FEATURE ARTICLES- MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 6.

With the National Election coming up soon, I think it's important to point out the vital Decision that the American People are about to make. It is more than just CLINTON vs TRUMP, OR DEMOCRAT vs REPUBLICAN.  Voters are deciding a direction that can continue, and expand upon, the last Eight Years of a PRESIDENCY THAT SAW PROGRESSIVE POLICIES ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF LONG STANDING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PLAGUING THE U.S. FOR DECADES.

Unfortunately, the REPUBLICAN PARTIES desire to repress and derail anything that could be considered a positive achievement by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME, OR THE POTENTIAL GOOD THAT IT WOULD DO FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, HAS GIVEN US DONALD TRUMP.  IN THE FUTURE, THIS WILL BECOME KNOWN AS THE ONLY LEGACY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE LAST EIGHT YEARS CAN POINT TO... HOW PROUD LINCOLN WOULD BE.

Let us make a short list that could explain the rise of Donald Trump.

#1- The Affordable Care Act has allowed Millions of Americans access to Health Care.    
       However, on a case by case basis, there may be those who have fallen through the
       cracks, and have suffered economic distress because of the Law.

      The President and Progressive Democrats suggest altering parts of the ACA to provide
       relief for such cases.
     
       The Republicans- Repeal the Law.

#2-  Immigration.
       The President and Progressive Democrats propose:
       To Provide Assistance, and an Opportunity, for Refugees and Immigrants to Live and
       Work in the U.S. This includes Extensive Background Checks, Waiting Period,
       Possible Sponsorship, and Obtaining Legal Employment for Tax Purposes.

       The Republicans- GET OUT, AND STAY OUT.
       ONLY CHRISTIANS FROM SPECIFIC COUNTRIES NEED APPLY.  

TO BE CONTINUED...

THE CLASSROOM. #27. FROM: BARACK OBAMA. HILLARY CLINTONS NOMINATION AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

David --

On Wednesday night I gave my final speech to a Democratic convention as president. I’m grateful I got to spend it talking about why Hillary is the right person to succeed me in the White House. She is going to be an exceptional leader because she is an exceptional person.

David, Hillary has my trust because I know her, and I know her heart. 

My respect for Hillary has been reaffirmed time and time again by those who have known her for decades.

In 2012, we traveled to Burma together and met people she remembered from the time she was First Lady nearly twenty years before -- and they hadn’t forgotten her, either. A year later, when we flew to South Africa in 2013 to pay our respects at Nelson Mandela’s funeral, I could see in the eyes of his 

family how much she had meant to him.

Hillary commands any room she enters because her wisdom, her patience, and her generosity of spirit are impossible to deny. I counted on her advice on everything from foreign policy to how to raise my daughters in the White House. She treats everyone she encounters with decency and dignity, whether the cameras are on or off.

I am proud to see Hillary become our party’s nominee, and I can’t wait to see her win this election and become our 45th President.

Thanks, 

           

BARACK.

THE CLASSROOM. #28. FROM- HILLARY CLINTON. THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION POISONED OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM.

Almost a decade ago, I learned that a film called “Hillary: The Movie” was being released by a conservative group called Citizens United. It took aim at me and other progressives. What we didn’t know at the time was how much damage this 90-minute film would do to our country -- because the movie set in motion a legal roller coaster that affected our entire democracy.

Citizens United -- a special interest group -- argued that the First Amendment protected their right to spend unlimited money to influence the outcome of elections. The case made its way to the Supreme Court. And on January 21, 2010, the Court handed down its landmark ruling, "Citizens United v. FEC," clearing the way for special interest groups to bankroll campaigns.

In the years since, we’ve seen the aftermath of that decision. Let’s be frank: that ruling has perverted and poisoned our campaign finance system. It has stifled the voices of ordinary Americans. Instead, it has amplified the opinions and interests of corporations and billionaires.

David, I used to teach law students -- and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations and wealthy special interests have the right to control our elections. A Fortune 500 CEO should not have more sway ​over an election than an elementary school teacher.

That’s why, as your president, I will work tirelessly to put in place a constitutional amendment reversing that Supreme Court decision. I'll put that process in motion within the first month of my tenure in the Oval Office.

We cannot have people like the Koch brothers buying our elections. We need to work as hard as we can, for as long as we must, to protect the sanctity -- and transparency -- of our democratic process.

...And that’s part of the reason I’m so honored to have End Citizens United’s endorsement.

HILLARY.

THE CLASSROOM. #27. FROM: BARACK OBAMA. HILLARY CLINTONS NOMINATION AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

David --

On Wednesday night I gave my final speech to a Democratic convention as president. I’m grateful I got to spend it talking about why Hillary is the right person to succeed me in the White House. She is going to be an exceptional leader because she is an exceptional person.

David, Hillary has my trust because I know her, and I know her heart. 

My respect for Hillary has been reaffirmed time and time again by those who have known her for decades.

In 2012, we traveled to Burma together and met people she remembered from the time she was First Lady nearly twenty years before -- and they hadn’t forgotten her, either. A year later, when we flew to South Africa in 2013 to pay our respects at Nelson Mandela’s funeral, I could see in the eyes of his family how much she had meant to him.

Hillary commands any room she enters because her wisdom, her patience, and her generosity of spirit are impossible to deny. I counted on her advice on everything from foreign policy to how to raise my daughters in the White House. She treats everyone she encounters with decency and dignity, whether the cameras are on or off.

I am proud to see Hillary become our party’s nominee, and I can’t wait to see her win this election and become our 45th President.

Thanks, 

           

BARACK.

FICTION- Stories, Myths, and Legends. THE LEGEND OF THE VANISHING LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS. PT 1.

The Captain of the Hesperus peered through his Spyglass and spoke

to the man next to him. "Sorry Moore," he began,"I still don't see any sign of life,
and we've hailed them three times."

Joseph Moore was standing next to Captain Harvie and along with the Helmsman, were the only three occupants on the Bridge.  It was the day after Christmas, but there was no feeling of "Peace on Earth" or "Good will to Men" inside Moore.  The Lighthouse on the island of Eilean Mor was still dark, and there was no sign of his three comrades.

Captain Harvie continued, "When were about 150 yds out, I'll heave to and send in a landing party to investigate.  I assume you'll want to be part of it?"

Moore nodded without looking at Harvie. "What could have happened," he thought to himself, "Why can't we make contact?" Moore knew that the bare flagpole, which was located near the living quarters, was a bad sign.

Distress signals indicating problems on the island, could be relayed to neighboring islands or passing ships by raising certain signal flags available to the Keepers stationed on the island.

Captain Harvie was usually annoyed when someone aboard his ship did not answer his questions with a prompt verbal reply. He considered it to be a breach of etiquette and disrespectful to his command.  However, this was different. He was familiar with the type of man it took to be a Lighthouse Keeper, and confrontation over this matter would lead to no good.  Ultimately, it was his responsibility to get the Light working again, and to find out why it went out.  He, therefore, would not risk antagonizing Moore.  This man was his best bet in finding the truth.

End PT 1.

FICTION- Stories, Myths and Legends. A STORY OF TRUE LOVE, AND FAITH. PT 1.

Many years ago there lived a man who traveled about the countryside. He was a Peddler, and made his living selling merchandise to local villages.  As time went on, he realized that he must expand his customer base, or go out of business.

This worried him, for it meant conducting trade with people he did not know, and who did not know him.  Nonetheless he set out, planning to call on towns and villages that were beyond his normal territory.

However, as fate would have it, he ran into immediate bad luck. As he approached the first village, a great storm erupted. Wind, rain and lightning made travel most difficult. Even worse, he carried his wares upon his back, for he could not afford a pack animal.

As he approached the first home, he thought to himself, " I just need shelter, and will ask no more." The Peddler arrived at the front door of a small , but well maintained cottage. Shivering, he knocked feebly on the front door.  After a few moments it opened and a stout and formidable looking man of no more than thirty years, answered.

"What do you want?", asked the figure in the doorway.

" Kind sir,"  replied the Peddler,  "I seek shelter from the storm. I am new to this Township, but hope to find new friends and customers from the good people who live here."

The Man frowned slightly, and with a sneer asked; "Do you accept Jesus as you lord and Savior?"

The Peddler was taken aback. No one had ever asked such a question.

"I am not a religious man,"  he stammered, "but I believe there is good in all of us, regardless of how we find it."  The man shook his head and with a sly smile closed the door. His last words, as the door was closing, chilled the already cold and frightened Peddler to the bone.

''We don't want your type around, you are godless."

End of PT 1.

FICTION- Stories, Myths and Legends. A STORY OF TRUE LOVE, AND FAITH. PT 3.

As the door opened, the Peddler began to shake. "This is my last chance", he thought,  "I will say anything, for I cannot go on."

To his relief the figure in the doorway soon presented itself.  A small woman, perhaps half his size, looked up at him.  The Peddler was taken aback.  His possible benefactor was advanced in age and seemed to be on the edge of physical collapse.

The Peddler collected his wits, and with a sense of desperation began to speak.  "Good woman," he began, "I have traveled far, but I am in need of the hospitality of a person like you who would not turn away one in need." The Peddler braced himself for the expected interrogation, but it did not come.

"You poor man,"  was the reply, "come in and warm yourself by my humble fire.  I cannot offer much, but what I have is yours."  With that the woman turned and gestured for the Peddler to follow.

The Peddler entered, following the small figure.  The room he beheld was even more Spartan than he had imagined.  Very few pieces of furniture were present, and he watched as his host sat herself upon a rocking chair located near a large brick fireplace.  The fireplace seemed to dominate the room, for it provided the only illumination.  The Peddler sat down upon a small ottoman and rubbed his hands together.

Confused by this sudden change of fortune, he stammered, "I have no wish to cause you harm, but your neighbors rejected me because I am not a Christian.  Why do you offer me aid.  Will they not turn against you?"

The old woman began to laugh, and with a sigh turned to the peddler and replied:"Stranger, you are new to this place.  It was not always so, at one time all were welcome.  Unfortunately, the leaders of our community became convinced of their importance, which included controlling the spiritual life of all its' citizens.  This control would not tolerate dissension, so all those who opposed were either ostracized or banished.  They use Christianity as a tool to justify their personal prejudices.  In this manner, they subvert the true teaching of our lord."

(Look for PT.4)

BLAST FROM THE PAST- 10/24/2016: FEATURE ARTICLES. MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 5.

(THIS WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FRAUDULENT 2016
ELECTION THAT HANDED DONALD TRUMP THE WHITE
HOUSE. HOW MUCH OF IT STILL RINGS TRUE)

So, in the end, we must ask the following Question:

Why, and What kind of Individuals and Groups have supported DONALD TRUMPS CANDIDACY,
NOW, AND IN THE PAST?

As we have seen, Candidate Trump has no trouble speaking his mind, especially if it means disparaging an entire segment of society, be it GENDER, ETHNICITY, RELIGIOUS FAITH ,
SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC STANDING etc. His Ability to use his Candidacy to Hurl False
and Baseless Accusations against Millions of Americans, along with Dire Threats if
 things don't go his way, would seem to be the ANTITHESIS OF HOW SOMEONE
SHOULD GO ABOUT WINNING AN ELECTION, LET ALONE THE PRESIDENCY.

So what Type of Voter would find someone like this appealing? Could it be the Type of Voter who sees the Writing on the Wall, with a set of beliefs and attitudes that no longer wields the Political Influence they once did?

Beliefs and Attitudes such as;

-  Religious Intolerance.

-  Patriarchal Rule.

-  Racial and Ethnic Divisions
   enforced by law.

Among others...

In other words, the last desperate attempt to prevent Progressive Ideals from becoming the Norm in every facet of American Life. Concepts such as Justice. Equality, Freedoms, and Rights becoming
Universally applied to all, not just those who consider themselves Superior by some Convoluted
and Irrational View of how Society should be formed and governed.

Date- 10/24/2016.

BLAST FROM THE PAST, 10/19/2016: MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 4.

The most amazing thing about Donald Trump claiming the Presidential Election is Rigged, is not that it is completely unexpected, but that anyone who really studies the problem couldn't see it coming.

-  Donald Trump, and his Lackeys, realize that all the Misogynists, Bigots, Xenophobes, Homophobes, Religious Zealots etc., in the Country do not represent a Voting Majority.

-  That his Platform of ... well... Hating everyone who is not on the FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST LIST

OF PEOPLE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN THE U.S. WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING TARGETS OF PERSECUTION OR PREJUDICE, doesn't appeal to many undecided voters.

-  That Sound Bites Laced with Simplistic and Bombastic Drivel, that represent a profound inability to meet even the Most Minimal Levels of Intellectual Depth and Psychological Stability, do not indicate qualities that Most Americans would expect in their President.

So, as he sees the Election Slipping Away, Donald Trump plays the only Card he has left, given his limited abilities to convince Most Reasonable People that he is the Person who should sit in the White House. It is a Strategy that fits in perfectly with those who already support him, for it requires none of the following:

-  An understanding of the Rules of Logic.

-  The Ability to separate Gossip, Rumor, and Innuendo
    from Factual Data.

-  The Understanding that you do not start any Investigation,
    be it Science, Law, Politics.,etc with a CONCLUSION, and
    then try to Shape the Evidence to Support it. BAD EVIDENCE
    DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH, NO MATTER
    WHAT YOUR AGENDA IS.

  -  The REALIZATION THAT  BASELESS ASSERTIONS ARE
      MEANINGLESS, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU REPEAT
      THEM.

      For more information, you may want to read my article-  THE
      FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE.

       Date-  10/19/2016.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 5.

What is really fascinating about the BILL OF RIGHTS, and how it is interpreted, is the omission of wording within the Article itself and corresponding text within the body of the U.S. Constitution, that have a direct baring on how specific Rights should be legally defined, and the protections that they offer the American Citizen.

These pick and chose tactics are not just something political candidates do to gain support, but can be misused by those who should know better.

Case in point:  Here is one quote taken from a recent speech made by Supreme Court Justice ANTON SCALIA; 

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion."

Judge Scalia should know better, but let us see what the 1st Amendment actually says;

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;  OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS;  OR THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS  OF GRIEVANCES."

Why have I quoted the entire passage?  BECAUSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE AMENDMENT USES TERMINOLOGY THAT IS UNIVERSAL IN NATURE, NOT CONDITIONAL.  In other words;

All forms of RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY OR GRIEVANCES MUST BE PROTECTED, AND NO PART OF ANY CAN BE SANCTIONED AS PUBLIC POLICY OR, YOU HAVE "ESTABLISHED" OR "CREATED" AN ENDORSEMENT THAT ONE FORM OF RELIGION, SPEECH ETC., IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER.

PUT ANOTHER WAY;  FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, THE PRESS, PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, OR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES ARE ABSOLUTES. IN NO CASE CAN THEY BE RESTRICTED OR PROMOTED.  FOR ONCE THAT IS DONE, THEY ARE NO LONGER "RIGHTS", BUT HAVE BECOME "PRIVILEGES."   

Yes, such things must be defined and limits placed, for you cannot use Religion, Speech,The Press etc, to do anything you want. These restrictions are of the HOW, WHEN AND WHERE VARIETY,  THEY CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPRESS OR DENY RIGHTS OTHER CITIZENS HAVE.

So no, government cannot favor religion, over anything else.  That is not its' job, which is:  PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE CITIZEN, BY NOT MAKING THESE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY PUBLIC POLICY.

In part 6 we will again address more of Justice Scalias recent comments, and remind him and his supporters of ARTICLE 6 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

End of PT 5.
10/12/2014

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 4.

So what are some of the Categories of Hypocrites that cause so many problems for Society, and how can we limit the Damage they are capable of?

First, ALL HYPOCRITES, Regardless of the Category we place Them in, have several things in common:

1)  They Concentrate on how the Decisions made by the Political/Legal System will affect Their Chosen Position. Possible Outcomes to Others, or PRECEDENTS SET, hold no Value to them, only WHAT THEY WANT COUNTS. 

2)  Their Belief that They Have a Monopoly on Moral Behavior.-  However it is Derived, the HYPOCRITE KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT, AND WHAT IS WRONG. JUST ASK THEM.

3)  "RIGHTS" are something  to protect Them and Their Allies, and are not to be extended Universally to everyone else.  THIS, OF COURSE, NO LONGER MAKES THEM RIGHTS, BUT PRIVILEGES.

4)  That They have No Obligation to anyone else, Either Morally or Legally.

5)  Lying and Deception are sometimes Necessary Evils, to help ensure that the ULTIMATE GOOD, WHICH IS TO SEE THEIR AGENDA ACCEPTED INTO LAW,  BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY.

6)  That They hold a Special Place Within the Given Political System, which Should Exclude Them from CRITICISM OR EVALUATION BY OPPOSING OFFICIALS, NEWS MEDIA, OR ANY ORGANIZED POLITICAL GROUP THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR GOALS.

LOOK FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITES IN PART 5.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 3.

I would like to make one thing clear: The HYPOCRITE IS BY NO MEANS FOUND IN A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY, OR REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR POLITICAL, MORAL, OR RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.  

They may be more Prevalent on One Side of a DEBATE OR DISCUSSION,but the LACK OF A COHERENT LINE OF REASONING IS NOT FOUND ON JUST ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE.  It is Vital to Identify Hypocritical Thinking as soon as possible, before it has a chance to take hold and become Entrenched in the Minds of Those who may not realize the Inherent Irrationality of what it Truly is.

On a Personal Level, I have found it More Discouraging when it Happens Among Those I Think Should Know Better.  

On one Hand there are Certain Types of Public Figures, Politicians, Decision Makers etc., I have come to expect it from. Calling out Their Self- Centered and Egotistical Thinking Processes is not a surprise, because They Rarely come up with a Well- Reasoned Line of Argument.  They don't change, and Those who Support the same Agenda could care less anyway.

What is Really Troubling, is when I see Intelligent, Insightful, and Focused Individuals Toss out Critical Thinking and Logic, when it Doesn't Lead Them to the Conclusions They Expect, or more likely, Desire.  For Some, it is Difficult to Understand that:

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING ARE MENTAL PROCESSES, AND DON'T HAVE A PRECONCEIVED AGENDA THAT WILL LEAD YOU DOWN ANY PATH YOU DESIRE.  THE ARGUMENTS YOU MAKE, THE PREMISES YOU USE, AND THE CONCLUSIONS YOU DRAW ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES THAT YOUR OPPONENT  MUST OBEY.

This leads us to DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITE; WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON, WHAT SEPARATES THEM, AND THE PROBLEMS EACH PRESENTS TO FINDING SOLUTIONS AND ANSWERS.

Date-  10/10/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. PSEUDOSCIENCE ON TELEVISION- THIS IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: MY STORY. PT 1.

I have used this term: ANECDODTAL EVIDENCE many times when referring to testimony provided by those who have used it to support such pseudo-scientific subjects as Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Alien Visitation, Demons., etc. Often, it is the only evidence offered in many cases.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS, ( MY DEFINITION)-  Individual Testimony, regarding a Personal Encounter with a Specific Phenomena. It can be Sight, Sound, Smell, Touch, Taste. In other words, the five senses. From this Event, the individual draws conclusions about the Identity of said Phenomena.

Unfortunately, such an encounter that is not backed up by any corrorborating evidence that can be properly observed, studied, or analyzed, to Identify the Reality or True Nature of the Subject under Speculation, leaves Science with little choice but to characterize the PHENOMENA AS UNKNOWN, WITH FURTHER STUDY NEEDED.

Now , I am not going to talk about previous incidents in which I was asked to offer an opinion, or investigate the experiences of others.  This is MY CASE OF OFFERING ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY.

Date- 10/11/2016.

Place- My Home. Specifically: Dining Room and Back Yard.

Time- Approximately 12:15pm. Weather- Partly Cloudy.

Sitting down at my Dining Room Table to eat lunch , I glanced out to the Back Yard, and saw a Large Bird alight upon a Bird Bath located about Ten feet from the Dining Room Window.  Although, by no means an Ornithologist, I had worked for a company that Manufactured, among other things, High Quality Binoculars, considered to be among the best in the World. (SWAROVSKI). So, I had developed a Mild Interest in Identifying Birds found in North America. Well, the appearance of this one surprised me...

See part 2.

QUICK HITTERS. POST #2. STATISTICS AND POLLS; PAY NO ATTENTION. PT 1.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 3.

No. It is 10/8/2016, and I am not going to address Donald Trumps Comments, caught on audio tape,
about how he Treats Women, and how it is Tied to his "Celebrity Status."

WHY? BECAUSE HIS CHANCES OF BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT ARE LARGELY
DEPENDENT UPON THE FOLLOWING:

THAT ON ELECTION DAY, EXTREMIST VOTERS, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT
THEM, TURN OUT IN NUMBERS THAT OVERCOME THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE.

YES, THE EXTREMIST ELEMENT PROBABLY CONSTITUTES A DEFINITE MINORITY, SO IT CAN BE OVERCOME RATHER EASILY, RIGHT?

TELL THAT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND THOSE MEMBERS
WHO ARE LEFT DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM IT, DUE TO 
DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISGUST.

There is a simple Truth that Progressives have to learn, if  the advances made during the Obama Administration ARE TO BE MAINTAINED, AND PROTECTED.

IT IS ALSO THE KEY TO FUTURE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES BECOMING LAW, AND THE NEED TO ELECT LEGISLATORS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ADVANCEMENTS MADE IN THE LAST 8 YEARS REPRESENT REAL POSITIVE CHANGE.

MISOGYNY, RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, XENOPHOBIA etc., ARE NOT DEAL BREAKERS
FOR HARD CORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS.

Do you remember this line from part 2.

What is Rule #1- What Donald Trump has done or said, or will do or say, MEANS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING AS LONG AS HE TOES THE EXTREMIST LINE.

See part 4.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. BY DEFINITION? DEFINE BEFORE YOU DISCUSS. PT 3.

HUMANIST-  The belief that all decisions regarding moral behavior, either individually or as a society, can be found through intellectual reflection and discourse.  It rejects any faith based grounding of proper ethical behavior.

Christian Humanist-  Accepts the Divine nature of Jesus, but believes that God gave man the ability and mental discipline to find ultimate truths regarding proper moral behavior.  Scripture is not the source for finding ethical absolutes.  The Gospels may be correct, but must be judged on a case by case basis.

Secular Humanist-  Believes that faith based institutions have no place in deciding public policy or law.  Religion is purely an individual choice, and should not influence the legal system in any way.  A Secular Humanist is not by definition an Atheist.

Deistic Humanist-  Closely resembles the Christian Humanist.  Believes in an ultimate power (God), that is the prime mover in our universe.  However, this power created the laws of nature and set reality in motion, but leaves the concept of morality as something the human mind can comprehend without Divine interference.

Keep in mind these are my definitions.  You are free to disregard or accept them. My main goal is to show that we often use blanket definitions on certain belief systems.  However, some of these systems are not uniform, and vary in how they view the nature of God, Reality, Morality, and the Universe in general. 

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 2. Eternal Vigilance.

In part 1, I quoted Article six of the U.S. Constitution.  I pointed out that this section of the Constitution, along with the First Amendment, are the only two places that religion is referred to in the entire body of the document.   I will now quote from the Bill of Rights, the section that references religion.

First Amendment-  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There you have it.  These two passages make it clear what role religion would play in the development of the new republic, and at no time do they contradict each other.

• Congress would not address the subject of religion in any way.
• There would be no religious test to hold public office.  One need only swear allegiance to the Constitution
• Since religious freedom is considered a right that every American has, it cannot be taken away.  In other words, creating and passing legislation that removes this right is not possible.

For those who claim that the founding fathers had an agenda that would establish Christianity as an essential part of our legal system, and that it is justified within the body of the Constitution, ignore certain details.  None of the following appears within the ratified document;

• God.
• Jesus.
• Christian or Christianity.
• Prayer.
• Bible. 

In fact, the only word that could possibly be a reference to a Supreme Being is the use of the term "Lord".  However, this word is used only once in the following fragment; "...in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...".  This was a common way that dates and times were presented in print, and was not considered to be an expression of faith.

It is amazing that many of todays Lawmakers wish to regulate public policy according to the faiths and beliefs of certain segments of American society.  This completely ignores the obvious intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.  Why would they make it the law of the land to require no religious test to hold public office, and then seek to Legislate by Doctrines found in certain faiths?

(See PT.3 in a future posting.)

Date- 11/11/2013.

Scroll down for future posts.

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 3.

In continuation of this article, I would like to address another Church\State issue that is often used as political rhetoric to smear opponents. 

The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- An expression of loyalty to the Republic and the Flag used to start many public and private meetings in the U.S.  It is most often referred to in the tradition of being recited by school children to start each day.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by FRANCIS BELLAMY, a Baptist Minister.  The following is the original text published by Bellamy;

" I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands,

one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

As you can see, contrary to those who don't bother to check basic U.S. History, there is no reference to religion or faith within the wording.  It is an oath that binds the individual to the responsibility of being a citizen.  This includes recognizing the Flag as the symbol that represents the physical embodiment of the meaning contained within the Pledge.

Yes, I know the current version includes the words "...under God...". However, this version was adopted in 1954 and was the last of four changes that were made in the text since its' inception.

This change insults all Americans, for it implies that one is not truly loyal to the United States, until they repeat an oath that is purely religious in nature.  This flies in the face of the intent contained within the wording of the Constitution.  It is simply a way to circumvent religious freedom that is guaranteed to all citizens.

Date- 12/17/2013.

Fiction- Stories, Myths and Legends. A TALE OF WORSHIP. ( First published on examiner.com, and partially rewritten.)

A long time ago, there lived a King who loved his country.  

The people were, for the most part, very happy. 

However, there was one big problem.  Although the country was united, religion was still a problem.  The King came to realize that to truly unite the citizenry, a single religion must be adopted.  So the King turned to his wisest Adviser and asked what he should do.  The Adviser replied, "Bring in all the most educated, that they will present the best case."

So the King sent for the wisest scholars who would present the best reasons to define God in a way that would unite everyone.  In the end, only three were left, those whose words that the King found the most valid.  The King said " Let us decide now," and turned to the three and said, "Give me a reason to select you, and no other."

In the first case a wizened old man bowed deeply, and said, "It is obvious, the Sun is God.  This orb is the reason we have the most fertility, for when it shines the most, it is when we can plant and harvest the most food.  When the sun shines least, our crops do not grow."

"Ah," the King nodded , "sounds very good, who will dare to disagree."  In that instance the second scholar approached the throne.  "Your highness," he began,  "the Sun is indeed powerful, but it is the Clouds that are truly divine.  Not only can they block sunlight, but they provide us with life giving water to drink.  Our crops need water or they will die."

The King sat and considered this new testimony.  " Very compelling," he said to the second scholar, "perhaps you are correct."

At that moment, the third and final scholar spoke.  "Your highness, they are both wrong.  The earth beneath our feet is truly where we find God.  The soil nurtures the seed that grow our crops and provides us with plants that heal the sick.  Trees from which we build the shelters that protect us from the weather, are provided by the ground in which we walk upon."

The King frowned.  What should he do?  In frustration, he dismissed all but his trusted adviser.  To him he turned and said, "Give me council, what am I to do?"

The adviser thought for a moment and then replied; '' In each case, your majesty, we find a belief that we are are controlled by outside sources.  These sources must be worshiped, or we will be punished.  However, in no case is this true.  We plant crops according to the time of year that in the past has given us the best results.  We do not worry about droughts because we have created reservoirs in case of need.  Our soil is worthless unless we fertilize properly and rotate our crops."

The King was in despair.  "What are the people to believe, how should I rule?"  The adviser looked the King straight in the eye, and with a dignity that is born of confidence replied; "Perhaps they should believe in themselves.  For our ability to use and understand the natural resources around us, to the benefit of all, is where we truly find the hand of the Divine."

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.

In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT ITHINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. 

-  THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.

-  GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYTO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED.DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?  

-  IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.

-  EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?

Date-  4/27/2016.

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO ATTACK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, USING IT AS A WEAPON FOR MANIPULATION.

As the Insults, Derogatory Comments, and Pettiness begin to Increase in Fervor, and We are Assaulted by Rhetoric and Bombastic Speeches that are Good For Media Sound Bites, but little else, one thing is sure: ELECTION DAY IS FAST APPROACHING, AND THE DESPERATION OF MANY FACTIONS BECOMES MORE APPARENT.

However, We begin to see find that THERE IS A NEW TACTIC, THAT SUPERFICIALLY, SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE.  YET, IN SOME CASES IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO SLING VICIOUS AND CRUEL CRITICISMS THAT ARE NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY, AND JUSTIFYING SUCH STATEMENTS BY SAYING THAT ANY CRITICISMS ABOUT SUCH SPEECH...

          

 ... IS JUST ANOTHER CASE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

     GONE WILD.

Why such an ACCUSATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LET THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK IS MYSTIFYING, ESPECIALLY IF THE CRITICISM IS TRUE, AND DOES NOT PORTRAY SUCH SPEECH IN A FALSE LIGHT.

To Be Fair, there are CASES OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO DO EXHIBIT AN EXAGGERATED SENSITIVITY TO SOME INNOCUOUS COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS, BUT EACH CASE MUST BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERITS.  JUST LABELING SOMETHING AS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TO AN IRRATIONAL EXTREME, IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE A FREE PASS LETTING THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK.

Examples can Include;

Any Commentary that Automatically Groups Entire Classes of Individuals in a NEGATIVE LIGHT, BY ASSERTING THAT EACH MEMBER EXHIBITS THE SAME TYPE OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR.

JUDGMENTS OR CONCLUSIONS THAT ASSUMES FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN 

EVIDENCE.

INFLAMMATORY WORDS OR PHRASES BEING USED TO APPEAL TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN PSYCHE.

There are others, but this is a good starting point.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 5.

Since we have seen that claims saying raising the Minimum Wage causes a rise in unemployment to be false, and the positive affects such an increase has in both the public and private sectors is often ignored, what is really at the heart of the opposition?  It may not be what you think.

In fact, it may be a couple of reasons;

-  Raising the Minimum Wage must be done by Government Decree. There are those who OPPOSE ANY GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE ON WAGES, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  This holds true even if you point out how business will benefit, and profits will rise.

( Of course, to them, Government Intervention is good for such things as Tax Breaks, Bail Outs, Tax Free Loans etc.)

Some Billionaires and Multi- Millionaires consider this an acceptable trade- off,

as long as wages are in their control.

- It cuts down on the supply of POVERTY LEVEL LABOR.  Many of those working for the current Minimum Wage, cannot meet the minimal financial levels needed for the basic necessities, ( i.e, Food, Rent, Medical etc.) , even if they work full time. (It is even more of a problem with dependents.)

This often leads to taking a second or third part- time job, which are usually low paying positions similar to their full time employment.  Even when paying low wages, many employers will do just about anything to avoid paying overtime. So this leaves a pool of workers trapped in a cycle of working just to make ends meet.

However, raising the Minimum Wage to levels where poverty isn't the only result, will cut down the need for multiple employers and jobs, and give an opportunity for Individual growth through additional Education and Training.

In other words, a better prepared work force, in terms of the ability to achieve Financial and Professional success.

A SCARY THOUGHT FOR MANY CORPORATIONS.

I would like to end this Article leaving you with the following thought:

NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID PUBLICLY, THERE ARE POLITICIANS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COULD CARE LESS THAT ANY AMERICAN GOES HUNGRY, IS HOMELESS, OR STRUGGLES TO FEED THEIR CHILDREN.  THE SUCCESS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS DRIVING THEM CRAZY, FOR IT BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST THE SELF- CENTERED.

Remember this the next time you hear a Candidate speak.

Date-  10/30/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 3.

Instead of reciting the minimum wage rates of the 50 States in the U.S. as compared to the Federal Minimum, l would like to address a different issue.  Is the decision to raise, maintain or lower the minimum wage an issue of morality for which Government must become involved, and if so, to what degree?

Before we go on, it should be acknowledged that both sides have proponents that push extreme views, apart from mainstream supporters of compromise.

Group #1-  Pay in the private sector should be left entirely to the business owner or operator.  Government has no right or obligation to intervene, that is the free-market system, the foundation of Capitalism.  The Free Market regulates itself.

Group #2-  The Free Market system can only work if there are consumers who are financially capable of purchasing goods and/or services.  By deliberately keeping wages low, the private sector limits the purchasing power of a large part of the population.  This results in less taxes paid, and more reliance on social services to meet basic needs.  Intervention is necessary to prevent the private sector from sabotaging governments ability to provide essential services to both the public and private sectors. 

The heart of the matter is this;  what responsibility does government have, at any level, to those groups or individuals who come under its power to regulate any decisions or policies that may be employed in the market place.  Further, how is that responsibility to be extended to those who are affected by the actions of said groups or individuals.

Basically, it comes down to two competing economic theories, which in the end, are just polar opposites of each other.  All other theories can be found somewhere in the middle, and a solution may be found in adopting the positive aspects of each, and accepting that each has negative qualities to be avoided.

IT IS THE COMPETING CONCEPTS OF A HANDS-ON VS HANDS-OFF ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING BUSINESS PRACTICES.

Look for PT 4.

Date-  8/17/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION- IS IT THE RALLYING CRY OF THE CLOSET BIGOT? PT 2.

As time goes on, I wonder more frequently if people actually take the time to think about certain topics critically, before offering an opinion.

 Naturally, I am not referring to who is going to win the Super Bowl, or which movie should win the Oscar for Best Picture.  I am referencing the current venom being spouted out publicly about immigration into the United States.  So, for once, let us sit back and consider the issue calmly and thoughtfully.

Let us first look at a few myths, currently being spread by rabble rousing hate mongers.

1)  The U.S. Government wants to let everyone in, no questions asked.

      - If you can quote any Politician who has said anything like this, by all means 

        send me an e-mail with proper citations.  To my knowledge,  no such sentiment has 

        ever been expressed, at least by an identifiable and credible public figure.

2)  Closing the Borders is the only solution to safe guard the Territory of the U.S. 

-  This such a silly statement, it defies reason.  The United States has legal points of entry, just like every other country.  Commerce, Tourism and other Visitors have perfectly legitimate and legal reasons to enter the U.S. every day.

For Terrorists to try to enter at these points would be foolish, THEY ARE STAFFED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THERE SPECIFICALLY TO BE WARY OF FOREIGN NATIONALS.  People who have Valid/Legal documentation to be allowed entry should not be penalized by the paranoid.                                           

When most Americans argue about the need to close the borders, what they are probably referring to is strengthening or building up areas that are hot spots for illicit or clandestine entry into the U.S.  We'll get into this issue more in a future post.

END OF PART 2.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS- WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDERSTOOD, AND WHAT MANY AMERICANS FORGET.

 

We have a great division in the U.S., and it is a tragedy of certain groups using religion as a tool to bend every American to their restrictive code of morality.  To often, they listen to populist media outlets and self-serving political pundits, and suspend their ability to think critically.  

In past articles I have reviewed the text of the U.S. Constitution, and analyzed any sections that were related to religion.  As we have seen, this can be found in only two places; Article Six and the First Amendment.

From these passages we can understand the place religious faith was meant to occupy in terms of public policy making and the creation of new laws.  Since that topic has already been covered, I will not repeat it here.  However, I would like to address a subject that is seldom discussed among students of American History: The role European History had in shaping the opinions of those drafting and creating the Constitution, in terms of what role religion would play in forming the new government.

The Framers of the Constitution were a product of the "ENLIGHTENMENT", a philosophical movement that emphasized the use of reason and intellectual reflection in solving social and political conflicts, with less emphasis on faith and traditional church doctrine. 

Too often, European Monarchs used the idea of the "Divine Right of Kings" as a justification for their throne. Throughout the middle ages, the average "Citizen or Subject", lived a life filled with disease, hunger and physical hardship. Religion and the concept of "A Heavenly reward for the righteous" offered a promise that Death would bring what life couldn't:  Eternal Happiness.

It was under these conditions that European Royalty realized an important truth; To secure the Throne, and guarantee succession of their Bloodline, endorsement by a Religious Hierarchy would naturally lead to obedience from the faithful.  After all, who was going to tell GOD that the wrong person was on the throne.

Organized Religion also benefited, for while they claimed to have GOD on their side, there was no Martial Force to protect them from rival faiths who wished to compete for the souls of the citizenry.  However, put the right person on the Throne, and your opponents may suddenly become very quiet.  Cold Steel can be a powerful persuader, if it is pressed to your neck.

The Framers of the Constitution realized the inherent hypocrisy of this "European Tradition", and did not want it transposed to the new Constitutional Republic.  That is why the following words mean so much:  "WE THE PEOPLE...", no reference to a Deity or a Sovereign.  Perhaps, for the first time in history, intellect alone was the foundation for forming a Government.

Religious Faith can be a great source of comfort and relief to the faithful.  However, spiritually, it must come from within.  If it comes from a ruling class, and their ecclesiastical allies, then it is a case of might makes right.  

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- A DANGER ALL AROUND US. PT 8.

While many children at an early age lack boundaries, and seem to enjoy the suffering being caused to other living things, adult guidance from the nuclear family or other positive sources are usually sufficient to overcome the emotional immaturity present in the developing mind. 

However, the potential Sociopath does not or cannot understand the concept of "Empathy", and identifying this becomes very important so that professional intervention can begin at an early age.

Controlling Inappropriate Behavior-  This is a manifestation of the inability and/or desire to conform to expected types of behavior in both public and private social situations.  Again, as with a lack of empathy, the potential Sociopath does not understand why they should control their actions because others tell them that it is wrong or inappropriate. Simply put, they feel they are doing nothing wrong and see no reason to alter their behavior.

Inappropriate Behaviors may include;

• Unwanted and Unsolicited physical contact with others.
• Mannerisms that are not age appropriate.
• Demanding special treatment that no one else can receive.
• Making and losing friendships frequently, without any sense of loss or achievement.
• The desire to punish others they perceive to be a threat, even though this perception is a consequence of their own behavior.
• Treating family activities with contempt, as a complete waste of time.

Remember, it is important that these Behaviors be identified early in life.

If not addressed at a young age, the Sociopath can learn to adapt their behavior 

to what is expected and use it to deceive and exploit others.

( See PT.9 in a future posting.)