Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Forced Union

If you look at the world today, you'll find that it's not much different than any other point in human history.  Sin abounds, corruption is rampant, and the rich desire to get richer while the poor suffer in their poverty.   It's always been like this.  So it's no surprise that it continually follows this pattern.
However, it's only been in the last several hundred years that the world has seen a surprising interruption to this pattern with the founding of the United States of America.  The founding fathers set up a country with a system of government in which people could be truly FREE, and able to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted with no interruption or bondage. 
They were free physically, in that each individual was his own sovereign.  He was the king of his own land, as it was his to do with as he pleased. (This was called the pursuit of happiness).  He was free economically, and if he worked hard, he could keep the fruit of his labours and enjoy them. He was free religiously, to follow his own conscience to decide for himself to which church or denomination he chose to attend, or if he so desired to not attend any of them.  He was also free spiritually to make decisions for himself and his own soul as to what he desired to do.  He could worship in his own way as there was no state church that forced their teachings and spirituality on him.  Yes, when the United States of America was founded, it was the greatest nation the earth had ever known!
But what happened?  It's definitly not that today.  In fact, we find that the government of today is not active in securing men's freedoms, rather it's continually toiling in "forcing" people to comply with its own will, oftentimes with many laws that are against the constitution of the United States.  Why is this?
The answer is because of "FORCED UNION." 
If you know anything about the history of this nation, you know that after the founding of the country, there was a movment to keep the union of the country.  President Andrew Jackson was a very big supporter of the union of the states. He wanted Union at all costs.  But to stay united meant that someone would have to compromise, something that many did not want to do.
And if you know your American History, you know that eventually the divide was so great, that the South seceeded from the Union, as they did not desire the North to dictate them them what they could and couldn't do.  Nor did they believe it was right for the North to tax them upwards of 40% (Look up the Morrill Tarrif for more on this).  So the South did what the Constitution gave allowance to do.  They seceeded from the Union
What happened?  You know the story.   The North started the War of Northern Agression, also known as the Civil War.  (Or the "Un-Civil War," depending upon how you look at it).
The North then practiced FORCED UNION, as they went to war and killed people in order to force them to be reunited with them. 
Lincoln, that old despot, chose to send a fleet of warships to ATTACK the South.  Knowing this, the South gave Union troops thirty days to leave Fort Sumter, and when they did not, they were forced to fire upon them in order to regain their own fort on their own sovereign soil of South Carolina.  This they did with only one recorded death (an accident, as a man inside the fort was too close to a keg of powder when it exploded).  This the South did in "Self-Defense" of an impending Northern Agressive force coming to FORCE them to remain in the Union.  (Why didn't the North just leave them alone?)
Now you can argue all you want about slavery and the South and how that led to the Civil War, but the truth is the NORTH wanted to enslave the Southern people because the South had the money, and the North wanted it.  That's why they wanted them to remain loyal to the Union, cause they wanted their tax dollars.  (Kinda sounds like our current political system today doesn't it?  With their FORCED healthcare upon the populace, the government mandates that you must get it, and if you don't want it, you are charged a TAX and a FEE for not complying with their healthcare law, a law that those who passed it DIDN'T EVEN READ IT!!!  And a law which over 60% of the American public didn't even want!)
So it's clear to see that the history of the United States of America is divided into two distinct and very opposite periods.  The first was about 70 years of true freedom, when people could chose for themselves.  They originally chose to be a part of the Union.  But when they chose to leave, they were attacked, and forced into submission.  
The second period is what happened after that until this very day, in which the U.S. goverment has a history of forcing compliance to it's will.  Just look at the Indians, for a prime example.  They were free, and freely traveled the land, but the U.S. government forced them into the Indian territory of Oklahoma, and the "trail of tears" is remembered unto this very day as a great atrocity perpetrated on the native American people by the American government.
Thus, we find that the United States of America at it's founding had a necesssary union which voluntarily came together for the purpose of granting men FREEDOM.  But when corruption entered into the picture, that Union become nothing more than an oppressive regime that forced men into compliance with that corruption and enslaved them to a political system that took away men's liberties.
Now, to depart from the history of the U.S. government, let's look at the modern day Labour Unions, for in them we find a parallel to our own government.   I was just watching the news today, and heard about the State of Michigan signing a "Right to Work" law in which it gave people the right to CHOOSE if they want to join a union or not.  Many are elated about this, for it's Pro-Choice!  But the Unions are in an uproar, and are ranting and raving, and even cussing.  They want FORCED UNION, and they are actively hostile towards those who don't!  (Watch out violence just might ensue.  It's not those who want choice that are the violent ones.  It's those who want to force you do so something that are violent!  History plainly teaches us this!)
Why is it that Labor Unions want to force workers to join them?  If they are truly Americans, who believe in the Constitution, wouldn't they want people to freely chose for themselves?   
The facts are that Labour unions in America have become so strong that they can and do FORCE people to join their UNION whether they want to or not.  And, not only that, they take a large chunk of money from their union employees (a tax, if you will) that belong to their union.  (See the parallel to the U.S. and what led up to the Civil War?  It's all about taking away one's right to choose freely and to keep what one has worked for!)
But shouldn't a person have the right to choose for him or herself if they want to belong to a certain organization? 
When Labour Unions started, they claimed they were there to help the people they represented, and they quite possibly did a lot of good.  Often they were able to get consessions that made the workplace safer, helped the worker's health, and even got the worker better pay.  But as time went on, the Union bosses became greedy.  And corruption entered in.  And what you see today in Labor Unions, is usually a political organization full of leaders who wish only to take more money from the workers so they can enlarge their coffers and become more even more powerful.  In other words, they don't care about the ones they represent, they only care about their organization and the money it produces.  (Do you see the parallel yet with our current political system in America in Washington, D.C.?  If not, you must be as blind as a bat!)
Labor Unions are guilty of trying to force people to submit to them and their ideals.  Through extortion, the are the real owners of the business, and they can put the screws on the business owner and even shut them down if they desire.  (Just look at the Hostess Cake Factory which was in the news for several weeks as a example.  Because the money-hungry Unions tried to force Hostess to comply and were unwavering and unwilling to reach an agreement, Hostess shut it doors and the business went belly up.  All because the Unions wanted to "FORCE" compliance to their wishes.) 
I've personally known men that work hard and belonged to Unions at their job.  They all told me the same thing, usually it was something like this: "I DON'T LIKE THE UNION, but unless I pay them and belong to them, I won't have a job, and since this job pays pretty well, I just put up with it, and go along with whatever they say!"
In other words, they have allowed themselves to be a part of something they don't agree with, and they've done so because the Union gives them enough money to make them compliant. 
In the political world, that would pretty much correspond to what we call "entitlements."  The Federal Government passes laws to make their union stronger, while giving away money in different ways and with various programs to make people happy enough to not say anything about their usurpation of authority.  (It also buys their vote!)  In other words, the union gets bigger, more powerful, and richer, while the workers and citizens get handouts.  Yet, they don't realize that they have been enslaved by the Union(s) themselves.  And unless they comply, they will have nothing.
This is nothing short of FORCED UNION.  Or, doing what they powerful say, or else!
It's not just in the political world, and the work force.  It's also in religious circles as well.  Many a denomination has a set up in which those who belong to it must comply with their rules under threat of ex-communication.  Congregations are told unless they submit to the church and their rules, they are in danger of going to hell and losing their immortal soul.  Thus, they comply for fear of eternal punishment.  One huge denomination in particular claims that theirs in the only "true church" and outside of their church there is no salvation.  Is this not "FORCED UNION?" It forces a person to  join them and stay with them out of FEAR, rather than out of a FREE conscience.
So what's the answer?  The only answer is a spritual one.  And that's the Lord Jesus Christ.  For only in Jesus can a person be made free.  For if the Lord shall make you free, you shall be free indeed! 
Jesus never forced anyone to do anything.  He gave all men freewill.  This means man has a choice to do as he will.  If he choses evil, evil shall befall him, if he choses good, then good should come to him.  In God's book, the Bible, man is free to decide his own fate.  He's not forced to do anything. 
Be careful of those who want to force you to do something without allowing you the opportunity to decide for yourself.  True freedom FORCES no one!  Union is only truly achieved by FREELY chosing to UNITE, not being forced to do so. 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

What this election taught us.

Map of national election results
The results are in from the 2012 election, well, except for Florida.  The winner is Barak Hussein Obama, II, alias, Barry Obama, alias, Barry Soetero. 
What did this election teach us?  Several things, but probably the most important one is that the United States of America is a DIVIDED nation, and as the Bible says, "Every nation...divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:24) 
Unity is no longer found in this once great nation.  It is divided upon racial, gender, political, social and religious lines.  And this is exactly what our enemies want: A divided nation.  For if you can get two sides fighting against themselves, then you can easily take over, by just waiting until each side tires itself out.
But what's interesting is looking at the map above, to see just who voted for whom.  We find that there are two colors: red and blue.  For those who don't know, Red are the Republicans and Blue are the Democrats.  Red is the color of blood, and blue is the color of heaven.  This is interesting, as the history of the two parties portrays their political colors.  The Republicans are usually the party of War, as Republicans throughout the centuries have waged many wars.  And what happens in war?  People die, thus blood red.  The Democrats, are blue, and what is it they are known for?  They want to remake the earth into their own little Utopia; their own little private heaven.  So they work on trying to help certain parts of society while trying to rob others to pay for their social endeavors, all of which seldom ever work, and suceed only in dividing even more, rather than uniting. 
Each side has their own agenda, and historically, Republicans have opted for war, while Democrats have opted for forcing people to go along with their programs to change society.  This cannot be denied.
But if we look at the map again, not in a political way, rather with a religious view, we find something interesting.  The red states are those which have traditionally been Christian states, while the blue ones are those which historically have been very anti-Christian, or liberal.  They are states which have consistently been against God and the Gospel.  In other words, we find for the most part that the nation is still divided into the Northern States vs. the Southern States.  The old South, which was known as a moral, Christian society, as a whole voted against Obama, while the old Northern Union states, with the exception of Indiana, went for Obama.  How interesting.
What's more, we find the western costal states, which are full of liberals, God deniers, athiests, the sex-crazed pornography industry and more, voted for Obama, while the homeland states, full of farmers, and rural people, voted against him.   Are you starting to see a pattern here?  You should!
The facts are, the more population there is, the more they kick out God and the Bible.  And, the more quickly they sink into apostasy, immorality, and degregation.  What's further is that the more populated states hold the bigger secular universities, which often preach against God, the Bible, morality, and conservatism. 
So what we found in this election is that even though there still are some Christians in our nation, they have little power, and little voice.  Even though they have the most territory per square foot, they still have the least amount of pull.  Why is this?
The facts are that the more people you get in an area, the more sin you'll have.  That's why cities are cess pools of wickedness, while rural areas are usually more moral. 
It all goes back to the Bible, in which God set up an agricultural society, desiring men to own their own land and live off of it.  In fact, God even warned about people getting together and living too close.  In Isaiah 5:8, in which we read, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"
Why did God say this?  Because he knew that the more people came together, the easier they would be to deceive and manipulate with mob rule.  His desire was for man to have a place where he could go to be alone and comune with God!
Sadly, our country is becoming more populated, and more sinful.  And what's worse is the choice of President in our land is not given to whom those who set up the Constitution of the United States of America desired it to go to.  For our Founding Fathers set up the system in which the only people who could vote were LAND owners.  This meant that those who actually owned part of the country could decide what's best for them.  But this was done away with by modern politicians, and now anyone can vote, and they do.  And what do they vote for?  They vote for themselves, and for those who promise to give them things if they vote for them. 
You see, in an agrarian society, people are taught to be self-sufficent and provide for themselves.   This is true freedom, and this is what they wanted protected by their government.   But in a society that lives in cities, they often find that there is much dilenquency, and many people who can't provide for themselves.  They then turn towards hand outs.  And they no longer want to make it on their own, rather they become accustomed to others giving them things.  This makes them lazy, but subservient, and eventually this type of people care about nothing about giving rather only what they can get from others. (No wonder the South and the North were so different in the times of the Civil War!  No wonder the South is known for Southern Hospitality, while the North is known for being rude!  It all makes sense!)
In order to take power in the United States of America today, it's not hard to figure out how to get a person's vote.  All you have to do is promise them something.  And a society that doesn't want to be self-sufficent, but rather self-satiating, will gladly vote for you!  They want something for nothing! 
And, that's how Obama won this election.  He promised to give people stuff.  The only problem is that in order to give someone something, you have to take it from someone else.  And that's what will happen in the next four years.  In fact, that's already happened the last four years.  The government is in the business of taking from one group to give it to another.  In other words, as the President calls it, "Re-distribution of wealth."  Or as it's called politically: "Communism" or "Socialism."
So America has come a long way from its foundations.  It used to be a moral, Christian society which set up a government based upon Agragarian principles, of all people learning to be self-sufficent, and therefore free.  But now, it's the opposite.  It's an immoral society which is actively hostile towards God and the Bible, one in which its citizens are taught from an early age to trust the government and obey and if they do so, they will be rewarded. 
Yet, one thing is forgotten.  HISTORY!  For if you study history, you find that governments always abuse their power, and once liberty has been taken from the citizens, it's never given back.  In fact, once a populace is enslaved, things go from bad to worse.  And all the promises and handouts turn into programs of rationing, in which people get less and less, and eventually starve to death like they did in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
Communism and Socialism are horrible forms of government.  They are nanny states which don't allow you to do anything you want, rather you to do what you are told.
America wasn't set up this way.  But if you believe Newsweek magazine, "We are all Socialists now!"  This means America is no longer America!
If this is the case, then why even try?  Why go to work, why start a business, why do anything if you can just go on foodstamps and get governmental support?   Doesn't that sound like it'd be so easy?
It is, so that's why so many do just that.  However, they don't see the impending damage and inevitable end of such a practice. 
The truth is, it can't last forever.  Eventually, all the money will run out and everybody will be left with nothing.  They won't even know how to plow fields and live off the land.  So they will either turn towards crime (pillaging, plundering, stealing) or they will die.   
We have a divided political view in this country.  But soon, we will have a divided class system.  And eventually there will be no more rich, middle class, and poor.  We'll all be poor, as there will be no one to tax to give to the poor.  When that happens, all hell breaks loose, and God only knows what will happen next.
Historically, we see one of two things happening: either there is war, or there is holocaust.  If war ensues, millions will die. But if it doesn't, governments have historically turned towards the only other means they know of to keep the populace in check.  They kill their own people so that they won't revolt against them, or so they don't have to give them food, because it's run out.
If you doubt this to be so, just look up what happened with Stalin in Russia, Philpot, Hitler, it's all there!  Governments want control.  They get it by promising the masses something if they'll give up their liberty.  They do, and then the government cannot fulfill it's promises, so it rations and eventually destroys its own people.  It's a vicious cycle, but it's been repeating itself since the beginning of time.
So what did this election teach us?  First, that people are ignorant!  They don't know that voting for "stuff" leads to the downfall of a nation.  Second, that our nation is divided, and it is getting worse.  Tensions are rising and people are angry.  Third, our rulers don't care about us.  If they did, they'd stop spending money and getting the country more in debt.  Forth, our nation doesn't care about God, or following his principles.  They are carnal, rather than spiritual
Finally, the election taught us that bad times are coming.   How far away are they? That's uncertain. But they will come.   A system like this cannot last forever. And it's going to have a horrible ending.  And if things continue in their present course, we will see an increase of hatred, jealousy, mob riots, protests, civil unrest and more.  For these are the inevitable results of a nation who chooses to trust a government rather than God.
All we can do is pray and prepare.  Pray for our country! 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Those Who Liberal Leftists Always Desire to Attack

It's amazing to me to see that people just don't think anymore.  Maybe it's because they are enslaved to the rat race created from the bad economy in which they have to work so much that they barely have any time left to rest, much less just stop and mull things over.  Or perhaps they haven't been taught to think because they went to the secular government run schools in America which do a terrible job of educating them.  (Rather they endoctrinate them).  Whatever the reason, people today just don't THINK!  For if they did, they couldn't help but see the two very different political groups in the United States, and what they believe and what they are trying to do to the American people. 
I like to think.  Sometimes, I might think a little too much, for I often find myself in a pensative state, reasoning within myself of the things I see around, especially politics.  I actually enjoy sitting down and just musing certain things over.  And I enjoy the etymology of words.  Words have meanings!  Yet, it's so strange that people don't even think about what the words they use everyday mean.
For example, there are those in our country who call themselves "Conservatives."  What do they want?  They desire to conserve things.  That is, they want to hold on to what they have rather than give it to a corrupt government so it can redistribute it to others. 
These Conservatives are often referred to as "The Right."  And isn't "right" the same as "correct?"  When something's right it's true because it's correct.   So why is it that so many today (especially in the media) are so against "The Right?"  (Hatred towards the right is easily seen and growing by leaps and bounds.  Everywhere you look people make fun of Conservatives and those on the right.  Why is this?)
So who is the other group who opposses "The Right?"  They are often referred to as the "Left."  Who are the left?  Well, left is the opposite of right, and if right also means correct, then that must mean the left must be wrong!  (I mean, that just makes sense, doesn't it?)
And when we think of the political left throughout the world, we are constantly bombarded with stories of certain "Leftist" groups who are instigating political upheavels and even bloody revolutions in third world countries.  Often these "leftists" are nothing more than "Marxists" and "Socialists" who are trying to take over a country and destroy its constitution in favor of a less favorable form of government. 
So who are the leftists in America?  Usually they are called the "Liberals." And most often they are those in power who are pro-Socialist and pro-Communist.  They are the exact opposite of the Conservatives.  And being liberal they love to spend money, especially that of others, which they often do by raising taxes. (They love getting more money to spend.  They are nothing more than spendthrifts who love to give liberally to their constituents, hence the label "Liberals."  This helps them buy the vote, for the more they spend on others, the more those who receive want more, making them very apt to vote for even more handouts).
So as we look at the political speech of today, it's hard to miss, (that even by the definiton of the words themselves), there are two distinct and opposite sides.  The good guys, if you will, are the Conservatives who are on the Right (or in the right, however you want to say it), and the bad guys are the liberal Leftists who want to tax everybody and then spend their money as quickly as possible, with the intention of destroying the whole political system so they can set up their own form of government which gives them more power and less accountability.
With this stated, I'm watching the current political system unfold in the United States of America, and I'm seeing that it's not only a battle of of right verses left (or right vs wrong, however you want to say it), rather it's a battle of good vs evil.   More clearly explained, it's a battle of those on the Left wanting to gain more power while constantly denegrating those on the right, ridiculing them, and often demonizing them.  The Left is vicious and will use anything within their means to slander, discredit, or invalidate the Right.  (Is it because deep down they know they are wrong? That's the only thing I can figure.  For they often are the ones using evil tactics on others!)
How does the Left operate?  That's easy.  It's so clear that anyone who watches politics can see their S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure).  Instead of dealing with the truth the Left simply ATTACKS others.  And it does so mercilessly.  Rather than defend their position, they relish the opportunity only to attack others personally and make them defend themselves and their positions.  In other words, they do nothing.  They go out of their way to ignore the true issues and make up false accusations that their opponents must then devote their time to defending. (Which keeps them from speaking about the issue and showing the truth about it).  And, by so doing, the left get the attention off of who and what they are and on to others and who they proclaim them to bo. 
A prime example of this Leftist tactic is our current Leftist President, a man with no political experience, and no record of truly helping others.  Before being President, he was a "Community Organizer."  What does that even mean?  According to the meaning of the word, he tried to organize his community.  How did he do it?  And what exactly did he organize them for?  As we study his life, we find that he sought to get people active in the political process.  But who and how and why?
If you study the people he is organizing, you find that he was active in building a leftist army using communistic ideals to do so, with the intention of using their influence to intimidate others into submission to his Leftist ideals.  With groups like SEIU and the OCCUPY movements, the Left has tried to make us think that America no longer wants Conservative values, rather Socialist venues and Communistic governance.  Yet when you study those groups, you find the typical member doesn't even know what he or she believes!  (Most of them were just paid a check to stand out on the street corner and chant while they hold a sign.) 
It's all smoke and mirrors used by the left to make you think that there really are people out there like them who want what they want.  But the facts prove otherwise.  Most of America just wants to be left alone and enjoy life with the government off their back!  They take the term "pursuit of happiness" to mean that YOU pursue happiness for yourself.  (As opposed to the Leftist idea of THEM being the ones to try to make you happy, by doing everything for you).
The left has always believed that they are right and everyone else is wrong.  They feel that they are smart and everyone else is too dumb to know what's good for them, and that's why they are needed as the Saviours of humanity to take charge and do what's best for all. 
Yet, if you study their teachings, doctrines, and ideals you find they seldom work.  Instead they only impoverish the masses and make people dependent on others, rather than self-reliant and self-sufficient.   
So rather than deal with their failed policies, the Left must get the attention off of themselves and their failures and on to their adversaries.  Thus, they attack swiftly and repeatedly.  And before we can find out the truth, they attack again with blankets of accusations, over and over, without rest.  It's like they build a smoke cloud so thick, that no one can ever see the picture clearly.  Yet, if the smoke would just clear, then they would see the truth for themselves.
Sadly, most people allow themselves to be decieved by the Left, and they enjoy believing the accusations of the Left before they are proven true or false.  The simple truth is that it's not the truth that people remember, rather the accusations against a person!  A person could be completely innocent of any wrong, but most people will always remember that person as so and so that was accused of such and such.  It doesn't matter if they did it or not.  They are the person who was accused of doing such.  The Left knows this and uses this smear campaign without mercy, for it is their most effective weapon.
Yet, as we study the history of the Left, we find that there are always the same people which the Left hates and is active in Attacking.  These are the people they will always attack, because they are a threat to their positions.  They are as follows. 

The Righteous

The Left hates those who are right.  I guess that's why they despise "The Right" and label them "Right-wing Extremists."  They want people to believe that what they believe and teach is "extreme" when usually, all they belive is what the Constitution says.   How is that extreme?
The Left cannot take anyone who is right, nor can they deal with anyone who has their facts straight.  They live in a dream world, where they actually believe they, and they alone, are helping people, so anyone else must be destroyed.  Yet they don't realize they are hurting others, while plunging the country deeper into debt.  They are the ones who are in the wrong, but they can't see it.  So they must attack the righteous, for the only alternative would be to admit they are wrong.

The Redeemed

This country used to be a "Christian Nation."  But not long ago, many news media organizations proudly stated that this is no longer true.  Why?  Because they are bais against Christianity and look at it as an outdated system of morales.   They openly riducle and make fun of God and the Bible.  Even our President said something to the effect that Americans who hang onto their "guns and their Bibles" are behind the times.
Why is there such a war against Christians from the Left?  Could it be that the Conservatives or "the Right" is in favor of God, guns, and the Constitution and the Left hates this as these are all a threat to their overall plan to take over the country?  Or could it be they really know they are wrong in what they believe and practice, and rather than repent and get right with God, they would rather rage against those who claim to know and love God?
Or could it be even more sinister then that?  Could they be lead of Satan himself?  (A strong possibility, as many leftists follow a book by Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his work to LUCIFER!!!)
Could it be the reason the left is against the right is because it is a spiritual battle of good verses evil?

The Rich

It's strange to me to see the Left going after the Rich.  For some of the richest people in the world are Leftist Liberals who have made millions of dollars in both legal and illegal business deals and arrangments.  Yet they love to cater to the poor and make them think they really care about them, claiming they live only to try to help them.  They further love to produce tension in a sort of class warfare between the Rich and Poor, stating that those evil "1%" devils are the reason that they are Poor. (Which isn't true at all).  But the left never seem to tell you that many of these same Liberals are closer to the 1% than they are to being Poor themselves.  Could it be the Left only cares about money, and wants to get rich on the back of the poor and middle class?

The Radio Talk Show Hosts

Thank God there is still freedom of Speech in the United States of America.  (At least there still is today as I write this).  But do you care to guess who wants to get rid of it?  That's right, THE LEFT!  For it's they who have tried to pass legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine" in which they desire to regulate talk radio and give their liberal voice equal time with Conservative Talk Show Hosts.  Why is this?  I believe the answer is very plain to see.  People want to hear TRUTH rather than LIES.  And many Conservative Talk Show Hosts can back up what they say with facts and evidence.  While most liberal Talk Show Hosts are only active giving their opinions, or active only in ATTACKING others.  (Which again, is the standard Operating Procedure of the Left).
There is a huge push today by the modern liberal media and leftist politicans against free speech and against Radio Talk Show Hosts.  The reason is that even though they claim to be so "tolerant" the truth is that liberals and leftists are the most intolerant people in the world. 
Why are they so intolerant while claiming to be more tolerant than others? 

Those with a Real Track Record

Finally, Liberals and Leftists don't like anyone who has a real track record of truly helping others and making the country better.  Call it jealousy or whatever you like but they despise someone else getting the praise because they want it all for themselves.  So they tend to conveniently omit the facts and ignore certain people and time periods of our nation. 
That is, they ignore the track records of those conservatives that made a difference and made things better.  They further ignore the results of their own policies, especially when they make things worse.  I guess you could say that Liberals and Leftists are some of the most "ignorant" people around, because they either DON'T KNOW, FORGET, or WILLFULLY OMIT the truths of history.
To liberals, leftists, and Democrats, Reagan was evil.  But why?  Was it cause he was a Conservative?  That must be it, for Reagan did a lot for our country.
As a child, I remember interest rates on savings accounts being up to 18% under Reagan.  They've never been there since, nor have they ever been there under a Leftist Liberal and his policies!  (Can you imagine getting EIGHTEEN PERCENT intrest on YOUR MONEY!  That'd be awesome!!!)
When you look at our current President, he has absolutely no leg to stand on.  He's done nothing to make this country better.  In fact, it could be argued he only made it worse, with his TAX on us through HealthCare, his high gas prices which came from him not giving permits to drill for oil, and his stimulus packages given to companies which eventually went bankrupt, which in turn ended up plunging us into even more debt, which then eventually led to our credit rating being downgraded!  He even said something to the effect of "If I don't get things done in this first term, then I'm only going to be a one term President."  (Wouldn't that be awesome!)
But what does the President have to offer the American people?  What really? Four more years of "hope?"  What are we to hope for?  That it doesn't get any worse???
Many people don't like Mitt Romney.  I personally don't either.  To me, he's a liberal himself.  For it was his healthcare plan that was copied for Obamacare.  But one thing about Romney is that he has run a business and it was profitable.  And when you run a business you know about making profit rather than running yourself and your company into debt. 
Yet, Liberals never want to focus on that!  They can't because that would be a fact. (The fact being Romney has more experience as a CEO than Obama).  So instead Liberals simply attack Romney and try to say that he fired countless thousands of people and left them out in the cold without a job.  Whether this is true or not, think about it for a minute:  "Who would you want as President?  A guy like Obama who's not created any jobs and has done nothing good and got our country deeper in debt, or a guy like Romney who's run a successful business?"
For me, (even though I'm not a fan of Romney), I'd rather have Mitt Romney, because I WANT SOME PEOPLE TO BE FIRED in Washington.  In fact, I wish Romney would fire every federal employee, and make America profitable again!!!
I wish he would run the government like a company.  In fact, I'd like to see the government making so much money, that getting in debt, it would end up making a profit.  Further, I'd like to see America run like a profitiable country in which each American citizen gets dividend checks.  Wouldn't that be cool?
But alas, all this will never happen.  Why?  Because the Left couldn't allow it.  It would take away their reason for existing, as they live only to help the poor.  (Or so they say).   And even if this dream would come to pass, the leftists would have to ignore it happened, for it doesn't fit their narrative.  They want everyone to think that Conservatives and Republicans are EVIL, and they can never do any good, for they are just a bunch of RICH people who only want to profit off of others.
So the Leftist will continue to attack, while the Right will continue to defend themselves, and the vicious and fruitless circle will continue with nothing good getting done and the whole mess just swirling downward into the toilet.   What a shame too!  This country has a lot of potential.
But at least now, you know who it is the Left is busy attacking and why!  They hate, and I reiterate, HATE, with passion, those who try to live right, do right, and act right.  It is a slap in the face to them to believe you are smart enough to live your own life and do your own thing.  They can't have that, for in their own little world (in which they live in their tiny little brains), no one can survive without them.  So, they want to feel needed.  They have to feel like they are completing a purpose.  And because their self-righteousness consumes them and overtakes them and drives them forward, they can only ATTACK all others who don't agree with them.  Some call it ignorance. Others call it pride.  But it is nothing more then the mind of the feeble who can't defend the truth, so they spend their time lashing out at others. 
May you always remember who they are and why they do what they do.  It's because they can't cope and deal with reality, so they make up their own. 
A wise man once said that you can DENY REALITY, but you can't deny the EFFECTS of denying reality.  What a an interesting thought! 

Any comments???  Please provide them below!


Friday, September 7, 2012

The Early Legal System in America

I wish people knew and understood how things used to work in America and how different they are today, for truly we have come a long way--a long way in the WRONG DIRECTION! 
In school I was taught that the great thing about America was that you were innocent until proven guilty.  (Whoops.  Excuse me.  I got that wrong.  I was taught that you were presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.) That's what made America great!  You had a government that gave you the benefit of the doubt, and they treated you civil.  And the legal system was set up to be fair to you whether you were guilty or not.  But now times have changed.  Today you are automatically viewed as guilty (not presumed that way, you are just viewed that way), until proven innocent! 
Let me show you the difference.  In early colonial America and even under the Constitution up until the time of the Civil War, this is how the legal system worked.  If a man was wronged by another, the wounded party would go to the court and make an accusation to the judge.  The judge would then send the accused party a legal document called a "Writ of Habeus Corpus."  ("Habeus Corpus" is a latin term that pretty much means "Have your body...")  The sheriff would deliver this paper to the accused, and the paper would instruct that person to have their body in court on an appointed day and time to stand before his accuser.  This accused person was not jailed.  Why?  Because they were presumed innocent.  And, they did not come to court to prove they were innocent.  They went to court for the accuser to try to prove they were guilty.  (For the accuser could have been lying!)  This was fair to both parties.  The accused had time to prepare his defense, while the accuser had his day in court to met the man face to face of whom he felt wronged him.  The judge presided and heard both sides.
Now, if the accused did not show up in court on the appointed time before the judge and his accuser, then and only then, was a paper called a "Warrant" issued by the judge.  This was a warrant for the arrest of said person.  And, (watch this now, as it's very important) that person was not arrested for the crime itself that he was accused of, rather he was arrested for the crime of disobeying the judge's demand of not appearing in court!  That is, he was only arrested for not making an appearance in court.

Once the accused was apprehended for not appearing in court, he remained in jail until trial.  And, he was viewed as probably guilty for not going to court to defend himself.  But even then he was still to be presumed innocent, and it was the prosecutor who was to prove that he was guilty.
This is how things worked in early America.  What a great justice system!  If a man did right, he was given the benefit of the doubt by his government and had the right to know when an accuser chose to sue him.  He also knew the date of the trial and had plenty of time to prepare his defense.  And, if a man was indeed guilty, he had time to run.  He could "leave town" so to speak, and never look back.  In fact, if he left the country he could get away from facing up to his crime, (and in those times many people did just this, traveling to Australia, Africa, New Zealand, India, and other places) and even get away with it in some cases.  This was fine with the government, as that was one less law breaker in their midst!  And one less trial a judge had to preside over.  The victim had been defrauded and there was nothing more that could be done, end of story as far as the legal system was concerned. 
All this worked well, and everything was great, that is until the Civil War.  And then everything changed.  Who's to blame?  That would be Abraham Lincoln.  (He's probably one of the worst President's America ever had, but they still try to make him out to be a "honest" and good guy.)
It was Abraham Lincoln who did away with the "Writ of Habeus Corpus."  And, it has yet to be instated or put back into effect even in our own time.  Further, under his administration Lincoln and his cabinet and his army practiced forced arrests of people upon mere "suspicion" of guilt.  That is people were rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely without any proof whatsoever of having committed a crime. (They were viewed as guilty until proven innocent). Not only was this a great injustice, but many of them were not even given the right to a trial by jury, nor were they allowed to plead their innocence.  They were simply locked up and the key was thrown away upon mere suspicion of them being a Southern Sympathizer.  How is this fair, just, or righteous?  It's not.
Today, the legal system of the United States of America is very different from what it was like in the Pre-Lincoln days.  If you are suspected of a crime in our day, the police can go to a judge and get a warrant without a writ of habeus corpus, and they can come into your house against your will (never mind the Constitution has a clause against unreasonable searches and seizures) and arrest you and throw you in jail.  They can further take anything they want and keep it.  This doesn't sound like justice, does it?  This sounds more like the Communist KGB or the Nazi thugs in Germany. Where's presumed innocence until proven guilty?
Furthermore, the authorities can arrest you and keep you in jail until trail (if they allow you to even have one, for under the Patriot Act they can hold you indefinitely now if they want to).  You might be allowed out of jail on bond if you can afford to pay the outrageous amounts usually imposed by the judge, but if not then you must remain in jail until you go to trail.  And then during your trial, you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, rather you are already presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence.  What a fearful and oppressive system! 
Doesn't the early legal system in America sounds much better?  When we compare how it was then and how it is now, the difference is like night and day.  One system allows you freedom to either defend yourself from false accusations or to admit your guilt and pay restitution.  (I forgot to mention that part.  If a man was guilty he didn't have to do prison time.  He only did it if he couldn't pay grievances to the accuser.  If he could pay, the judge made him do so, and he was then set free).  But look at our system today.  It demands jail time, and doesn't just dish it out as a penalty once a person has been found guilty by a jury, but it often makes a person rot in jail as they wait for their trial.  Where's the freedom?
What's changed over the years?  The attitude of the government towards its citizens is what changed.  Before, Americans were viewed as sovereigns with certain rights, given them by GOD himself.  (What the Declaration of Independence clearly states.) Now, God has been kicked out and the government has become secular, viewing its citizens as nothing more than property which they presume are always guilty until they can prove they are not.  (Which incidentally is how a Communist Government views their own citizens). 
Because of the lack of belief in God, there is a widespread lack of morals, and this has led to much more crime.  Because of this the American court systems are over filled, and it's easy for judges, lawyers, and juries to become cold and callous, thinking everyone is guilty.  They have become used to dealing with people who truly are guilty, and thus, they feel that anyone who is accused is most likely guilty so they should be locked up.  But what about those who are innocent?  Should we not treat everyone the same whether they are guilty or not?  And how can we know until after they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers?  Why do we automatically assume they are guilty and treat them as such?
I believe what America needs is to get back to the old system.  What a great system it was.  You give the accused a chance to appear in court after serving them with a Writ of habeus corpus.  That gives them a heads up that they are accused.  If they are guilty and run, then we know they are most likely guilty.  And, we treat them as malcontents fleeing from the law.  The judge serves a warrant for their arrest and they go to jail, not for the crime itself, but for disobeying the judge.  Next, you give them a speedy trial.  (This waiting in jail for years before trial is ridiculous!  What a waste of taxpayers money!)  Next, you still treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty without any shadow of a doubt.  And then we allow them the option of either paying financially for the crime themselves or choose to reject payment and do jail time as payment for their crime.  This would help clear out the prisons, for if a man can pay money as restitution, that would help pay for a lot of the expenses of the legal system. 
This would work great for every crime in America, except murder, rape, and kidnapping.  For these crimes a person should not be able to buy their way out.  Nor should a person go to jail for life for these crimes.  Rather, there should be capital punishment if a person is found guilty of these heinous crimes.  But this is not my own personal opinion.  This is what the Bible teaches, and is something that for many years was even practiced in the American justice system.  Even up until the beginning of the 1900s there were still public hangings of those found guilty of these crimes.  Why?  Because when you intend to steal the life of another human being or defile them through rape, you have forfeited your own life.  And for this reason, you should not be allowed to live!  Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth!
Today it's quite different.  We let murderers, rapists, and kidnappers go to jail for several decades, and then we let them out.  And quite often, the first thing they do when they get out is go and do those very same things all over again, raping, killing, kidnapping.  And then it's back to jail with them, and the process starts all over again.  Why is this?   It's almost like the modern Legal System rather than punishing true transgressors is guilty of empowering them to commit those heinous crimes again.  Why have they stopped practicing capital punishment?
In summary, America used to be great.  It was so because each individual was viewed as a sovereign citizen with many rights given them by God.  And, if one of them was accused by his fellow citizen, then a just and righteous system was in place to protect the accused in case the accuser was deceitfully trying to falsely accuse a righteous man.  But if the accused was guilty, the system was set up to make sure he was not taken and hung by out of control mobs just upon a mere accusation of guilt.  Rather he was given a fair and speedy trial and witnesses were given ample time to tell what they saw.  And if a man was truly guilty, he had a chance to make things right, by making restitution to those he wronged.  But in case of murder, kidnapping, or rape, when there was no way whatsoever to make things right, it was the duty of the state to execute judgment, and they did, which usually was in the form of hanging or sometimes in front of a firing squad.
But today America's legal system is in decline.  It's full of guilty people who fall through the cracks and quickly are set free only to go and do the same crimes all over again, while sometimes (and probably more often than we think) innocent people are wrongly jailed and left to sit in prison for crimes they didn't commit.   It's sad that no one cares or seems to want to do anything about it.  I submit that maybe the answer is to go back to the old way of doing things.  What's wrong with serving a Writ of Habeus Corpus firstThen, and only then, if a man doesn't appear in court, have a judge issue an arrest warrant.  And then hold the trial.  It worked back then, and it will work today.  If only they would try it!

Wednesday, January 4, 2012


If you have studied anything about the Civil War, chances are that you have been indoctrinated to believe that the Civil War was only about one thing and one thing only:  SLAVERY.

But this is not entirely true.  In fact, it's not true at all.  That is of course unless you define the term sightly diferently than most people do and and who the term is is applied to.  For there is more than one kind of slavery.

Many today believe the South was the bad guy in the Civil War, and they were "evil" for owning slaves.  But is that true?  Was that really all there was to it?  Or was there more?  If you will study history, you will see there was a whole lot more to it than just the slavery issue.  In fact, the Civil War, like almost every war ever fought in the history of man, had a lot to do with money, land, and power.

Before going any further on the topic of slavery, let me briefly state what I believe personally about Slavery.  I don't like it.  The way I look at it, I would not want to be a slave to anyone, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to own a slave myself.  In other words, because I wouldn't want to be "enslaved," I would not want to partake in enslaving others to myself.  It's that simple to me.  It's so clear cut and to the point.

With this stated, let us get back to our topic at hand:  Slavery and the Civil War.  And we must first ask ourselves why Southerners had slaves.  The reason they had slaves was three fold:


If you know your history, you know that it was the British who first brought slaves to America (or the Portuguese, depending upon which version of history you choose to believe).  And if you have done your homework, you also know that it was the Northern states and their Northern Ships which sold slaves to the South.  So Southerners owned slaves because they were taught by the British and the Northerners that it was okay to have them.   In fact, they encouraged it.  They wanted $, and their practice of capturing and selling negroes brought them a pretty penny.  It was all about money, and the North got rich off of their business of selling slaves.  It was the NORTH who started the slave trade!  Southerners just bought them.  Why?  Because they assumed the Northerners thought it was okay!

The second reason that Southerners had slaves was because it was legal.  The laws at the time allowed it.  And as you probably know, when the Constitution of the United States of America was set up, slavery was written into the document and allowed.  This is important to know, as Southerners were labeled "rebels" by the Northern hordes, and "immoral" for owning slaves.  But they were simply following the laws of the land, laws which were set up in the Northern colonies, in New England.

The third reason that the South owned slaves was because they read that it was allowed in the Bible.  As you probably know, the South was as a whole a very religious and God-fearing people.  They believed the word of God (the King James Bible).  So when they read in the book of Genesis that Canaan was to be "cursed" and to be a "servant of servants" they believed it was to be so.  (For those who don't know, Canaan, was the son of Ham, a black man).
Almost all Southerners read the scriptures, and because of this they believe slavery was not wrong.  For it was clearly something that God allowed in the Bible.  Many Southerners took 1 Timothy 6:1-5 as a very clear passage that the owning of slaves was indeed a Biblical ideal.  There we read: 

6:1  Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

And many Southerners even took verse 3-5 as applying to the North, when they tried to outlaw slavery, even taking the last four words "from such withdraw thyself" as a scriptural passage in favor of sucession from the union.

Southerners, therefore, viewed slavery as something not only that was legal but also something that was Biblical.  And they practiced it not only because it was allowed in the Constitution of the United States, but because it was clearly found in the Bible.

Now whether or not they were right is subject to debate.  Many people today hate slavery, and for this reason they want to demonize the South and uplift the North, and their noble cause to free the slaves.  But to do so is quite hypocritical.  For history clearly teaches us that the North was those who sold the slaves to the South to begin with, and it was the Northern New England States as well as the Southern ones who wrote the Constitution, allowing slavery. 

Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason, that to be against slavery and the South demands that a person be against the Constitution, the North, and the Bible?  (I'll let you answer that one for yourself).

But here, we will not delve into the moral issue of slavery, and whether it is right or wrong to own slaves.  We will leave that to others.  What we need to examine now is whether or not the cause of the Civil War was about "slavery" or not. 

My own personal belief is as follows:  The Civil War was not about slavery, although the Civil War was indeed about slavery.

Kinda sounds like a conflicting statement, doesn't it?  But please let me explain.  The truth is that in the eye of the beholder, something can look completely different to one person than to another, especially when people don't see eye to eye.  Thus, the issue of Slavery and the Civil War all depends upon the eye of the beholder. 

To the North, many abolitionists believed they were fighting an immoral foe who owned slaves, something they deplored.  So they thought they were fighting a just war, because they were helping to free a certain race of people.  (Note:  Not all Union soldiers thought this way.  In fact, very few did.  The truth is most of the Northern soldiers were drafted and had to fight.  And they didn't really care about black people.  Other Northerners actually owned slaves themselves!  In fact, General Grant owned slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation and even had them in the White House when he was president!)

To the South, the war was not about slavery at all, rather about "States Rights" or their God-given and Constitutional right to govern themselves.  They did not look at the North as people who were trying to steal their slaves, rather as invaders on their own soverign soil, who were trying to take them over and enslave them to a tyrannical government, who would not even abide by its own laws.  (It's common to hear many stories of black slaves who fought along side their masters.  They too looked at the North as invading their land and trying to take away their soverign right to govern themselves).
So if you look at it from a Southern perspective, the Civil War was not about the slavery of black people, but free Southern Citizens who were fighting for their liberty, desiring not to be enslaved by a tyrannical government in Washington who wished to take away their rights.

Who was right is often a subject of debate, with people forming all sorts of opinions.  Some think the North was right, and are glad the North won.  But such people conviently overlook the horrible atrocities of the Northern occupation, and the many rapes (often on young black girls) and plunder and burning down of whole towns by Sherman's troops.  Nor do they desire to talk about the corrupt rule of the Carpet baggers, or the mass starvation of the South after the war. 

On the other hand, those who think the South was right don't take into consideration the Northern belief of "union" above all, and the desire to have a strong Centeralized big government in Washington under the rule of Lincoln.

One could argue either side.  But let's not argue at all.  Let's look not at the cause of the war, nor the actual war itself.  Instead, let's focus on the fruit of the war.  What did it produce?

The answer is not that simple.  For after the war, the United United States became a very big, powerful, and rich superpower.  It grew by leaps and bounds and eventually became the greatest country on earth!  

But what is it now.  It is better off than before?  The facts are that America today is almost exactly what it was in Lincoln's day.  It is a country divided.  Part of the country wants its freedoms back and wants to separate from a tyrannical government that wants to tax it to death.  The other part of the country likes the idea of communism and socialism, which is nothing sort of trading one's liberty for security, of which Benjamin Franklin aptly put it that if you do, you'll have neither liberty nor security.

In our day, our nation is in debt up to it's eyeballs.  There is more racial tension and terrorism today then ever before in the history of the nation. 

It's hard to find a job.  It's harder to make ends meet.  It's even harder to suceed.  It's almost like we are living just like those Southerners did in the South during the time of Reconstruction.  No one has any money, and for this reason the economy is so bad.

It's almost like the government is once again trying to make slaves out of us all by taking away our rights, our property, our freedom.  No, that couldn't be, could it???

However you look at it, the issue of Slavery is indeed interwined with the Civil War.  But was it really a war to FREE slaves, or was it rather a war to ENSLAVE the populace.  This is something that you must decide for yourself.  Remember, history is always written by the conquering force.  And historically, they always seem to embellish the facts, and try to make themselves look better than they actually were.