger went even further on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Burger said the Second Amendment, 'has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.' "
Sunstein goes on to say, "It is striking that before the 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court had NEVER held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. For almost seven decades the Court's leading decision was U.S. vs Miller. The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a saw-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's 'obvious purpose' was 'to assure the constitution and render possible the effectiveness of'' the militia."
Professor Sunstein ends his article by saying, "It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs."
Personally I am glad to find that there is judicial support for my stand on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, unless we as a people see the "fraud" perpetrated on us by special interest groups to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to mean something it was never intended to mean, we will continue to face the horrors of mass shootings involving our children, our friends and our fellow Americans of all colors and ages. Is that what we want? I know I don't want it so....
Are you still with me?
Addendum: They have ALL forgotten or been taught to ignore the CONDITION upon which the "right" to bear arms is predicated..."A well-regulated Militia. being necessary to the security of a free state," Personally, since the "free state" now has money enough to arm any number of military personnel, the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. It is, in fact, a totally unnecessary Amendment to the Constitution. But the problem is that the common belief about the 2nd Amendment has now trumped it's original intent. And no one wishes to correct it because people believe the Constitution gives them the right to keep and bear arms, when in fact it doesn't, not for any reason. Does it restrict people from gun ownership? It does not but in this day and age, since it is apparent that quite a number of gun owners fear the government will take their gun rather than regulate, require registration, and licensing....we have a huge job of re-education ahead of us. Meanwhile, the police are going to have one heck of a job keeping these nuts and the rest of the nuts off the streets in order to protect citizens without guns.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Separation of Church and State (Part II)
First, why would I want to belong to a Conservative Christian or Political organization if I did hold those views and the organization specifically called on me to uphold those views in order to join?
Second, Christianity in all its forms and denominations is the majority religion in the USA. It is ludicrous,therefore, to believe that the majority is being persecuted in any way, in any situation or in any form that it takes. My experience tells me that there is more animosity between different forms of Christianity than there is toward Christian groups by non-Christian groups.
Finally, when you attend a college or university you agree (like you do here on Beliefnet) to abide by the rules. If you form an organization which defies any of the rules, you are subject (as you are here on Beliefnet)to sanctions.
Since Christianity was born out of a political affiliation with a strong element of control, it is difficult for any group or denomination which now exists under the banner of Christianity to accept subjugation of any kind without believing itself to be persecuted.
Christians in general then, are more likely to view any legitimate sanctions as overt attempts at outright persecution rather than understand their true intent, the inherent right of any society to regulate those who choose to be a part of it.
The first amendment is equal parts freedom of religion and freedom from religious dictates masquerading as civil laws. Our forefathers experienced both of these intrusions into their lives and were determined to keep government and religion from becoming the force it had been in Europe. We really don’t understand the nature of the First Amendment and so, only see half of the equation.
A majority makes the rules and a government based on that majority will always make the rules in favor of that majority and against those who don’t agree or who are in the minority. There is no freedom of religion in a state whose laws are based on only one opinion! It is patently false to believe that the majority can be persecuted by a minority when only the majority has the power and authority to persecute anyone.
.
Second, Christianity in all its forms and denominations is the majority religion in the USA. It is ludicrous,therefore, to believe that the majority is being persecuted in any way, in any situation or in any form that it takes. My experience tells me that there is more animosity between different forms of Christianity than there is toward Christian groups by non-Christian groups.
Finally, when you attend a college or university you agree (like you do here on Beliefnet) to abide by the rules. If you form an organization which defies any of the rules, you are subject (as you are here on Beliefnet)to sanctions.
Since Christianity was born out of a political affiliation with a strong element of control, it is difficult for any group or denomination which now exists under the banner of Christianity to accept subjugation of any kind without believing itself to be persecuted.
Christians in general then, are more likely to view any legitimate sanctions as overt attempts at outright persecution rather than understand their true intent, the inherent right of any society to regulate those who choose to be a part of it.
The first amendment is equal parts freedom of religion and freedom from religious dictates masquerading as civil laws. Our forefathers experienced both of these intrusions into their lives and were determined to keep government and religion from becoming the force it had been in Europe. We really don’t understand the nature of the First Amendment and so, only see half of the equation.
A majority makes the rules and a government based on that majority will always make the rules in favor of that majority and against those who don’t agree or who are in the minority. There is no freedom of religion in a state whose laws are based on only one opinion! It is patently false to believe that the majority can be persecuted by a minority when only the majority has the power and authority to persecute anyone.
.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Small Governement
Ask any Republican what they mean by shrinking government and they will usually hand you a list of government programs that need to be dissolved or reduced so they do nothing that people really need. They have forgotten who pays them and who pays for the programs we all need. My son observed years ago that it appears they are deliberately trying to dumb down Americans. Public education has become a primary target as we have been seeing with all the Republican leadership at the state level. They are screaming about Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid but without those programs poverty would be a raging epidemic--unstoppable and deadly. They don't want taxes increased on those who can most afford to pay their fair share because the wealthy would benefit the least from the 4 previous programs--however, they do benefit from fire, police, military, primarily National Guard, roads and other infrastructure that have been neglected because of efforts to restrict spending in all these areas. Shrinking government is not beneficial unless it's cutting things we can afford to do with out. When your home budget gets tight, you get another job to supplement the income and then you start cutting things from the budget that you can absolutely live without--either permanently or temporarily until you can go back to normal. What you don't do is cut the things you absolutely need like food, shelter and transportation. So why do they all seem to want to cut what is necessary, never supplement the income and remove agencies that protect our air, water and food supplies--not to mention medical prescriptions. I get what they are doing because they hint at it every day they get a chance to do it. They call these programs "socialism" and from the standpoint that we all give to these programs and generally speaking benefit from one or all of them at some time or other--they are social. What they aren't is "socialism" nor are they a good fit for a society that runs on capitalism.
Capitalism is the system our economics is based on. And Capitalism is good because it can provide a way for business to grow and provide jobs. Unfortunately, when greedy people take control and game the system to make profits for themselves and their friends, we have what happened in 2008. That didn't happen because people made mistakes. Oh no, that happened because people knew what they were doing and they didn't care about the consequences for our country. We were headed for a cliff (a depression not unlike what happened when the Great Depression hit in the 30's) but a wall was thrown up at the last minuet to keep everyone including those who got us into this mess from going over that cliff. Many Americans are still suffering because of the greed of the few. And while investigations are ongoing into what crimes were committed, no one was really punished. So we limp along with the few safety nets our social programs provide. Capitalism nearly killed us again but all hail the Capitalistic Society--we must not keep it from going forward or from preventing the criminals from doing it to us all over again!
So here we are in another election cycle and the Republicans are pointing fingers in all directions but themselves. They demand smaller government as if "big" government caused all our problems. And in nearly every state they are trying to cut everything people really need, especially education. Their solutions to "big" government seem to involve making laws that are invasive to our private lives, which is the big hypocrisy. Their definition of big government is taking our money and giving it to undeserving people. The truth is they want control over every part of our lives that is not the business of any government. Our government protects us from such intrusions, or at least it should. It's totally obvious that Republicans exercise their own kind of "big government" demanding that we give up our privacy, our right to collectively bargain in the market place, our right to make health care decisions with our doctors and our insurance providers and our right to keep any religion out of any private citizens daily concerns. So which is it? Is big government collecting taxes and helping us survive in emergencies or is it demanding to control every part of our private lives?
If government is "overspending" on programs that people really need, then let's cut things we need less of like Military spending (which is way more than we need). How about Congress getting a stipend instead of a pay check, no health insurance and no pensions based on how long they have been in Congress. For that matter, we need term limits for these people if we are going to get back to small government. Let mothers, who balance their budgets at home, take a wack at balancing the Federal Budget. These are supposed to be our best and brightest and I don't see them doing anything but what serves their own interests. If you are going to collect tax dollars from Americans then you need to use that money for things WE need--do you need a list?! And if you cut us off, then we'll cut you off...we'll provide the term limits come election day! Are you with me?
Capitalism is the system our economics is based on. And Capitalism is good because it can provide a way for business to grow and provide jobs. Unfortunately, when greedy people take control and game the system to make profits for themselves and their friends, we have what happened in 2008. That didn't happen because people made mistakes. Oh no, that happened because people knew what they were doing and they didn't care about the consequences for our country. We were headed for a cliff (a depression not unlike what happened when the Great Depression hit in the 30's) but a wall was thrown up at the last minuet to keep everyone including those who got us into this mess from going over that cliff. Many Americans are still suffering because of the greed of the few. And while investigations are ongoing into what crimes were committed, no one was really punished. So we limp along with the few safety nets our social programs provide. Capitalism nearly killed us again but all hail the Capitalistic Society--we must not keep it from going forward or from preventing the criminals from doing it to us all over again!
So here we are in another election cycle and the Republicans are pointing fingers in all directions but themselves. They demand smaller government as if "big" government caused all our problems. And in nearly every state they are trying to cut everything people really need, especially education. Their solutions to "big" government seem to involve making laws that are invasive to our private lives, which is the big hypocrisy. Their definition of big government is taking our money and giving it to undeserving people. The truth is they want control over every part of our lives that is not the business of any government. Our government protects us from such intrusions, or at least it should. It's totally obvious that Republicans exercise their own kind of "big government" demanding that we give up our privacy, our right to collectively bargain in the market place, our right to make health care decisions with our doctors and our insurance providers and our right to keep any religion out of any private citizens daily concerns. So which is it? Is big government collecting taxes and helping us survive in emergencies or is it demanding to control every part of our private lives?
If government is "overspending" on programs that people really need, then let's cut things we need less of like Military spending (which is way more than we need). How about Congress getting a stipend instead of a pay check, no health insurance and no pensions based on how long they have been in Congress. For that matter, we need term limits for these people if we are going to get back to small government. Let mothers, who balance their budgets at home, take a wack at balancing the Federal Budget. These are supposed to be our best and brightest and I don't see them doing anything but what serves their own interests. If you are going to collect tax dollars from Americans then you need to use that money for things WE need--do you need a list?! And if you cut us off, then we'll cut you off...we'll provide the term limits come election day! Are you with me?
Gossip is.....
If you were born and raised in a small town or were then or are now the brunt of it in High School, then you know where I'm going with this...plainly put, gossip is the preferred weapon of cowards. Yes, that's right, it is a weapon and one mainly used by the cowardly among us!
That includes those who receive it and pass it, maybe especially those because they are complicit in the LIE that is the basis for all gossip. What good does this lie do the perpetrators, especially those who just pass along what they've heard--they become the powerful (albeit in a very small way) over those who are libeled by the gossip. Who can stand against their lies? No one, because the lie is in effect asking the question "Have you stopped beating your wife ". You can answer neither yes or no! You cannot deny that which you have never done--for which you cannot possibly be named guilty except in the eyes of those who told the lie in the first place and those who pass it on thinking they are in on the dirty little secret given to them as the "truth". I have never been the brunt of such liars as far as I know, nor have I ever participated in the terrible game used against someone else. But I am old enough to recognize gossip when I hear and to advise people to seek the truth instead of trying to claim power by lying about someone else. It is a game with terrible consequences for both the lied about and the liars who perpetuate the lie even when forced to face the truth.
Those who have been the brunt of gossip live with the pain of knowing that their lives are being discussed by people who are lying about them. They, usually, don't know who these people are although today with computers and cell phones it's easy to see who might be behind it. That, however, doesn't help much nor does it seem to stop the use of this weapon by the cowards who use it. As a matter of fact, Gossip seems to have been lifted to an art in our society. There are news papers dedicated to gossiping about celebrities and gossip columns in other news papers that pry into people's private lives so the rest of us can feel superior to them. Gossip never starts innocently, it is a deliberate attempt to smear someone and now Gossip has been elevated to the status of "news". News is supposed to be the truth or at least the facts concerning an issue or what is happening in our world.
Unfortunately what we are getting especially from people at Fox News has nothing to do with facts or the truth. Just like personal gossips, their stories lead off with, "I heard..." "Did you hear..." "Did you know..." and then proceed to make sure you know the lie they are telling as if it were the truth. Their only intent is to make sure that you see things their way and pass it along to as many people as you can using the same phrase, "Did you hear....that Mr. Obama wasn't born in this country....he doesn't have a valid birth certificate...they can't find his certificate...it's not the actual certificate but one that has been tampered with...and on and on. Each time the gossiper wants you to know that they know something more about the lie, which they don't. If they did they would be telling you the truth and they would tell you that even if Mr. Obama was born in a foreign country, his Mother was an American and any of her children would be considered to be Americans too. We are or are becoming a culture of gossips, preferring the lies to the truth and condemning people who have no way of defending themselves against the lies---each defense is also condemned as an attempt to cover it up. Just like personal gossip, it asks a question about you or him for which no answer will suffice. You might say that the "news" people or commentators are right there in front of you---they wouldn't dare try to lie in such a public way! Really--REALLY? They are about power--and they use that power of "knowing what you don't know" to convince you that their lies ARE the truth. Once convinced of the lies, the listener then only hears the lies. "Obama is Un-American, a Muslim, a "terrorist" (coined by Palin for his paling around with them--untrue), he's an appeaser of our enemies (I hope you understand what that means--it's the same as treason but I hardly think the evidence shows that he gives in to our enemies in any way) not a Christian (REALLY?) a radical (also coined by Palin during her brief campaign--(Hope you've seen Game Change!); all being perpetuated among the professional radical Gossips as the truth.
The truth is out there but the gossips aren't listening or telling anyone anything but the lies they have come to believe as true. If you are with me then it is time to call them on what they are doing. If you know the truth, then tell them the truth--they probably won't believe you or may think that you have been blinded by liberal propaganda. Liberals don't use propaganda which is defined as telling a lie over and over until it is accepted as the truth--watch Fox for a day--each "story" is repeated with no deviation or variation. That is propagandizing the listener because they don't want you to think for yourselves!
The Founding Fathers were "liberals" coming from the same root word as LIBERTY. I am not ashamed of being called a liberal. It is also the root word of FREEDOM! Without liberals we would never have gained or kept our "freedoms". So I ask you, Are you with me?
That includes those who receive it and pass it, maybe especially those because they are complicit in the LIE that is the basis for all gossip. What good does this lie do the perpetrators, especially those who just pass along what they've heard--they become the powerful (albeit in a very small way) over those who are libeled by the gossip. Who can stand against their lies? No one, because the lie is in effect asking the question "Have you stopped beating your wife ". You can answer neither yes or no! You cannot deny that which you have never done--for which you cannot possibly be named guilty except in the eyes of those who told the lie in the first place and those who pass it on thinking they are in on the dirty little secret given to them as the "truth". I have never been the brunt of such liars as far as I know, nor have I ever participated in the terrible game used against someone else. But I am old enough to recognize gossip when I hear and to advise people to seek the truth instead of trying to claim power by lying about someone else. It is a game with terrible consequences for both the lied about and the liars who perpetuate the lie even when forced to face the truth.
Those who have been the brunt of gossip live with the pain of knowing that their lives are being discussed by people who are lying about them. They, usually, don't know who these people are although today with computers and cell phones it's easy to see who might be behind it. That, however, doesn't help much nor does it seem to stop the use of this weapon by the cowards who use it. As a matter of fact, Gossip seems to have been lifted to an art in our society. There are news papers dedicated to gossiping about celebrities and gossip columns in other news papers that pry into people's private lives so the rest of us can feel superior to them. Gossip never starts innocently, it is a deliberate attempt to smear someone and now Gossip has been elevated to the status of "news". News is supposed to be the truth or at least the facts concerning an issue or what is happening in our world.
Unfortunately what we are getting especially from people at Fox News has nothing to do with facts or the truth. Just like personal gossips, their stories lead off with, "I heard..." "Did you hear..." "Did you know..." and then proceed to make sure you know the lie they are telling as if it were the truth. Their only intent is to make sure that you see things their way and pass it along to as many people as you can using the same phrase, "Did you hear....that Mr. Obama wasn't born in this country....he doesn't have a valid birth certificate...they can't find his certificate...it's not the actual certificate but one that has been tampered with...and on and on. Each time the gossiper wants you to know that they know something more about the lie, which they don't. If they did they would be telling you the truth and they would tell you that even if Mr. Obama was born in a foreign country, his Mother was an American and any of her children would be considered to be Americans too. We are or are becoming a culture of gossips, preferring the lies to the truth and condemning people who have no way of defending themselves against the lies---each defense is also condemned as an attempt to cover it up. Just like personal gossip, it asks a question about you or him for which no answer will suffice. You might say that the "news" people or commentators are right there in front of you---they wouldn't dare try to lie in such a public way! Really--REALLY? They are about power--and they use that power of "knowing what you don't know" to convince you that their lies ARE the truth. Once convinced of the lies, the listener then only hears the lies. "Obama is Un-American, a Muslim, a "terrorist" (coined by Palin for his paling around with them--untrue), he's an appeaser of our enemies (I hope you understand what that means--it's the same as treason but I hardly think the evidence shows that he gives in to our enemies in any way) not a Christian (REALLY?) a radical (also coined by Palin during her brief campaign--(Hope you've seen Game Change!); all being perpetuated among the professional radical Gossips as the truth.
The truth is out there but the gossips aren't listening or telling anyone anything but the lies they have come to believe as true. If you are with me then it is time to call them on what they are doing. If you know the truth, then tell them the truth--they probably won't believe you or may think that you have been blinded by liberal propaganda. Liberals don't use propaganda which is defined as telling a lie over and over until it is accepted as the truth--watch Fox for a day--each "story" is repeated with no deviation or variation. That is propagandizing the listener because they don't want you to think for yourselves!
The Founding Fathers were "liberals" coming from the same root word as LIBERTY. I am not ashamed of being called a liberal. It is also the root word of FREEDOM! Without liberals we would never have gained or kept our "freedoms". So I ask you, Are you with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)