Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
I hate evil. I know that seems contrary to what a Christian should do to many of the uninitiated, but there is room for hatred in Christianity. Specifically, we are to hate what is evil and cling to what is good. Sometimes Christians will tell me to submit to the government, citing Romans 13:1-7 as their reasoning. In other words, everything the government does is good and therefore I should not oppose them in any way whatsoever.
Yet they forget that just previously, in Romans 12:9, Paul wrote, “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” So I find the whole claim that the government is good and that we must submit to them to be factually erroneous at best. I hate what the government does and just about everything they do is outright evil:
- I hate murder. I hate the fact that President Obama has murdered American citizens, including a 16-year-old boy, without so much as a peep from any side of the political aisle as to whether it was morally wrong for the President to be judge, jury, and executioner of a boy whose crime was being in the wrong family and wanting to find his father. Life is sacred, which is why the recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School has so many people in a state of shock and sorrow. Yet our asshole President has the gall to shed tears for those children, but feels nothing for killing another?
- I hate envy and greed. Our entire tax system is based primarily on envy and greed. How often do you hear some jackass complaining about how the rich don’t pay their fair share and not a word in opposition to it? Why should I care what the rich do with their money. So long as they are not hurting anyone else, let them be I say. Instead, we get a bunch of envious and greedy jackals who can’t even pay an electric bill without taxpayer support yet somehow manage to have the latest cell phones, designer clothes, and expensive booze. Not to mention the illegal drugs, which are much more expensive due to the War on Drugs than they would be normally.
- I hate extortion. In 2008, Warren Buffet extorted Congress into bailing out the banks by stating he would move his money into other investments that were not in US interests. One man had more sway than over 60% of the nation that year and we are supposed to buy this lie that we have democracy? On top of that, thousands of people are extorted by the police every day for what they call “moving violations.” In Ohio, they can extort you if you look like you are speeding, scientific evidence be damned.
- I hate fraud. In the United States, banks are required by law to use a fractional reserve system. The fractional reserve banking system is a fraudulent system designed to inflate currency and ensure that only a few elite at the top benefit most from it. I cannot explain the system in its entirety in so few words, just understand that it would not exist without government coercion. In other words, it is antithetical to the concept of the free market.
- I hate broken promises. The United States Constitution was a promise to the several states and the people of the limits placed on the central government. Yet it is clear that those promises have been broken again and again and now nobody in Congress, on mainstream television, or even among mainstream culture seem to have a problem with this. What’s worse, many of the very people who profess to want to hold government officials to their oath only care about certain sections of the Constitution. It is all or nothing, there is no in-between when it comes to the limited powers laid out by the United States Constitution.
- I hate theft. Every year, average citizens like you and me work for over six months to pay taxes to the federal, state, and local governments, with very little benefit in return. In fact, as far as I can tell, the returns are less and less. But if I were to refuse to pay my taxes and fought against the government, I would be killed. Hell, they may kill me anyway for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But what would you call a private group of citizens threatening to you if you don’t give them half your year’s wages? It is called theft. There is no other term for it.
- I hate lies. Last year, President Obama openly opposed the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA and stated he would not sign the bill. Yet he secret pushed for the legal power of a tyrant and signed the bill on New Year’s Eve. This is just one example in a series of lies that we have had to endure from him and so many others who presume to rule over us.
I think when Paul wrote his letter to Romans, he was trying to encourage his fellow Christians to submit to authority by not openly rebelling against them. You see, Rome was an empire by then without even the pretext of choice in the matter who governs over you. There was no voting for your leader and there was nothing that could be done about it.
Keep in mind that John the Baptist, the voice in the wilderness, was imprisoned and ultimately beheaded for speaking out against the immoral union of King Herod and his sister-in-law just a few decades earlier. Was he submissive to State authority? Yes, but he stood for what was right and hated the evil acts of his king. I can be submissive by not taking up arms against the State, but at the same time, I have nothing but hatred for the things they do.
And if you cannot hate any of these things, if none of these things makes your blood boil, you are lost.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I am always fascinated by people who think there are two many people living on the Earth and that humanity should reduce itself by a certain number or percentage. Fascinated in the same sense that I am fascinated by a rather large toenail that I’ve just clipped off my toe or what happens to a wart when you apply a freezing agent to it. It’s a morbid fascination but I think it is just as important as the more normal fascinations a human being should have.
This is because dangers to people usually come in the form of goodwill, provided we make the appropriate sacrifice, in order to achieve some perceived magical end. Usually, the problem presented is, at best, a mediocre problem that can be resolved naturally without much effort on humanity’s part. However, usually the people who hype such problems have an alternate agenda in mind, with some sinister undertones, so they will do everything in their power to try and convince the dumb masses, often times succeeding, in their fanatical ploys.
Al Gore stands as a good example. This is because he has been giving the same speech for years about the dangers of global warming yet he owns beachfront property. Or take Benjamin Netanyahu who has been claiming that Iran seeks nukes since the early 1990s.
But the most fascinating of these loonies are the various people who think our world is overpopulated and that humanity is doomed to starvation, disease, war, or whatever else results from too many people having really awesome sex. The term used for this problem is often referred to as, “population control.”
This term raises a few questions that I do not believe anyone has really considered. For one, who is in control? Obviously, the government is the controlling authority in these misguided policies. Who else would do it? The free market does not control people, it merely allows people to interact freely.
The other question that comes to mind is: what kind of control are they talking about? In China, there are strict measures in place to ensure that people do not breed more than one child, although there has been much backlash in the wake of these policies as of late. Still, there are many people who rank among the elite who believe that at a minimum, the rest of the world should implement similar policies.
Finally, you have to ask that once the policy of population control is completed, however it is done, what is the endgame? What happens when the population goes from 7.5 billion to 500 million? Is there a magical number?
I think that the endgame is much more sinister than most people imagine, given how many ultra-rich billionaires advocate population control. I think the endgame is about stifling human potential and maintaining direct control over those who are left. In other words, when they talk about population control, they mean more than just simply controlling the size of humanity, but everything else about humanity as well.
But why the focus on reducing the size of humanity first and foremost? The answer is actually simple: if you reduce humanity down to much smaller numbers, they become easier to manage. Smaller groups of people are much easier to maintain direct control over.
Ultimately, this all part of the long-term progressive agenda that is being pushed by the elites who presume to run the world. Among them, Bill Gates has openly stated that he wants to sterilize people through vaccinations, and Ted Turner has openly stated that he wants the population to be reduced by 95% or more. While these are just two men stating their opinions, they should not be taken lightly as they are both billionaires and thus have the resources, connections, and power to implement some of their crazy delusions.
Look, humanity has barely populated the world. In the continental United States alone, human beings occupy, at most, 5.6% of the land mass. The rest is ruled by whatever other natural forces are at work. You can fit the entire world’s population into Texas if needed. So this idea that we are over-running the world is ridiculous. Alongside this, the modern human-hater, such as Mr. Turner or Mr. Gates, uses the unscientific global warming excuse to further promote their advocacy for mass genocide.
I am not saying that you should all go out have at least 5 children. Whatever you do with your life is your business. What I am saying is that reducing the population is not so much about preventing global warming/starvation/disease/war but more about making the whole of humanity more easily controlled as it reduces the number of variables needed to achieve that end.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Anonymous Hacks The Westboro Baptist Church: Posts All Their Personal Information
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Understanding human nature is a fundamental starting point for anyone attempting to build a coherent political philosophy. Generally speaking, there are two views: Human nature is either fixed or malleable. Traditionally, conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals fall into the camp that believes human nature is fixed but with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and others view human nature as malleable, that is, it can be changed.-Human Nature: A Conservative, Classical Liberal & Libertarian View
Friday, December 14, 2012
They stomped on our right to know. Now it's time to get even. Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, was narrowly defeated last week thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling some of your favorite organic and "natural" brands. Brands like Kashi. Honest Tea. Naked Juice. Muir Glen and Morningstar Farms. It's time to boycott the companies whose dirty money confused and scared millions of California voters into voting No on Prop 37. It's time to plaster their facebook pages with this message: We won't support you until you support us. It's time to call their consumer hotlines, complain to their store managers. It's time to tarnish their holy organic and natural images, to expose their hypocrisy and greed. It's time to raise a little hell.-Payback Time! Boycott the Brands that Helped Kill Prop 37
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Voting is nearly pointless on a national level.
Sure, you can vote for your guy and hope he wins, but ultimately, there is no point to it because your vote isn’t even a whisper when you consider the scale of how big things really are.
For one thing, your vote on a national scale is really just a drop in the bucket, at best. When you consider that the House of Representatives is one representative per roughly 700,000 people, you have to know that your Congressperson does not give a flying rat’s ass if he or she loses your vote. Therefore the only thing that would influence your representative is money. And most Americans do not have the time or resources to truly influence their representative in the House.
In the Senate, the situation is much worse. The representation ratios are much higher in most states with each Senator representing millions in most cases. Worse still, because they have the longest terms of any elected official on the national level, they enjoy the short-term memories of the common voter, who doesn’t even bother to remember what their Senator voted on years earlier. On top of that, they require even more money for campaigning, since they have to focus on the entire State, and thus they require lots of donations from even more people. And you can bet that much of that money does not necessarily come from the constituents they represent.
For the Presidency, you have even worse odds. This past election, we saw Mitt Romney lose to Barack Obama by a little over 2 million votes. However, Romney lost the electoral votes by about 100, out of 535 electoral votes. The ratio between the popular vote and the electoral votes seems to be a bit off this time around. In 2000, if you ignore all judiciary drama that went on, you’d note that George W. Bush won the Electoral college by 5 electoral votes but lost the popular vote by a little over half a million votes. If the electoral college was operating as it should be in theory, shouldn’t that ratio between electoral votes versus popular votes be a little closer for the past election?
On top of that, the attitude of Congress and the Presidency is to pass laws and have the people prove them to be illegitimate based on what the United States Constitution says. In other words, Congress and the President can pass any law they want and it is legal, until it is overturned by the Supreme Court or one of the Inferior Courts. The trouble is, the justices on those courts are handpicked by the President and approved by the Senate, usually just a formality. So we have a judiciary that is populated by people who are more than likely to rubber stamp the legislation that is passed by Congress, a body largely voted into office by huge collectives, not individuals. Ultimately, every knowledgeable voter seems to accept that the rulings of the Supreme Court are final, regardless of the fact that they don’t have the final say so.
To top it off, the Federal government marks just about every single document, memo, or e-mail it writes as classified in some way. This presents another kind of problem: how can a voter make the correct decision when we don’t even know what the Federal government is doing to begin with? You begin to see why both parties resort to social issues, largely because most other issues would require disclosure of “sensitive” data to the public.
The mere fact that our Republic or representative democracy as it were, has anything to hide should be the smoking gun that the educated masses should look into. Yet for some reason, everyone accepts that the government needs to keep its secrets, and assumes that nothing sinister is going on. The old saying during World War 2 was that loose lips sink ships, yet for the life of me I doubt that loose lips in the United States would let the Japanese know where our ships were, despite the distant involved and the fact that ships move around all the time.
The bottom line: voting in national elections probably doesn’t you much good. The mathematics behind it mean that you don’t have the say that you think you do, regardless whatever political affiliations you have. In addition, you have very limited knowledge of what the Federal government is really doing, unless you have the right security clearances and even then you have to sift through millions of documents and files in order to get a good grip on what is going on.
The best thing you can do when it comes to voting on a national scale is to simply write your own name in or not vote at all.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
The biggest thing in the political sphere right now is the aptly-named fiscal cliff. I think the term “fiscal cliff” is stupid phrase to use, but I applaud whoever came up with it because he or she has succeeded in duping the dumb masses. The so-called crisis is really just a debate over whether or not to continue the Bush-era tax cuts or to all the tax rates to return to what they were in the Clinton years, along with the implementation of the new taxes in the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The truth is, this is really just a minor issue. The United States has been in an economic depression since 2007 and politicians have no idea what they are doing. Or they are just pawns of international bankers. Probably both.
The fact that Congress spends nearly twice as much money as it takes in and for some odd reason, cannot find anything to cut, demonstrates that they are nothing, if not incompetent morons who deserve to go the way of Benito Mussolini. They clearly have both an overinflated sense of self worth and think that they control the economy when really, they just happen to be at the helm of the largest economic actor.
The problem is that neither political party has any desire to cut spending in any category. Both of them want to continue to support welfare, which is both collective thievery and slavery in the name of fairness, and both sides want a “strong” military, which can’t defend our borders from the Mexican invasion (invasion is illegal immigration in high numbers) but somehow are still able to lock up white people with Gadsden Flags on their vehicles.
The fact is, the United States Federal government is really beyond saving now. With two political parties firmly entrenched in the mainstream and at the helm of the largest corporation in the world, we have little hope of changing its course. Now that the election is over, the politicians on the Hill can now drop all pretenses and set out to do what they have secretly wanted to do all along.
It’s a shame, really, that people can’t see through this sham. The entire fiscal cliff debate is nothing more than showboating in order to feed the media and the dumb masses the idea that both parties are different, that there is reason to support them, and to justify their wasteful and wholly unnecessary spending.
Perhaps someday people will figure it out. Of course, that day is probably the day after we’ve either entered a totalitarian dictatorship (if we haven’t already) or the country has been split up into several smaller countries. Either way, it will be too late.
"Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history . . . and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money."
"Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising event."
"Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists.'"
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
While millions of Americans spent Thanksgiving weekend around the dinner table with family and friends, Chris Williams spent it behind bars, coming to terms with the fact that he may be there for the rest of his life. A single father who has never been convicted of a violent crime, Chris probably never imagined himself becoming one of the 2.5 million people incarcerated in America. ... Chris was a co-owner of Montana Cannabis, a medical marijuana growhouse serving hundreds of state-legal patients across Montana. After a statewide federal crackdown last year, Chris and his business partners were indicted on federal charges despite their concerted efforts to follow Montana's state medical marijuana law. He is now facing a mandatory minimum sentence of more than 80 years in federal prison.-Medical Marijuana Grower Prepares for a Lifetime Behind Bars
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Yesterday, I was finally able to watch the latest Jesse Stone movie Benefit of the Doubt. In it, Tom Selleck plays Jesse Stone as the former police chief of a small Massachusetts town outside of Boston who gets reinstated after the current police chief (who replaced Jesse in a previous movie) is killed in an IED explosion. All signs point to the late chief as being corrupt, but Jesse Stone, despite not liking him, states that “cops deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
This statement struck me. Not because I considered some kind of pro-cop propaganda, but because it seemed to me that his is the correct attitude to take in matters of justice. Not just cops, though, but everyone suspected of a crime should be given the benefit of the doubt. A more apt term is innocent until proven guilty.
As for the character of Jesse Stone, he is portrayed as a police officer who knows what his job is and performs it how he thinks it should. In the last movie, his therapist, a former cop himself, mentions that he won’t get convictions with mere hunches, to which Jesse replies that he’s not interested in convictions but justice. This is another sharp contrast in the ideal attitude of law enforcement versus the actual attitude of law enforcement these days. Most of the time, prosecutors, cops, and judges aren’t interested in justice, but merely convictions. Convictions should be the end result of the pursuit of justice, not the goal.
Too often in real life, however, cops are given the benefit of the doubt by the people who matter while the rest of us are assumed to have committed some crime (which is true given the thousands of laws on the books) and so we are subject to different treatment. I agree that cops should be given the benefit of the doubt, but what about the rest of us? Should we not be given the benefit of the doubt? Instead we are given tickets for speeding when police officer routinely use their cars to run red lights and park illegally without having to worry about a ticket.
Also, when cops are caught committing egregious acts of police misconduct, they are often given a slap on the wrist and sent on their way. Even if they are kicked out of the police force in their locality, they are able to find work in another police locality. Jesse Stone himself was kicked off of the LAPD for being drunk on the job only to land a police chief job in the town he resides in. While in his case, he was able to pull through and become a good cop, this is tragically not always the case in the real world, especially in cases where the former officer has engaged in police brutality.
Look, I’m not saying that all cops are bad. I am merely pointing out the reality that our justice system has different standards for cops than for the rest of us. This discrepancy goes against the spirit of the founding of this nation and really, we should reconsider the proper application of law enforcement.
As for Jesse Stone, I encourage you to check out the movies. They are really good movies overall.
The statist thugs of our time will soon flow out of the dark recesses and rotten sputtering gutters of our society like a river of septic putrescence
Monday, December 3, 2012
I have zero interest in football. American football that is, although I care even less about soccer. But I do like to analyze human behavior and this weekend was a whopper of one. As you may know, Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs murdered his girlfriend than killed himself in front of his head coach and general manager. This is a very sad and tragic case, but at the same, the idiots are coming out of the woodwork to promote their social or political agendas.
One of the more idiotic posts comes from Kevin Powell of CNN. Now, I’ve never really liked CNN, mostly because they have manufacturing news since the early 1990s, but this opinion piece really demonstrates the kind of idiots which are hired by CNN. Here’s a brief sample of Mr. Powell’s piece:
Belcher was a man living in the supersized macho world of football, a world in which many of us American males reside, be it football or not. Too many of us have been taught manhood in a way that is not healthy. Be tough, men do not cry, man up -- these are the things I've heard my entire life, and I now cringe when I hear this relayed to boys or younger men by teachers, coaches, fathers, mentors and leaders.
Or we use derogatory and sexist or homophobic words to describe men or boys who do not meet the "normal" of what a male is supposed to be. Some of these male authority figures mean well, or are simply repeating what they were socialized to be or to do, and do not realize that they are unwittingly teaching that manhood has little room to express hurt, disappointment and sorrow.
I think what Mr. Powell fails to realize is that being tough is a symptom of manhood, not a cause. He seems to think that feminizing men is the way to go, when clearly that is not working. This is clearly the line of thinking in a post-modern society where man is “in touch” with his inner woman, while women get a pass for the sheer insane behavior and comments because they can do no wrong.
True story, my mother knew a doctor at the hospital where she worked who was pulled over for drunk driving. She had her young children in the back of her car. She then proceeded to slug the cop in the face. During the trial, she got off scot free because she claimed to have been suffering from PMS at the time. And men wonder why they don’t get a fair shake in family court and can be accused of assault, despite no criminal record or charges, and see their crying children dragged away from them to live with their greedy, slutty ex-wives.
And yet I’m the bad guy for being a man and embrace being wild at heart. Manhood is not what we see on television, though the six different media companies would want us to believe that is what being a man is all about. I have never viewed football players as generally being men or role models. They are simply modern gladiators playing a game for entertainment. American football is simply the modern bread and circuses of civilization, although instead of bread, we have beer and chips.
Honestly, I have no problem with men who religiously watch football, despite its rampant commercialization, pointless commentaries, and endless statistics. You can see why I find the whole affair boring. By the same token though, my love for video games is probably off-putting by many of the same men, especially my current obsession which is The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. I mean, what kind of man will sit for hours exploring a Nordic region fighting dragons, vampires, draugr, and bandits using a wide variety of weapons, magic, and battle tactics.
Back to Mr. Powell, I think he’s dead wrong in his assessment. I understand what he is saying, that manly aggression and a failure to deal properly with our emotions is what caused the late Mr. Belcher’s actions. But when I see Jovan Belcher’s face, I do not see the face of a man, but the face of a boy in a man’s body. The behavior that Mr. Powell describes is simply that of boys, not men. Boys ridicule each other and throw insults, men stand on their convictions and simply call people out when they are wrong. Boys do not own up to the horrible things they have done and instead avoid the consequences by whatever means they can.
I think Kevin Powell represents the post-modern, feminized man who sees the flaw in society as being manly. I think American football is probably the worst example of manhood and that perhaps he should look at it another way. I say this because our society suffers from a lack of conviction, courage, and personal responsibility, all of which are manly traits.