As the story goes, God looked down upon his human subjects and was distressed and angered by their sinful ways. As punishment for disobeying his word, God shuttered the gates of Heaven. That meant that no matter how good or virtuous a person lived, when they died they would be barred from entering Heaven. Instead, they would spend the afterlife in a place called Limbo. The evil would still be condemned to Hell, but the good would be denied entrance into Heaven. That hardly seems fair.
At some point God took pity on us poor, weak humans. He decided to send his son, Jesus, down to earth to die for our sins, thus allowing the gates of Heaven to reopen.
It is an interesting story and the cornerstone of Christianity. But let us examine it in greater detail, using our intellectual gifts of reason and logic. This story, like so many bible stories, is rife with implausibility and illogical behavior.
The first implausible aspect is the idea that God would close the gates of Heaven to bar entrance to new souls. Why would He punish the good, the innocent, those who obeyed His commandments? He was upset with the sinful humans, yet all humans were not sinful, so why would He punish the virtuous? What sense does that make?
The second implausibility is the idea of God sending His only begotten son to die for our sins so that Heaven could once again be open. This concept is completely devoid of logic. How does condemning His son to death atone for the sins of humanity? It would be the moral equivalent of having a next door neighbor who is a serial killer. But instead of punishing your neighbor for his crimes, you turn your son over to the authorities so that he will be punished for your neighbor's crimes. Make sense? Of course not, yet that is what the bible would have us believe God did.It is, in fact, a moral abomination.
The third implausibility deals with Jesus and Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples.Since biblical times, one of the worst things a person could be called is a "Judas," a term for someone who betrays a friend. Why Judas? Because the bible tells us Roman authorities were searching for this itinerant preacher named Jesus, and were offering a reward of gold coins for his capture. Judas, being one of his 12 apostles, knew exactly where he was, and informed the Romans in order to obtain the reward. For this act of betrayal, the name of Judas has been vilified for the past 2000 years. But does Judas deserve his shameful reputation?
I would argue that it is totally unjustified. Remember the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to die for our sins so that humans could be forgiven,.What Judas did was to set the wheels in motion. For this he should have been lauded throughout history for helping facilitate the reopening of Heaven. I would suggest that Judas was actually a hero.
Like most bible stories, when the spotlight of logic and reason are shone upon them, they are revealed to be totally devoid of reason, logic and plausibility. And for good reason. These ancient stories were created by ancient minds that lacked our knowledge of science and nature. These writers were part of a culture steeped in superstition and myth as a way of explaining the world around them. The real mystery is why these mystical tales are still regarding as unassailable truths in the 20th century.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH
Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for over a half century, died Friday, November 25, 2016 at the age of ninety.Leaders around the globe responded to his passing. Two of the most egregiously ignorant statements came from President Barack Obama, and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
REASON VS. PURPOSE
Most of us have heard or may have even used the phrase "Everything happens for a reason."
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
INCOME INEQUALITY AND THE FOOLS FIGHTING IT
This is "Elvis Week:" at his Graceland mansion in Memphis, but it isn't only Elvis fans gathering there. Members of Black Lives Matter have demonstrated this week, threatening to shut down the festivities. They are protesting a police shooting of a black man, and they are also protesting income inequality. One can assume they chose Graceland because it represents the millions of dollars earned by Elvis and his estate.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
THE FAILURE OF GUN PROHIBITION
The recent massacre at the Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida has brought out the demand for stricter gun control laws. Such a reaction is expected, but it does not mean it is the proper solution to the problem. Those calling for greater gun controls fall into two camps: One camp is demanding tighter regulations regarding background checks and who should be allowed to purchase weapons. The second camp wants a complete prohibition of all gun sales. Period. Either approach is doomed to failure.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
Friday, May 20, 2016
SPACE ALIENS AND DEMOCRATS
In 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico, the first sightings of flying saucers and space aliens were reported. It must also be noted that the following people were born in 1947:
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
TSA; THE SLOWDOWN AGENCY
Have you traveled by plane recently? The TSA suggests you arrive at the airport 2 hours prior to departure to give you adequate time to go through the airport security check line. But if you were to follow the TSA advice in recent weeks you would have missed your flight. It is now taking 2 to 3 hours to get through the security lines. This past week hundreds of passengers at Ohare Airport missed their flights because of security delays, and dozens of flights were delayed while waiting for passengers to process. Nationwide, some 4500 passengers have missed their flights over the past 2 months because of long check lines.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
THE DENNIS HASTERT PUZZLE
Former Congressman and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--an admitted pedophile--was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison. Some people protested it was way too light of a sentence. I say it was too harsh of a sentence.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
GUARDIAN ANGELS OR BACKSLIDERS?
When I was in the 1st grade at St Mary Magdalene Catholic school in Chicago, our nun told us about guardian angels. She said that at the time of our birth, God assigns each of us our very own angel to watch over us and keep us safe from harm. As a six year old it seemed like a very cool concept. I actually had my very own bodyguard.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Monday, April 25, 2016
IS IT REALLY LOVE?
What is love? We all think we have the answer to that question. After all, haven't most of us loved, as well as being loved.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
PRIMARY DECEPTION
The primary elections have morphed into primary chaos and confusion. Let us count the ways: delegates and super delegates; candidates winning delegates in Colorado without any election, Bernie Sanders winning 7 straight primaries, yet way behind in delegate votes to Hillary Clinton; elections running from January to June. How did it come to this?
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
Monday, March 14, 2016
GETTING TRUMPED
The Democrats and the Left have been attempting to portray Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolph Hitler. Yet it is highly ironic that at the planned rally for Trump at the UIC Pavillion in Chicago, it was the very same Democrats and Leftists who acted like brown-shirted Nazis by creating chaos and disruption aimed at preventing Trump from speaking at the campaign forum. While it is their right to protest and demonstrate, no group or individual has the right to deny another group or individual their right to lawful free speech and freedom of assembly. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to stop them from expressing themselves. It should be noted that many of the protesters were carrying Bernie Sanders signs, which is fitting considering Sanders is an avowed Socialist and an admirer of Marxist regimes, all famous for political repression.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
THE OSCARS IN BLACK AND WHITE
Accusations are flying from all directions accusing the Academy Awards of being racially biased. It borders on the ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of any anti-black bias. The film industry is famous (and infamous) for being uber liberal in its politics. Think Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Leonardo DeCaprio, ad nauseum. You couldn't spit out of you car window driving down Wilshire Boulevard without hitting a left leaning liberal.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
DO LIVES MATTER? OR NOT?
You've seen them on TV, in the papers, online: Black Lives Matter demonstrators marching in the streets, carrying signs, shouting slogans, tying up traffic, blocking business establishments. They have legitimate grievances--white police officers allegedly shooting black citizens without justification. But given the circumstances, a person must ask if these demonstrators are sincerely taking to the streets to end injustice, or simply to push political and social agendas.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)