Friday, December 24, 2010

That Bah Humbug Spirit?

 

This holiday season seems a little different, doesn’t it? A little less jubilant, perhaps? Maybe a bit more stoic than it has been in previous years. Many of us have had to scale back on the festivities, cut short our travel, and especially reign in the spending when compared to holidays of just a few years ago. For the most part, even among those considered to be “poor”, Americans are not very good at not doing at least fairly well. We have come to expect it as a birthright, our due prosperity to be very merry at this time of the year.  While there is much that we have lost over the last few years, this is no time for self pity or despondence that leads to resignation. We have been beat down, but we are far from beat.

We have a purpose to remember who we are and those who gave liberty, security, comfort, and life to hand us the prosperity of yesterday. Most important among them was a man who did not have in this life the luxury to fix His mistakes because He lived and died for the mistakes of others. He gave His life so that each of us could live, and live with passion and purpose. Put aside your financial concerns for the moment. Accept that you may never again earn what you once did. However you can make a point to make His Life, His Agony, His Fear, His Sacrifice worth it …earn this.  The dividends are certain, the growth potential limitless, and no one can take this investment from you as the only legal tender acceptable for this account was paid in His blood… earn it.

Monday, November 22, 2010

What can us little people do about the Fed (Part I)

 

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

Dr. Ron Paul a Congressman from the State of Texas (and personal hero of mine) authored legislation with 114 co-sponsors to audit the Federal Reserve recently. Had the legislation passed there would be many, many people in our current and past administrations going jail or worse.

 

Ron Paul at his best…

 

If you look at the sub-prime credit crises, the housing bubble, the formerly frothy liquidity in our monetary system, and who ended up owning all the real properties in the end one need only follow the money. It began and ended with the PRIVATELY OWNED1 Federal Reserve Bank.

  1. Creates all our Money
  2. Directly or indirectly sets nearly all our interest rates
  3. Directly Regulates and Controls all our Banking
  4. Regulates and Controls all our Lending

That’s a lot of power, so what do we get out of it?

The Federal Reserve absorbed all of the "Toxic Assets" from the Credit Crisis!

Those so called "Toxic Assets” were really the largest transfer of property since the Louisiana Purchase and how much did the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank pay for the property... NOTHING!

They printed the MONEY to buy all of the real property! Except in this case they just made an couple accounting journal entries and robbed the nation of a trillion plus dollars in real tangible (not toxic!) property in exchange for accounting wizardry, and people think Harry Potter is amazing! But wait there is more, we’ll call these the bonus powers of the Federal Reserve…

  1. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls the stock market
  2. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls the Bond market
  3. The Federal Reserve directly controls the Inflation
  4. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls our entire economy
  5. They are exempt from Federal Taxes
  6. The owners of this institution are completely anonymous

 

The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."

"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," www.webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?

Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:

"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Time to Change the Statute?

According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."

As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

The international financiers love war because they can loan money to both sides and ultimately decide who wins by controlling the purse strings, and there is nothing that a nation will willingly dive into deeply into debt for than its own survival.
This is a huge topic which would better be understood by all if they take the time to do the research, double, triple, quadruped check their facts, sift out the anti-Semitic1 garbage that is mixed in to taint the truth, and put the pieces of the puzzle together for themselves because frankly they will have a hard time believing anyone else. It is too outlandish, too preposterous, too monstrous, and too... evil for the average decent human being to imagine, let alone to be true!
I'll warn you though along the way you will find things that you really wish you could un-know, so don't head down this path lightly. It will change your perspective on everything you ever thought you knew to be true, and that ultimately and irrevocably will change you. If it hasn't then you haven't done the research.
1 You will find a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda as you delve into this, keep in mind that it was the Christians who forced Jews into banking because no Christian could lend money for interest in the Middle Ages being called the sin of "Usury". It was not a Jewish conspiracy to control the banks, but there is REAL conspiracy nearby that you’re not supposed to notice. Also keep in mind that Christ was and still is to my knowledge a Jew.

To answer your next question: No, I am not Jewish. Read the rest of my blog and it should become apparent to you.

 

 

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal Government in the same way Federal Express is not part of the Government. If this seems preposterous to you that a private bank that is owned by persons unknown to even the highest level officials of our “Republic” should wield so much power and be entirely unaccountable to anyone, try to imagine that this same Central Bank system failed 3 times previously in our republics history each time ending with grim consequences for the American people.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

What can we little people do about the Federal Reserve? Pt. II

 

(Yes, Part 1 has not been posted yet, I will post it soon.)

Learn out lesson? Understand what the Constitution says and demand it of our government? While the Fed is "Independent" which means it is accountable to no one, we on the other hand are dependent upon the Fed as our source of money, credit, and ultimately our very survival.

Well first any Central Bank must be put under the direct authority of Congress. The US Constitution under Article 1, Sec 8 reads...

"The Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin..."

What is important to understand is that this is an AUTHORIZATION (giving permission or authority) AND a RESPONSIBILITY (a legal obligation or duty) that is ONLY allowed to the Congress just as it is to provide and maintain a navy, define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and borrow money on the credit of the United States. These are exclusive powers and responsibilities of Congress and Congress only which are NOT transferable to any other institution within the federal government, let alone a private cadre of bankers outside the government, and seemingly above the law.

Had this clause of the Constitution read…

“The Congress shall appoint…”, “The Congress shall determine…”, “The Congress shall designate…”, “The Congress shall provide a system by which…”, or anything similar they would be authorized to delegate the authority (and authority only, while retaining in full the responsibility) to whom they preferred.

Moreover, and this is THE REAL CRIME OF CONGRESS the abrogation of this authority and responsibility to an institution that is autonomous, secretive, and unaccountable to the authority of Congress is an anathema to both the text and spirit of the clause.

Whether the Supreme Court wishes to acknowledge this or not makes no difference to the fact that no reasonable mind can deny, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional entity and the Courts failure to find it as such only implicates their corruption and collusion.

Never the less, at this point the Fed is a kind of parasitic “symbiot” where the cure may be as bad as the disease. I can find no parallel to our situation in history that does not end badly. Some like the Weimar Republic end “less badly” than others like the fall of Rome which had other serious issues to complicate matters beyond bankruptcy and a broken banking system. However we too have some serious issues of our own with which to contend. One might even look at our illegal immigration problem as being parallel to the Visigoths being allowed within the borders of the Roman Empire prior to its collapse. In short I have no easy answer, and hence my appeal to the Lord God as our only real hope in this life as in the next.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Amusing Ourselves to Death

 

Aldous Huxley and George Orwell envisioned the future of mankind in strikingly dissimilar ways, yet resulting in very near the same effect on humanity.

Authors

 

Frame1

2

3

4

5

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Why so many Divorces?

 

 

Why so many Divorces?

A question that needs answering. However, isn’t it obvious that we are too selfish and self centered to have a relationship that is about anything but ourselves. We are fed ridiculous expectations that we will get married and live happily ever after in bliss without interruption, when those expectations are not met, we turn to psychologists and lawyers rather than to each other.

After 40 years of seeding mistrust and divisiveness between the genders it is a wonder there is anyone willing to marry besides the gays, and they are so out of touch with the reality of marriage that they are calling it a RIGHT? How could anyone be called into account in a relationship for abuse or adultery when they were exercising their RIGHT to a marriage, hence self-interested and designing attorneys ensured there were quick and easy no-fault divorce...


Divorce on demand, no reasonable reason necessary, no money down, it's not you it's your spouse, we have the solution call the law firm of Screwup, Yourkids, & Howe, so we can liquidate our share of your dreams!


How foolish is our concept of a "RIGHT" when it takes the consent of another?


How asinine is our concept of marriage when we use it like a disposable lighter?


Is the flame gone, throw it away and get a new one?


Or when adultery is considered to be no ones fault? (Fault a noun meaning - a defect, flaw, blemish, imperfection, deficiency, shortcoming, weak point, weakness, failing, foible, demerit, vice)

How childish is our perspective on relationships when we imagine that Jerry Springer's four sentence monologues at the end of his show offer some deep wisdom or insight?


How twisted is our sense of reality when we call the most unrealistic, perverse, and insane mutations relationships aired on MTV "Reality Shows"?


Like so much of our modern culture, we have accepted the lies as truth because were too afraid to be called intolerant to speak up for principles, to voice objections, or to realize the unbearable damage to the fabric of a society when weaving suspicion between the societies cornerstone, the lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. Reinforcing idiotic notions of what it takes to have a marriage, rewarding an entire profession lucratively for profiting from their Sad* demise, afflicting the children with lifelong emotional scars that will render them unlikely to fair better, and then deluding ourselves that it was "for the best" and consoling the damaged adults "that they can move on to new relationships" (to spread the devastation having learned nothing of their failures in the first).

 

 

* Sad – The proper emotion for the experience of divorce. However our society is so twisted we see it as a time to celebrate.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

American Moment or Airhead Moment?


SOSClinton"We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges,"  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her September 8th speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

She failed to site any specifics to bolster her proclamation, which was a wise decision by her speechwriters, namely because there is nothing tangible to substantiate the claim.  

The Secretary added, "Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world."

 Just another nebulous edict supported by air. What “model of American leadership” is the Secretary speaking about? Democracy? An overbearing executive branch? Obama’s brain trust? A black man in the White House? What?

While the Secretary of State boldly proclaims, “We will seize this new moment of opportunity this new American Moment.”

I think Madam Secretary should take a moment and do a reality check…
  1. The haphazard and half-hearted “withdrawal” from Iraq has left many questioning the President’s judgment. Although claiming that combat operations for the US are over, there remains 50,000 (evidently “non-combat”) troops in Iraq.
  2. The aimless war in Afghanistan drags on with no foreseeable end or even concrete objectives in sight.
  3. While the American people demonstrated their willingness to go to war over fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the administration has overtly failed when it comes to real weapons of mass destruction right next door in Iran.
  4. The administration foreign policy has had no discernable impact on the really scary North Korean program to develop nuclear weapons.
  5. The endless stand-off in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains deadlocked.
In true Obama Administration style, she speaks a substantial amount with no substance of which to speak.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Me vs. Hawking

 

Hawking_articleStephen Hawking says universe not created by God

In his new book, Stephen Hawking reiterates that there is no big gap in the scientific account of the big bang. The laws of physics can explain, he says, how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God. And most cosmologists agree: we don't need a god-of-the-gaps to make the big bang go bang. It can happen as part of a natural process. A much tougher problem now looms, however. What is the source of those ingenious laws that enable a universe to pop into being from nothing?

Adam Gabbatt The Guardian, Thursday 2 September 2010


First, allow me to say that I have nothing but respect for Doctor Hawking, the man who today fulfills the office once occupied by Sir Isaac Newton among other intellectual giants. His intellect has been a subject of wonder to me since I first read his A Brief History of Time, (Bantam Press) in 1988 and moreover when I began to understand what I had read roughly a decade later. In this spirit of respect I must regretfully and humbly disagree with this preeminent genius and arguably the smartest man on the planet. To Doctor Hawkins I offer my apology and the following polemic.


What specific, distinguishable empirical prediction deriving from his hypothesis will be disconfirmed if Dr. Hawking is wrong? That is, if Dr. Hawking's assertion is that God isn't necessary for the existence of the universe, how could that hypothesis be falsified empirically?

If it can't be---if, in other words, every observation deriving from Dr. Hawking's hypothesis is also consistent with the contrary hypothesis that God is in fact necessary for the universe's existence, is it not the case that Dr. Hawking's hypothesis fails to meet the criteria for being a genuinely scientific one?

Are the laws of physics made of matter/energy? If not, how can they affect matter/energy?

Where did the universe-generating laws come from?

It strikes me that Dr. Hawking is trading on his reputation as a scientist to make a non-scientific claim.

Another thing I'd say is that he uses the term 'laws of physics' without seeming to be familiar with the large amount of revision that such terms have undergone in both the history of and contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. For a taste see this short paper by Nancy Cartwright [PDF format] to the contentious debate regarding the concept of laws of nature.

Whatever else God is, God isn't a physically observable entity. The concept of God is the concept of an infinite mind.

The infinity of divine mind ensures that we cannot observe it as if it were a physical object. But in fact, God shares the property of being physically unobservable with all minds.

I find it ironic that some scientists are driven to posit an infinity of unobservables so as to avoid positing one unobservable infinite. I mean, if you're committed to verificationism, what's the point of positing a vast number of entities which we cannot observe nor have any causal interactions with? But the point I'd make is that there is no way string physics or any other physics can avoid positing an unobservable, infinite reality of some sort. Let me explain why.

Let's suppose that string physics, or some other development in physics, becomes scientifically established, and is shown to entail a Multiverse. Immediately we'd want to know, if we're curious about it, why there is any such thing as this physics, and why there is any such thing as a Multiverse. Well, there are two ways to go at this point.
One way is to say that the ultimate physics governing the universe will turn out to be in some way logically necessary, and that this necessity follows from the mathematics exhibiting it. But how would this ultimate theory establish the validity of mathematical reason itself…the very mathematical reason that underlies and is used to establish the ultimate theory of physical reality? After all, the construction of the theory would be presupposing the validity of the mathematical reasoning involved, and it would be suggesting that mathematical reason is valid not only for this universe, but for the multiverse as a whole. So where mathematical reason itself comes from is one issue.

A second issue is: why would this universally valid Mathematical Reason be such as to instantiate anything in physical reality, not least ourselves, who can appreciate and grasp and understand it? Or to put it another way, why is there something (even just this multiverse-generating mathematics), rather than nothing at all? Hawking famously asked why the equations would go to the bother of making anything like a universe, and one could ask the same thing about the string (or whatever) equations that make a Multiverse. Why, in other words, would the equations be self-instantiating in physical reality? Maybe you'd need another equation for that.... which at some point in this regress just has to be there eternally, instantiating the other equations, etc.

But then one would seem to be left with the choice of either theism, or a form of mathematical Platonism, and in either case, one would be positing a non-physical unobservable something as being responsible for both the multiverse and our reasoning about it. Moreover, mathematics itself is an infinite (abstract) structure. And it's physically invisible. (Cf. God)

The trouble with Platonism as an account of reason is that if the Platonic entity itself is suitably to be grasped by mind, then it's deeply puzzling why it should not be essentially and intimately connected with mind (or intellect, or consciousness) in the first place, and in fact actually just be the content of a mind, or intellect, or consciousness. We never encounter Platonic entities as freestanding objects---they are always encountered as contents of minds. But this suggests an infinite mental content, such as mathematics is, would need an infinite mind, or intellect, or consciousness to comprehend it, and be the content of.

There is perhaps a way around this problem, though. And that is to invoke once again the principle of natural selection. This is the second option (the aforementioned Platonism being the first.) The second option would go like this: We get this universe because it is naturally selected for us within a multiverse. And we get the multiverse described by the equations of string theory (or whatever the final theory is) because it is naturally selected within a multiverse of multiverses. And we get the multiverse of multiverses because it is naturally selected by a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses.... And so on, ad infinitum.  But either way, you have to end up positing a physically unobservable infinite. Either, Mathematical Reason (Platonistically conceived). Or, an infinity of universes/multiverses.

But the point of going this route was to avoid having to posit a physically unobservable infinite (God). But it seems to me that point turns out to be self-defeating.

A coda to this result is that there is a good argument for thinking that order must be primitive at some level and cannot all be the result of natural selection. Here it is in a nutshell:

1. For natural selection to work at all, it must work upon some domain.

2. To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind pertaining to that domain.

3. Hence, every domain upon which natural selection is to operate must already be ordered in some way.

4. Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order in nature, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables, which defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection in the first place, which was to explain phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable.

Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It can't all be generated by natural selection. Or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be physically unobservable by finite scientists.

Now a word about Ockham’s Razor.

The Ockham’s Razor principle says, 'Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.' Ok, to explain the perceived order of the universe, the proponents of a multiverse posit trillions upon trillions of additional entities---additional universes, or additional universe-regions (beyond the limits of what we observe). Theists, posit one additional entity. So prima facie theism is more ontologically economical.

Notice that both sides see the positing of something beyond what we observe as being necessary to explain the order inherent in what we do observe. Theists hold that because that order is intrinsically intelligible to mathematical reason, and because mathematical reason is essentially an attribute of rational mind, inference to an ultimately mind-like reality is more probable than either a materialist or Platonist alternative. But notice that all three worldviews posit something invisible and infinite to explain order:

1) God
or
2) A Platonic Mathematical Realm (which must contain at least as infinite a number of abstract entities as mathematics itself)
or
3) A Realm of Universes or Universe-Regions with no fixed or determinable upper limit on their number

As between these three alternatives, Ockham's Razor either cannot by itself decide since there are serious countability issues with all three, or else favors theism. (Aquinas has technical reasons to do with God not belonging to a genus or species and with God's existence being identical with God's essence, for not regarding God as a being and therefore not being strictly speaking a countable type of reality.)

My argument in this respect in purely defensive rather than positive; that is, my argument has been not to rely on Ockham's Razor, but simply to reject the claim that it favors the non-theistic alternatives. Because it does not! In other words, if you're going to appeal to Ockham, there's no reason to think that theism does badly in that regard. On the contrary. But my argument actually doesn't rely on it, it simply says all three worldviews are either on a par, Ockham-wise, or, if anything, theism is better, Ockham-wise.

Theism also does a better job in my view because it's better suited to account for consciousness, rationality, morality, aesthetics, and religious experience. A materialist multiverse can't account for any of that if materialism in the philosophy of mind is false. I am persuaded that it is false for reasons advanced by the likes of Saul Kripke and David Chalmers . And I prefer theism to Platonism since there's no good Platonist theory of causation, whereas we know that there are causally active minds.

So theism, as an a deductive inference , that is, an inference to a transcendent Mind as being the best explanation for cosmic order (as well the existence of consciousness, reason, morality, aesthetic value, religious experience and spirituality, etc.), strikes me as at least as, indeed more plausible than either a mysterious realm of impersonal mathematical laws and equations, or the apotheosis of meaningless, purposeless ontological extravagance represented by the Multiverse.

But notice in any case that all three notions…God, the Platonic Realm, and the Multiverse—are notions of an unobservable infinite.

" For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through."

Saturday, August 21, 2010

My Ten Rules

 

A diversion into wisdom accumulated at great personal expense…

 

1. Never compromise on principles.

Nothing is more important than our principles. They are not mere guidelines or general precepts to be fudged when they become inconvenient or cumbersome. Principles are the guard rails in the journey of life. Principles can only be based on natural and moral Once we begin to negotiate on matters of principle we begin the decent into chaos. "God... has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own." [1]

 

LiskovSubtitutionPrinciple

 

2. Test your limits.

This is life and in life there are very few certainties outside of the realm of realms of physics and mathematics. One certainty that you can count on is risk. There is an degree of danger in nearly everything we do from eating breakfast in the morning to driving home from work. Risk is inherent in life. The other certainty is that no matter how careful one is eventually the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero. I can not think of a single individual who bettered themselves or the human species without sticking their neck out. If you spend a good part of your day thinking about how to avoid risk, you are more likely lulling yourself into an illusion of safety that is far more dangerous than acknowledging inherent risk. 

 

Freedom

 

3. Understand that people seldom think outside their own heads.

People generally assume that everyone thinks just like they do. What we believe we naturally imagine others will believe. A thief will assume everyone else is stealing. A liar will always deduce that others are untrustworthy. A cheat will take for granted that everyone is a fraud.

 

WhyAreYouWaving_Fullpic_1

 

4. Worry is pointless.

My father used to say, “Worry is interest paid on a debt not due”. He was right because all the worry in the world accomplishes nothing except cause stress.  Actions make things happen and if you are not prepared to take action, then you obviously do not care about whatever it is to worry. Either, take action to defuse the situation your worrying about, or move on to your next order of business.

 

Government

 

5. Deeds not words.

Leave the mangling of words to the lawyers and politicians. When the silence returns their words leave no trace. Let your accomplishments stand as monuments of irrefutable truth and manifest wisdom. 

 

 

Unique

 

6. Never expect life to be fair.

Life isn't fair. Limit your use of the word fair to board games and a description of the weather. Each of us are born with different talents and limitations as humans. Accept this as a fact of life for the simple reason that it is a fact. Exploit your talents to the utmost in order to minimize your shortcomings.

 

ensuresafety

 

7. Solve your own problems.

Never focus on problems as problems are and always will be problems. You can become bogged down and easily overwhelmed when you think in terms of problems. Only allow yourself to think in terms of long term solutions.

 

disservicesatisfied

 

8. Be quick to decide.

General George S. Patton said: "A good plan violently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

 

1288688756_ae79fad6c1_m

 

9. Focus on matter of significance.

Once you determine what is significant, you have also determined by exclusion that which is insignificant. Focusing your energy becomes much easier and productive when you pick your battles in this way.

 

never

 

 

10. Keep a sense of humor.

This is how we light a candle rather than curse the darkness. I subscribe to the theory that "We're not here for a long time; we're here for a good time." If you are not having a good time, you are doing something wrong. Count your blessings and be thankful for them.

 

 

kindness

 

 

 

References, Notations, and Other Accoutrements

1. Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Maybe They Are Just Hairless Descendants of Apes…

Notpass

 

I often encounter a significant quantity of disapprobation from intellectuals, academics, and even one highly respected bus mechanic about my belief in Creationism. Invariably, these disciples of Darwinian’s theory on origin of species will explain to me, in the manner one would speak to a severely mentally challenged child, that Darwinian evolution is the only educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle available. Their eyes filled with compassion for the poor boy who has been misguided by fairy tales of God sitting on a mountain, or in the clouds, or someplace, somewhere, out there.

It’s not that I don’t recognize a back-handed insult when I have been slapped with one, but this is when I start smirking in a nearly futile attempt to hold back hysterical laughter. I do this out of respect, because I know that they have spent a great deal of time, money, and effort in the accumulation of knowledge, however erroneous it may be, and I do not wish to offend their fragile sensibilities. My silent reaction are often misinterpreted as an open door through which the concerned evolutionist can begin shoveling more of their erudite concepts. Perhaps the will assume the worst of me and begin with something like,

“You do realize that there are more than four basic elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, right?”

“Well, of course I do! There are your solids, liquids, and gases which make up the seven food groups! I can read the sides of the cereal boxes too as I ‘m drooling back into my bowl of Captain Crunch”.

My tactic of ignorant indignation cannot hold up and I give myself away here every time.While I am relieved that they did not begin with,

“Do you believe in Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause as well?”

To which my only recourse is to act out wildly tearing at my clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” Needless to say, I’m a lot of fun at symposiums after a couple cocktails, or at least was until they took my name off the guest lists in 11 states and Canada. The scientific community is  highly educated to the point of elitist, this vast intellectual burden makes relating to those of us who possess merely average comprehension a tedious bunch with which to communicate. Imagine the frustration of trying to instill the concept of equality in a pack of sled dogs whose every instinct runs counter to an egalitarian system. The scientist would avoid such a foolishness endeavor, while I might give it a try. After several hours of aggravation and disgruntlement the dogs will lose patience with my baffling antics allowing me the respite to delude myself into the illusion of having made progress.

Speaking of progress, the theory of Darwinian evolution is based on the twin pillar hypotheses of universal common ancestry and natural selection. Darwin describes the his hypothesis of universal common ancestry, the theory that all life on the planet originated from a single or very few primordial life forms in his On the Origin of Species in this way,

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" [1]

Personally, I see no conflict what so ever between and great harmony within much of Darwin’s assertion and that of the Genesis account aside from the mater of quantities. I would go so far as to say that Moses, assuming that Moses is in fact the author of Genesis, could not have described Creation better in a single sentence other than the one the author used,

“And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.” [2]

Darwin never addresses the existence or absence of a deity which, “…originally breathed into a few forms or into one.” Darwin is describing the process to the best of his understanding at the time, which is no more advanced, educated, enlightened, credible, or scientific than the description found in the Genesis account. Now, who is acting out wildly tearing at their clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!”

 

fossil record

Darwin was a credit to science in that he was far more open to reason than most of the scientific community and other religious zealots, who cannot for a moment entertain that there theory on Creation of life on this planet may not be complete or even remotely correct. Several times over he presents his theory being incomplete and at points leaves open critical flaws that would discount his theory all together. One such point is his addressing the question posed by the sudden (rather than evolutionary) appearance of life in the Cambrian,

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea.”  [3] 

There has yet to be a satisfactory answer to the inexplicable case life suddenly appearing in wide diversity and without evidence of the simpler progenitors required by natural selection or the interim species . However, the ability to present a valid argument against the evolution, universal common ancestry, or the process of natural selection has been silenced as blasphemy. The hypothesis of evolution called a theory is taught as a law of science and all else is discounted as primitive mythos. However science works by some very specific definitions and anything that does not conform to these definitions is NOT science…

Fundamental Definitions Used in Science [4]

A hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

A theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

Law - A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics.

 

HereBeDragonsTrue science is the endless asymptotic pursuit of the truth. True science does not summarily dismiss a theory or hypothesis because a scientist does not wish it to be true, or disapproves of the implications incumbent with the theory or hypothesis. True science does not  promote that which is theory or hypothesis as being more than theoretical or hypothetical.

A few hundred years ago the unexplored edges of mariners maps were marked with a stark warning “Here Be Dragons and Sea Monsters” along with a graphic illustration to impress upon the imprudent or illiterate sailor the dreadful disemboweling he was in for should he continue on his ill advised course.[5] It is the purview of science to boldly venture on course in spite of the warnings, fears, and inherent disemboweling no matter how dreadful. When the scientific community acts to stifle the diligent and unbiased exploration of the unknown, the constituent members cease to be scientists and become dogmatic zealots.   

When science acts on consensus, collusion, and conspiracy as tools to curtail the full realm of possibilities rather than explore them, it ceases to be science and becomes unreasoning fanaticism based on irrational fears. This is the antithesis of science.  One need only look to the very recent history in the educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle of global warming being driven by CO2 emissions to illustrate the potential for abuse. So many distinguished academics and researchers holding impeccable credentials agreeing on a thoroughly examined and exhaustively documented theory were invariably wrong in their initial premise. In the past CO2 has never been a determining factor in temperature change, and there is no evidence to support that it is now. [6]

The Vice-President and former Presidential candidate Al Gore was, and probably still is, convinced that the “Dragons and Sea Serpents” of global warming were just ahead when he said,

“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” [7]

We must compile our understanding of the Universe from ALL the evidence at our disposal without prejudice. We must remember that science is not THE TRUTH, but the endless pursuit of it. History, is filled with well established scientific principles found to be without basis. Aristotle and Ptolemy (scientists and academics by any definition) were the proponents of the theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system, yes, even the universe and provided a myriad of calculations and circumstantial evidence to prove their assertions. The Catholic church later adopted the theory widely endorsed by the most learned minds of the day. Head he lived in Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s time rather than ours, Mr. Gore would conclude “…they have produced long-since a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system.”

Very few today recall that Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s geocentric solar system was all but universally accepted by the scientific community of that time. However, many recall that the Catholic Church’s inhumane treatment of those who did not agree with the accepted, yet fatally flawed, astronomy laid down by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Many forget that the at the time the Catholic Church acted far more as a government and political entity than a Christian denomination. In a hauntingly familiar way that government agencies, environmental groups, and the mainstream media across many countries for over a decade issued reports and documents stating that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents who disagreed, were ridiculed, censured, had their funding cut, or were dismissed from their positions. This is the modern academic equivalent of an old fashioned witch burnings. We think ourselves so technologically advanced, so enlightened, but even today we certainly behave like the hairless descendants of apes that a consensus of science would have us believe.

References, Notations, and Other Accoutrements

  1. Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 490
  2. Darby Bible Translation, Gen. 2:7
  3. Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 361
  4. New Oxford English Dictionary © Oxford University Press 2005,2009
  5. The sea serpents thoughts are conjecture based solely on my own wild speculation
  6. Climate chaos? Don't believe it”, Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, 05 Nov 2006
  7. Al Gore, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

 




 


Saturday, August 7, 2010

Time Is Cyclical and Truths Are Linear

 

Time is the school in which we all learn, and time is the fire in which we all burn.”

-Delmore Schwartz, American poet

 

Indeed, man has always had an uneasy and intimate relationship with time. Though we are all currently alive at this exact moment, we may have an entirely different perspective on time. One of us sitting on death row knowing that the earth is careening towards the at a little over 1,040 miles per hour and sunrise this will be will be the last he will witness in this life. Concurrently, just 12 inches of masonry and mortar away sits a man with five consecutive life sentences for crimes, and each day creeps like like a timid animal. In the world outside the prison walls, people rush and scurry through their days without the slightest sign of precaution. We are obsessed with getting to what we imagine to be a better future, and only stop to remember the traumas of the past, and this is where we spend most of our lives although we are and always will be creatures of the present, we the least comfortable in our own space and time.  It is a universal human characteristic to find humor in a puppy chasing its tail, perhaps it is that we recognize the symptoms of our own folly.  Our pace of life has increased exponentially in the last 100 years, and our children are exhibiting symptoms of stress related disorders and social dysfunctions at alarming rates as a result of stress burden placed upon the society as a whole. All the while we are spinning ever faster in headlong pursuit of completing another cycle, the start and finish of our workday, the beginning and completion of our week at the office, and the reaping and sowing of crops are examples of regular, perhaps even mundane,  short term cycles with which we are most familiar.  Beyond these tight orbits that are our daily lives in which we chase our tails, are grander cycles with equally predictable results found in the booms and busts of our economies driven by the cycle of the waxing and waning of consumer confidence and bulls and bears that of Wall Street.  There are longer cycles beyond these which are familiar to us found in the birth and death of generations, and the innovation and obsolescence of technologies. Beyond lay more wheels within wheels increasingly remote and seemingly removed our individual effect are cycles involving the rise and fall of nations, cycles of intellectual enlightenment and decay, and the warming and cooling of out planet due to yet another oscillation of solar activity. Although predictable in results the specific timing of these remote cycles are far more difficult to discern, only becoming clear through the lens of history. It is this parallax effect which gives us the illusion of time being linear, and that we are moving along between the two points of past and future, without much regard for the point at which we are now in what is the wheel of our cycle.

 

mayancalThe Mayans were on to something when they compiled their calendar and almanac which was improved upon and refined from technology passed down to them by the the earlier Zapotec and Olmec civilizations. The design of wheels within wheels in a pattern so complex that we have only recently come to fully understand the amount of technology that went into this precise, not to mention very aesthetically attractive, system.  By comparison our modern calendars however practical seem rather rudimentary, even crude to the Mayan craft of calendar design. Our calendar is a tool of scheduling and planning, while theirs was all these thing as well but there was another element of the sacred and mystical. While we tend to discount these aspects as the primitive pantheism of early man, is it so very different from the modern theistic belief found in Psalm 19:1 the prophet David acknowledges that "The heavens declare the glory of God." That is, a thoughtful look into the heavens will reveal something of the wonderful power of the God Who created it all. Then he goes on to explain that this witness to God in creation is perpetual (v.2) and universally understood (vv.3-4).  We have excised this element of connection with the Divine from our secular calendar at the expense of seeing the complexity and wonder in the elegant cycles of the Universe and our eternal relationship with it as well as the Divine. Secular humanism wishes to divorce us from these concepts entirely claiming to do so in the name if progress, science, and reason.  However, the Mayans were remarkably advanced in many areas some of them surpassing our own, such as their masonry skills, which as one would imagine is a real plus for a people trying to make a living in the stone age.

Their surviving buildings are  a testament to this skill each stone having been laid without mortar and with laser like precision so that a sheet of paper cannot be slipped into the joints. This marvelous knowledge was lost to the cycles of time and perhaps human intervention as well. While we possess their calendar, and their stone artifacts, we have no evidence of what became of the Mayans themselves being lost in a cycle time recorded on the calendar left to us.  Some very serious and respected “outside of the the box” researchers believe the Mayans possessed considerable aerospace skills as well.  As for me, I can only assume that these esteemed scholars may be thinking outside of their minds as well. Another highly developed area of Mayan culture was their criminal code in which the severity of punishment increased the higher the offenders position or status in the society. A laborer who stole a loaf of bread may receive a public lashing, while the kings minister would have been put to death for such a crime. It seems that our justice system in this time of progress, science, and reason applies the opposite theory when a homeless man can get 90 days in jail for theft and Enron's Ken Lay get’s to pass away a very rich man vacationing in Snowmass, Colorado. Our principles claim equal protection under the law, but in application few would agree. However, we have a consensus of agreement among Mayan researchers that one of the most striking mystery’s about the Mayans is they seem to have vanished without leaving so much as a forwarding address at the post office, and there are several theories about how and why they went missing. The theories run  the spectrum from (the ever so trendy) climate change, civil war, disease, even or the arrival of a rather rough group of Spaniards moving into the neighborhood. Records left by the Spaniards claim to no information on the Mayans’ fate, but details the retrieval of vast sums of Mayan gold. Yet another cycle well documented in human events, people disappearing without a trace and the last one to see them ending up with their gold. Of course, my money is on the Mayans, seeing the writing was on the wall and that neighborhood was going into decline, decided that all the gold they had been mining was too heavy to transport and opted to pack into their sandstone space ships and left for another planet in search of rising property values.

 

Body Bags or Puppies

Today we have the benefit of access to information that both the Spaniards and Mayans could not fathom. In their time, information was precariously stored on a limited hand written media and physically transported with difficulty and great expense. Today when I post this article, I will have exercised a transmission of information greater than the sum of that transmitted throughout the entire Mayan empires history with the pressing of the enter button on my keyboard. It is both an astonishing and commonplace occurrence at our level technological sophistication. However, along with every advancement of technology there are always inherent and often unforeseen hazards. While information can allow us the luxury of checking our favorite baseball teams progress in losing yet another years shot at the World Series, it can just as easily transmit a series of digits across the world to less favored team of individuals in Nigeria with a much better shot of scoring your checking account. Information in vast quantities can overload the human minds ability to interpret and vet it properly resulting in dangerous conditions, an experience known to fighter pilots as data overload. American politics are a perfect example of streaming data that is nearly impossible to understand. There are so many issues, estimates, projections, promises, denouncements, discussions, denials, claims, contingencies, debates, scandals, threats, crises, convictions, bail-outs, budget overruns, censures, committees, subcommittees, summits…STOP! Information is a double edged sword in that false information can be transferred as effortlessly as true information, and with so much more of it fly out of just Washington, D.C., it takes a great deal of time and effort to figure it all out. Being buried in information is no different than being bereft of information, it leaves you unable to make critical decisions and take proper actions when necessary, and the grand ubiquitous cycles of time will not wait for us to sort it all out. Politicians are well aware of this, and our government is exceedingly good at manipulating data to its advantage. We win wars more on the blade of our information technologies than our metallurgy, ballistics, or chemistry. Our primary targets are command and control elements for the obvious reason that an army without the a chain of command or orders is, if they are lucky, a group waiting for a comfy set of zip tie handcuffs and an all inclusive vacation at a Geneva Convention resort. Those less fortunate will be leaving behind only their unsightly remains to be aired on the prime time news, but again the government has command and control in mind. Military censors, like smart bombs for digital images, intercepted the footage and classify it as too graphic.  Thus avoiding the embarrassment of the footage being seen by the average American while having a lovely evening meal with the family. The politicians and military know thanks to that very same information technology that you should not see the amazingly effective, although not necessarily glamorous ways, we kill an astounding amount of human beings in your name and on your tax dollars in less time than it have taken you to vomit up that lovely roast your wife made had you seen the video. I’m sure you will see what a blessing information technology and command and control strategy can be when your trying to gain and maintain popular support for a war and keep your supper down. In this case, all you see is an embedded reporter in her early thirties talking about a surgical strike which resulted in the anonymous although deserved deaths of four enemy combatants, and the rescue of a puppy named “Skipper”. Aw, Look at the puppy daddy!

 ForesakingJeff

As a government for and by the people, we have a duty to and responsibility for what this government does because we put them in that position of public trust and they act in our name. It is our duty and responsibility to determine fact from fiction when it comes to our political leaders, the ones who make the momentous decisions that effect not only us such as raising the gasoline tax, but our future generations like engaging in war, a decision which if made imprudently can eliminate the possibility all future generations. Separating truth from lies, good information from bad information, and between facts and  puppy named “Skipper” is not as difficult as it first may seem when you use the cyclical nature of time, nature, and history as a lens through which to interpret all information.   It is your duty and responsibility to educate yourself on current issues, and look for similar issues discussed by the this nations Founding Fathers in their day. While some will try to dissuade you because, “timers have changed”, we know that only the date has changed, but the fundamentals of human nature, power, virtue, valor, and corruption remain unchanged since long before the Mayans noted the cyclical nature of time. War is still war and it has the same consequence as it had 230 or 2,300 years ago, death and destruction. Our family relations are the same, parents are imperfect but love their children, and worry for them. Money was tough to come by, unless you were a remarkably lucky Spaniard. People were concerned with crime, but there were also a lot of decent people out there if you knew how to pick them. The Founder's focused on universal truths, many in politics today will deny there are any such things as universal truths. They live in world of relativism where the standards of right and good are malleable almost fluid. Take a look at the difference between these two American political documents of historic value. We have the Constitutions of the United Sates, the  document which breathed life into what we know as America today, it instituted the greatest nation on earth.

 

Declaration of Independencelawsthenandnow

  • Declares an Act of Revolution against the greatest empire of the time in a specific, succinct, and philosophically moving document.
  • Introduces new vibrant political theories

Constitution and Bill of Rights

  • A powerful bicameral legislature with a House and a Senate
  • An executive chosen by The People
  • A judiciary, with life-terms of service and appointed by the executive
  • Check’s and Balances
  • States rights and  Limits
  • An Amendment process
  • Declares Federal Powers
  • The Ratification Process
  • Enumerates Ten Specific inviolate civil rights
  • Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Press
  • Protection from illegal search and Seizure

Vs.

HR 3962 Affordable Health Care for America

  • Creates yet another wasteful, unproductive, and exceedingly costly leviathan government bureaucracy with invasive powers, unaccountable to voters and those are to whom they are to provide services
  • This legislation empowers the executive branch, namely the Secretary of Health and Human Services and a “Health Choices Commissioner,” to write thousands of pages of regulations, and to force Americans to comply with them
  • Creates 111 new boards, committees, programs, and other bureaucratic encumbrances
  • The bill amends the Public Health Service Act by granting new powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • A text search of the bill reveals more than one hundred instances of language such as “the Secretary shall determine.”

One of these two sets of documents contains the quintessential and brilliant works of a group of passionate, freedom loving, educated, and visionary men who were constructing a system that they would live in and bequeath to their posterity.

The other is something else.