Is Justice Blind?

Earlier Tonight, I heard the news that the Florida Attorney General had appointed a special prosecutor, who in turn had charged George Zimmerman with Murder in the Second Degree.  According to the news, he turned himself in an hour later to the Seminole County Sheriff's department.  

After listening to the Special Prosecutor's speech, I found myself wondering if he'll get a fair and impartial trial, or if he'll be tried and found guilty in a kangaroo court, watched by bloodthirsty people on TV, overseen by the full might of the so-called Department of Justice, which is run by a man who calls Al Sharpton a brother and partner.

It got me to thinking that in our country, a person is innocent until proven guilty.  He gets a jury of his peers, and gets the best representation he can afford.  But, as I've seen, when the TV cameras get involved, people tend to get judged and found guilty before the case even starts.  

I'll keep watching this, and hope that true Justice will be served.  

Christian Dominism (A thoughtful discussion between friends.)

 This blog posts comes out of a discussion of Christian Domination, as posted by a friend of mine on Facebook.  It has provoked a lot of thought, and since facebook only allows a person to post 8k characters, I thought I'd do it this way and continue the discussion.  

The article cited is written by Chris Hedges on the Christian Left Blog.  The URL can be found at http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/post/2011/10/the-christian-right-and-the-rise-of-american-fascism.html.

Instead of posting the entire article, which I urge you to read, I've taken sections out and attempted to give my thoughts.  I hope it helps.  

 

The Institutes of Biblical Law called for a Christian society that was harsh, unforgiving and violent. Offenses such as adultery, witchcraft, blasphemy and homosexuality, merited the death penalty.

In my opinion, these aren't crimes. Freedom of Religion gives each person the right to worship, or not, as he sees fit. By seeing these as crimes, does this dismiss the more violent crimes, like rape, murder, and beatings?

the standard textbook used in many Christian schools and a staple of the Christian home schooling movement. It sites Genesis 26, which calls for mankind to “ .have dominnion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” as evidence that the Bible callls for “Bible believing Christians” to take dominion of America.

A more accurate translation would be "Have Stewardship over the fish of the seas, etc." It doesn't mean that we get to take complete control, it just means that we have to take care of the world we live in.

Christ himself said that we are to live according to the laws of the land we reside in, but to be answerable to God. He said that we were to love our neighbors as ourselves, help the orphans and widows and see to our families. He said, "Render to ceaser what is Ceasers, and to God what is Gods."

So let's be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government.

This is truly scary, because the First Amendment calls for a freedom of Religion. If we become as bad as Iran or Islam in General, then we are no better than they are. There needs to be religious neutrality, neutrality in law and neutrality in civil government. This is because Unless we are allowed to grow as a species, then we will devolve into 7th century thinking.

Don't flaunt your Christianity.

Really? The savior himself said not to hide your light under a basket. If people don't know you are christian, then they won't know God.
You don't really flaunt your Chrisianity, you let the light of the creator shine through your every day actions.

The cult of masculinity pervades the ideology. Feminism and homosexuality are social forces, believers are told, that have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent.

In a way, I can almost agree with this: I have watched young men turned into whimpering and simpering babies that are afraid to talk to a women, lest they be attacked and called neanderthals. I have seen it be made a crime to look at a beautiful woman, and I've seen feminists attack another woman, who just wants to stay at home. I've watched some women go from being creatures of beauty to being creatures of hate and destruction, and TV shows that as an image of what's right. I've seen women go from being decent to being sluts. However, that's only a function of what society shows should be acceptable.

The loss of manufacturing jobs, lack of affordable health care, negligible opportunities for education and poor job security has left many millions of Americans locked out. This ideology is attractive because it offers them the hope of power and revenge.

I posted an article the other day about how manufacturing jobs are in demand, but people don't want them. If you are focused on revenge, then you aren't focused on the things of God. The creator isn't about revenge, he's about life, liberty, and happiness, and the relationship between created and creator.

The book is a xenophobic rant that includes vicious attacks against the United Nations and numerous other international organizations

In a way, this mirrors my thoughts on the United Nations. What started out as an organization to help foster peace in the world, has turned into, (At least in my eyes,) an anti- Israel, anti American, Anti-Freedom organization. The committees set up to promote freedom of women, of children, and religion, are chaired by Islamic fanatics that suppress women, children, and religion in their own countries.

Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, instability in Israel and even the fighting of Iraq are seen as signposts.

But then, they always have been seen as signs and symbols. However, the creator said, “Nobody will know the time or date of when I will return.”

The movement seeks the imprint of law and science. It must discredit the rational disciplines that are the pillars of the Enlightenment to abolish the liberal polity of the Enlightenment. This corruption of science and law is vital in promoting the doctrine.

This is frightening, because this is not unlike Islamic thought, in which anything that's not of god is suspect. As a lover of science, I believe in evolution of the species. Mankind has been evolving since Homo Habiblis created tools, and that evolution continues as we work to unlock the genetic structure and restore longevity to the human race. Science has brought us communication, flight, and better ways to defend ourselves, as well as better living conditions.

The ban on same sex marriages, passed by eleven states in the election, was part of this march towards our door. A 1996 federal law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. All of the states with ballot measures, with the exception of Oregon , had outlawed same sex marriages, as do 27 other states. The bans, however, had to be passed, believers were told, to thwart “activist judges” who wanted to overturn them.

I can understand this march to make laws that protect the family. I have watched as people in California have voted by over 70% to protect Marriage, only to have activist judges overturn the will of the people. I have to admit that the extreme powers that judges have is frightening, since at a whim, they can undo what the people want done.

This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote “positive” Christian values, the federal government is gutted,

In my opinion, this could be very destructive to our country, and would overturn the Constitution. However, I can see certain parts of this as being truth. Abortion should be considered murder, since it ends a life. I tend to think that if our schools were fair in teaching some Christian Values, there wouldn't be any bullying, and kids wouldn't be bringing guns to school out of fear.

Who would be defining those values?  What translation would you use?  What would happen if one of the chosen leaders fell from grace?  These are questions that really should be asked, since nobody is perfect.
 

As for gutting the Federal Government, I personally believe it could use a lot of trimming down. The Federal government is spending more money than they take in, and seem to be working to keep people enslaved to those in power.

Let me end this by posing a question: “Is Christian Domination fascist?” Yes, it is, and it is in direct contradiction to the will of the creator, that we should love each other, help the poor and widows, and take care of the orphans.

I believe each person should do these things out of personal responsibility, and not because Government forces us to at the threat of the IRS.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: A Happy Man

Again, it is perhaps absurd to make our happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others.  Of course the happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude therefore, that the happy man does need friends.

This includes both Material goods as well as social goods.  After all, which man would want to be all alone, sharing nothing with society, or at least family and friends?

I recently stayed at home, while my wife, sister-in-law, and foster-son went to visit my parents for the day.  By the end of the day, I was pacing like a caged animal, and wondering what time they'd be coming home.  It's the small things such as people in the house that make a man happy.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Friendship

Some will say that they who are blessed and independent have no need of friends, for they already hall that is good, and so, as being independent, want nothing further.  Whereas, the notion of a friend's office is to be as it were a second self and procure for a man that he cannot get by himself.

It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends.  This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship.  There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: On Payments

They are certainly fairly found fault who take the money in advance and then do nothing of what they said they woud do, their promises having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform what they agreed, The sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge.  These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what they have already taken money for doing.

This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver.  And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Honor and Property

This is plainly the principle acted upon in political communities: he receives no honor who gives no good to the common stock: for the property of the public is given to him who does good to the public, and honour is the property of the public; it is not possible both to make money out of the public and receive honour likewise; because no on will put up with the less in every respect: so to him who suffers loss as regards money, they award honour, but money to him who can be paid by gifts since as has been stated before, the observing due proportion equalises and preserves friendships.

The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution.  However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you.  Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Friendships

Quarrels arise also in those friendships in which the parties are unequal because each party thinks himself entitled to the greater share, and of course, when this happens, the friendship is broken u.  The man who is better thinks that having the greater share pertains to him of right, for that more is always awarded to the good man: and similarly the man who is more profitable to another than that other to him: "One who is useless," they say, "ought not to share equally,for it comes to a tax, and not a friendship, unless the fruits of the friendship are reaped in proportion the works done."  Their notion being, that s in money, partnership they who contribute more receive more so should it be in friendship likewise.  On the other hand, the needy man and the less virtuous advance the opposite claim.  They urge that "it is the very business of a good friend to help those who are in need, else what is the use of having a good for powerful friend if one is not to reap  the advantage at all?"

Unfortunately, the government seems to think in the same way, except that they take by force, (Taxes, seizures, outright theft,) rather than let the people give what they want to who they want.  Then the government keeps 75 percent of the take for administrative fees.

 

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Family Life

Between Husband and Wife the relation takes the form of aristocracy, because he rules by right and in such points only the husband should, and give to the wife all that befits her to have.

That's right, I try to give my wife everything she needs.  However, I don't always give her what she wants.  But then, I don't always get what I want either.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities and Friendships

Furthermore, friendship seems to be the bond of social communities and legislators seem to be more anxious to secure it than justice even.

If the Aforementioned are how communities are supposed to form, then todays legislators, in an effort to stay employed  have set us one against the other.  This has the effect of making us strangers to one another, where we are strangers, we don't watch out for each other.

I see it every day in our communities where children form gangs and go to war with each other, and where the law enforcement officers don't have the equipment to protect themselves, and the magistrates and city officials mudsling at each other.

This isn't how communities are supposed to work, we are all to be neighbors and help each other when needed.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities

Again, it seems to be implanted in us by Nature: As, for instance, in the parent towards the offspring and the offspring, towards the parent, and in those of the same tribe towards one another, and specially men of the same nation; for which reason we commend those men who love their fellows: and one may see in the course of travel how close of kin and how friendly man is to man.

This is seems, is how communities and countries were supposed to be.  Where man take care of his neighbors voluntarily, there are communities.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Practical Wisdom in Politics

Again, that is thought to be practical wisdom in the most proper sense which has for its object the interest of the individual: and this usually appropriates the common name: the others are called respectively Domestic Management, Legislation, Executive Government divided into two branches, Deliberative and Judicial.  Now, of course, knowledge for one's self is one kind of knowledge, but it admits of many shades of difference: and it is a common notion that the man who knows and busies himself about his own concerns merely is the man of practical wisdom, while they who extend their solicitude to society at large are considered meddlesome.

I am guessing that in Aristotle's time, these people used to be chosen because of their wisdom, however, today our legislators have knowledge of management, and get chosen only because they are either the lesser of two evils, or because they trick a dumb downed populace to vote for them.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Government, Masters, Workmen

Of practical wisdom exerted upon a community that which I would call the Supreme is the faculty of Legislation; the subordinate, which is concerned with the details, generally has the common name politics, and its functions are action and deliberation (for the particular enactment is a matter of action, being the ultimate issue of this branch of practical wisdom, and therefore people commonly say, that these men alone are really engaged in government, because they alone act, filling the same place relatively to legislators, that workmen do to a master.)

It should be noted that the "Master" that Aristotle speaks of, is the body of people that chose them to serve.  From people who served with the greatest with the greatest of intentions, we have devolved to self serving idiots that care only about money and being re-elected.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Domestic Management and Government

For this reason we think Pericles and men of that stamp to be practically wise, because they can see what is good for themselves and for men in general, and we also think those to be such who are skilled in domestic management or civil government.

 For the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that we seem to have gone from skilled domestic management or skilled civil government to people who have no skills in either branch.  Because if this were true, we wouldn't have budget shortfalls, and individual states wouldn't need to depend upon the federal government for anything. 
Since our so-called domestic managers have actually never worked in any other field than politics, they've never had to manage their money, or worry about a paycheck.  If they had, they'd know how to balance a budget, and/or cut programs that don't and have never worked.

Maybe what we need are people who've actually worked for a living, to be our representatives, and we should make them live in the area where they are elected, and not in DC.  That might do some good.

On #Aristotle's Ethicas: Democrats, Liberals, etc

The Necessity of this equality of ratios is shown by the common phrase "according to rate," for all agree that the just in distributions ought to be according to some rate: but what that rate is to be, all do not agree; the democrats are for freedom, the oligarchs for wealth, other for nobleness of birth, and the aristocratic party for virtue.


It's amazing what time has changed.  Aristocrats have grown selfish, the democrats no longer hold to freedom or self determination, all the parties want to hold on to power by enslaving the people they represent.
If you stop to think about it, when the government pays someone not to work, they are enslaving that person for their vote.  If that person doesn't vote for them, they don't get paid. 
It's been said that when the people who live off of the government can vote, they will always vote to rob the treasury.  Honestly, when was the last time that you heard a welfare recipient say, "I don't need a raise," and when was the last time you heard a democrat say, "We don't need to raise taxes," or, "Since we are in a recession, I don't need a raise in my salary."

It's only when a man stands on his own two feet and works hard for his money, that he realizes that the government take more than it needs to take, and for stupid reasons.

#Aristotle's Ethicas: Liberalism

     Yet, he will not give to improper people, nor at wrong times, and so on: because he would not then be acting  in accordance with Liberality, and if he spent upon such objects, would have nothing to spend on those on which he ought: for, as I have said before, he is Liberal who spends in proportion to his means, and on proper objects, while he does so in excess is prodigal (This is the reason why we never call despots prodigal, because it does not seem to be easy for them by their gifts and expenditure to go beyond their immense possessions).
     To sum up then.  Since liberality is a mean state in respect of the giving and receiving of wealth, the liberal man will give and spend on proper objects, and in proper proportion, in great things and in small alike, and all this with pleasure to himself; also he will receive from right sources, and in right proportion: because, as the virtue is a mean state in both respect  of both, he will do both as he ought, and, in fact, upon proper giving follows the correspondent receiving, while that which is not such is contrary to it.

It's a bit long winded, but my take is that Aristotle considered such men, being liberals, as those who should be wise enough, and noble enough, to take only what they need from good sources, and give to other people as they need.
Unfortunately, this has been turned 180 degrees, and the liberal has become a person who wants to steal from other people, from the fruits of their labor, in order to give to people who don't contribute.
Personally, I feel that since our governments, both state and federal, wish to spend beyond their means, Aristotle would considered these governments tyrants.

Musings on #Aristotle's Ethicas.

Now, liberality is a term of relation to a man's means, for the liberal-ness depends not on the amount of what is given but on the moral state of the giver which gives in proportion to his means.  There is then no reason why he should not be the more liberal man who gives the less amount, if the has less to give out of.
Again, they are thought to be more liberal who have inherited, no acquired for themselves, their means; because in the first place, they have never experienced want, and next, all people love most their own works, just as parents do and poets.
It is not easy for the Liberal man to be rich, since he is neither apt to receive nor to keep, but to lavish, and values not wealth for its own sake but with a view of giving it away.  Hence it is commonly charged upon fortune that they who most deserve to be rich are least so.

Let me preface this by saying that I started reading Aristotle's Ethicas a month ago, and I've found it very interesting.  Aristotle was a philosopher that believed that before a man could serve his country, he had to know how to interact with other people, and interact the right way.

I know that everyone will get something different from the passages, but what I got out of this was:
For some reason, the Definition of Liberal has changed since Aristotle's time.  Now  a liberal wants to redistribute wealth, even going so far as to steal it from other people, rather than give from his own wallet.  If he can't bully people into giving freely, he'll steal it by using the government to do it.

Immigration Reforms...yeah right.

Earlier this week, President Obama was in El Paso, Texas, where he was stumping for re-election, and trying to illegal immigration as his campaign speech.

From what I heard, he kept saying that the immigration system needs to be reformed, and that we should allow more immigrants in our country, despite the fact that most illegal immigrants work for cash and don't pay taxes.  Not to mention that they are a drag on the system by getting on welfare, and medicare and medicade and just plain don't care.

Once again, President Obama has proven himself not to be a part of reality.  He thinks that bringing in more new people, that they'll work honestly, and will pay taxes.  This isn't true, it never has been, never will be.  If it were, then they wouldn't run anytime a cop came around or someone screamed INS.

Between you, me, and the rest of the country.  At this time in history, we don't illegal immigrants coming in and trying to take jobs, while citizens are out of work.  But that's just me talking.

Maybe the sysem needs to be reformed

There comes a time in each person's life, when they wake up and realize that a strong federal and state government, along with it's supporting/leaching agencies, are sapping individual freedoms and destroying families.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of a system that looks out for children, but when that system starts abusing it's power, then that system needs to be reformed.

An agency which purports to think about children and their wellbeing, but doesn't actually talk to the children, and show them some comfort, needs to be rethought, reimagined, and given some humanity.  I think that people that work for said agency should be parents, and should have at least have raised one child.  I would think that having raised a child would make it easier to think like a parent, and a parent could easily spot things which would stand out from the ordinary, take for instance, druggie parents that feed their kids only junk food, or leave needles laying around, or kids that are always wearing long pants and shirts, to hide bruises.

Maybe said system should be based out of the church, and not the state, because when you don't think like christ, then you don't really see evil anywhere, and everything becomes subjective.  Maybe I'm rambling, but then maybe I have a right to, either read this, or not, I don't care.

The Mississippi River is rising again, Is this a surprise?

It's late spring, early summer, and as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise," the Mississippi is rising again. Is this really a surprise?  It seems like every year about this time, Tennessee and Mississippi get flooded.  And as usual, the news crews rush down there, bemoaning the fact that people are displaced and their homes are flooded.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel sorry for people who are displaced, but come on, when will people realize that living near a big fast moving river has dangers, and that they should move back away from the water?  I'm sure that FEMA will declare it a disaster area, and federal funds will pour in.

Contrast this to the wildfires in Texas, which were a genuine disaster that couldn't be prevented.  FEMA and the White House have already said that Texas is SOL (Shit out of luck,) and there won't be Federal funds for those who lost homes to something nobody could possibly control, much less predict.

It just goes to show that Obama is a tyrant and won't lift a finger to help people who didn't vote for him, or might be TEA Party Members, or even libertarians.  You'll have to forgive me if I'm confused, but isn't a President supposed to work for everybody, not just those who voted for him?  Should he represent all American's?

Is it any wonder that half the country wants him gone, hopefully back to Kenya, where he has a passport.
Because god knows, he doesn't use an American Passport when he travels.

Obama's way to kill the economy, and steal yet more money from our pockets

The draft of the transportation proposal, which reportedly has been circulated within the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, would create a $300 million office within the Federal Highway Administration to be called the “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office.”

If anything shows how out of touch this administration is, it is this.  Why would anyone who's trying to find a way to stay within budget, create a 300 million dollar office?


Common sense would say that this is a bad idea and that any one who wants to be re-elected, should run screaming as far away from this, as possible.  But, our favorite teleprompter in chief, who by the way, doesn't have any kind of degree in economics, or even in common sense, would rather move our country even closer to Orwell's Big Brother world.


I will tell you this, I will not allow anyone to put anything on my car that broadcasts my location or travel plans to anyone, period.  This would be a violation of my right to privacy, and another stupid tax would go even further in breaking my bottom line.


Listen up and listen good, Big Brother Obama, We don't want this change you want to bring, and we don't see any hope at all for this country with you in charge.  Maybe you should just write your memiors and go join Carter in retirement.