Some of my younger readers may not remember when Reagan became president. Well, the Iranians had been holding people from our embassy hostage in Iran for months and just before Reagan was sworn in, they let them all go. It later turned out that we had been supplying the Iranians with parts for their military and weapons in exchange for letting the prisoners go. At least that was what the papers at the time claimed. What we found out later was even more disturbing.
YouTube - The Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis -Bill Moyers (PBS 1987).
YouTube - THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY - MUST WATCH
YouTube - CIA Drug Ops Conspiracy : (Unaired Documentary)
YouTube - The Mena Connection: Bush, Clinton, and CIA Drug Smuggling (1995) Full Length
YouTube - 12-24-92 Nightline on Bush Iran Contra Pardons
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Your Presidential Candidates and Their Official Websites
This is my good deed for the day, I am providing links to all the Presidential candidates so you can easily see what their position is on different issues.
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Bernie Sanders - https://berniesanders.com/issues/
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Bernie Sanders - https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Martin O'Malley - https://martinomalley.com/category/policy/
The Republicans
Donald Trump - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Ben Carson - https://www.bencarson.com/issues
Marco Rubio - https://marcorubio.com/issues/
Ted Cruz - https://www.tedcruz.org/records/
Carly Fiorina - https://www.carlyforpresident.com/answers/
Lindsey Graham - http://www.lindseygraham.com/campaign-issues/
Rand Paul - https://www.randpaul.com/issues
Rick Santorum - http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues
George Pataki - http://www.georgepataki.com/meet-george/
John Kasich - https://johnkasich.com/issues/
Bobby Jindal - https://www.bobbyjindal.com/issues/
Mike Huckabee - http://www.mikehuckabee.com/issues
Chris Christie - https://www.chrischristie.com/issues
Jeb Bush - https://jeb2016.com/?lang=en
Jim Gilmore - http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues/
The Pilgirms, Thanksgiving and Propaganda
I think Thanksgiving is the best holiday in many ways. It is about family, food and sharing sports or entertainment. Those are all good things. The formal national holiday didn't begin until 1941; but, Washington did propose the first day of Thanksgiving, he just didn't say anything about having it every year or being a national holiday. See history sort of glosses over the truth of a lot of things. It should also be noted that the Indians were not invited by the Pilgrims, they sort of crashed the party and then brought more food. I don't think any of this matters, I am more concerned about how we are misled about history and how things that are not true are used to manipulate our philosophies. I still really like Thanksgiving.
Some things we believe about this country are just nonsense with a twisted version of history used to back it up. Lets start with this nation being founded on religious freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The pilgrims did not come to the United States to create a nation or religious freedom, they came to avoid English control over them. They provided no such freedom to their own members.
The Pilgrims were also not the first American colony. The Pilgrims did not arrive until 1620 and Jamestown began in 1607. Beyond that, Santa Fe was founded in 1610 by the Spaniards who by the way are also European. And just to be clear, the Spaniards landed in San Diego, California in 1542. The Spaniards took over Mexico City in 1521 and that too is in North America. Here is an interesting fact, Santa Fe is the oldest capital city in the United States.
Now as far as believing in political freedom and capitalism, not so much. In fact the Pilgrims worked as in a commune and the Mayflower compact established that contract. Another thing that is untrue is that the right to possess weapons like guns was originally written in the constitution, it was not, it wasn't added until 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. You should also know that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed alcoholic beverages and wasn't repealed till 1933 with the 23rd Amendment. Here is a question, IF you believe that you have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, do you also understand that it can be completely eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment? I want you to seriously think about that.
Lets talk about that for a minute. Lets be truthful about history. A lot of people will talk about how guns are a right and about the old west. You know what, many towns made it illegal to bring guns into them same as some counties still make it illegal to sell alcohol in them. I recently wrote about gun laws and stated for the record that I thought people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and hunt. Having said that, times are getting interesting and if the NRA pushes for people to be allowed to own any weapons they want, you risk having the majority of people in this country eliminate any right to own a gun without government permission. Think about this, many cities across this nation used to outlaw owning a switchblade and that is just a weapon too.
Nifty slogans and propaganda are all fun for ignoring the bigger issues. I had a class in college once (I think it was one of the ones where I was helping grade papers as it was primarily filled with non-political science majors). The Professor who was one of the few conservatives and a friend made the statement that liberals were inconsistent because they were against the death penalty and for abortion. At the time I was probably more conservative than liberal and I had voted for Reagan. I responded that conservatives were equally inconsistent as they were for the death penalty and against abortion, I said the only difference was whether you wanted to kill the guilty or the innocent. It is a cute comment and the Professor was stunned for a moment and then stated that the comments, by both of us, did not seriously address the issue. I agreed and we proceeded to have a more in depth discussion of the real issues. The truth is never totally encompassed in cute news bites and you shouldn't think in them.
The first words of the Constitution are known as the preamble and say, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Whereas the Declaration of Independence, the rights we fought for said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe that your right to own a gun is found in these words then tell me why smoking Marijuana, snorting Cocaine, Gambling and Prostitution are not included under the pursuit of happiness or the blessings of liberty? I am neither vilifying or promoting and of these things, it is a simple question and if you base your beliefs on the Constitution then you should support what they imply, right? Okay, now what if the people outlawed all guns in private hands by making a Constitutional amendment, would you follow it and turn your guns in? Which is really more important, guns or the Constitution? Don't like that question then answer this one. If you wouldn't give up your gun if the Constitution was amended, then why do you support putting people in jail for drug sales and possession? You might tell me that Libertarians would allow these things; but, Libertarians do not believe in the totality of the Constitution. They believe that all laws should come from the states, or at least that is what they claim. Heck, following their philosophy, they would have supported the Confederates in the civil war and some today promote either a new civil war or leaving the United States. Read what these whack jobs really believe.
Here is the point, never push things to ludicrous ends or you lose. Also don't take slogans seriously, take well thought out positions on things or you are controlled by mindless propaganda. It is claimed that in 2014, 52% of Americans believed that people had a right to own guns. It should be noted that in 2014 42% of Americans were opposed to same sex marriage. Oddly enough, the vast majority of them believed they had the right to own a gun. If you don't believe the government should be able to stop you from owning a gun, why would you believe the government should control who you marry or have sex with?
Have a great Thanksgiving. I plan on enjoying turkey (which we don't really know if the Pilgrims ate), pumpkin pie (which the Pilgrims probably did not have as they did not have a lot of sugar) and watching a movie or two.
Some things we believe about this country are just nonsense with a twisted version of history used to back it up. Lets start with this nation being founded on religious freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The pilgrims did not come to the United States to create a nation or religious freedom, they came to avoid English control over them. They provided no such freedom to their own members.
The Pilgrims were also not the first American colony. The Pilgrims did not arrive until 1620 and Jamestown began in 1607. Beyond that, Santa Fe was founded in 1610 by the Spaniards who by the way are also European. And just to be clear, the Spaniards landed in San Diego, California in 1542. The Spaniards took over Mexico City in 1521 and that too is in North America. Here is an interesting fact, Santa Fe is the oldest capital city in the United States.
Now as far as believing in political freedom and capitalism, not so much. In fact the Pilgrims worked as in a commune and the Mayflower compact established that contract. Another thing that is untrue is that the right to possess weapons like guns was originally written in the constitution, it was not, it wasn't added until 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. You should also know that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed alcoholic beverages and wasn't repealed till 1933 with the 23rd Amendment. Here is a question, IF you believe that you have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, do you also understand that it can be completely eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment? I want you to seriously think about that.
Lets talk about that for a minute. Lets be truthful about history. A lot of people will talk about how guns are a right and about the old west. You know what, many towns made it illegal to bring guns into them same as some counties still make it illegal to sell alcohol in them. I recently wrote about gun laws and stated for the record that I thought people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and hunt. Having said that, times are getting interesting and if the NRA pushes for people to be allowed to own any weapons they want, you risk having the majority of people in this country eliminate any right to own a gun without government permission. Think about this, many cities across this nation used to outlaw owning a switchblade and that is just a weapon too.
Nifty slogans and propaganda are all fun for ignoring the bigger issues. I had a class in college once (I think it was one of the ones where I was helping grade papers as it was primarily filled with non-political science majors). The Professor who was one of the few conservatives and a friend made the statement that liberals were inconsistent because they were against the death penalty and for abortion. At the time I was probably more conservative than liberal and I had voted for Reagan. I responded that conservatives were equally inconsistent as they were for the death penalty and against abortion, I said the only difference was whether you wanted to kill the guilty or the innocent. It is a cute comment and the Professor was stunned for a moment and then stated that the comments, by both of us, did not seriously address the issue. I agreed and we proceeded to have a more in depth discussion of the real issues. The truth is never totally encompassed in cute news bites and you shouldn't think in them.
The first words of the Constitution are known as the preamble and say, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Whereas the Declaration of Independence, the rights we fought for said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe that your right to own a gun is found in these words then tell me why smoking Marijuana, snorting Cocaine, Gambling and Prostitution are not included under the pursuit of happiness or the blessings of liberty? I am neither vilifying or promoting and of these things, it is a simple question and if you base your beliefs on the Constitution then you should support what they imply, right? Okay, now what if the people outlawed all guns in private hands by making a Constitutional amendment, would you follow it and turn your guns in? Which is really more important, guns or the Constitution? Don't like that question then answer this one. If you wouldn't give up your gun if the Constitution was amended, then why do you support putting people in jail for drug sales and possession? You might tell me that Libertarians would allow these things; but, Libertarians do not believe in the totality of the Constitution. They believe that all laws should come from the states, or at least that is what they claim. Heck, following their philosophy, they would have supported the Confederates in the civil war and some today promote either a new civil war or leaving the United States. Read what these whack jobs really believe.
Here is the point, never push things to ludicrous ends or you lose. Also don't take slogans seriously, take well thought out positions on things or you are controlled by mindless propaganda. It is claimed that in 2014, 52% of Americans believed that people had a right to own guns. It should be noted that in 2014 42% of Americans were opposed to same sex marriage. Oddly enough, the vast majority of them believed they had the right to own a gun. If you don't believe the government should be able to stop you from owning a gun, why would you believe the government should control who you marry or have sex with?
Have a great Thanksgiving. I plan on enjoying turkey (which we don't really know if the Pilgrims ate), pumpkin pie (which the Pilgrims probably did not have as they did not have a lot of sugar) and watching a movie or two.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The confusing difference between philosophy and science.
Do you know the difference between philosophy and science? Philosophy starts from know fact and science starts from guesses. You don't want to believe that but it is true. Can you truly be sure of the distance between stars or is it an estimate? Explain to me why mass has more gravity than all of our math and science believes it should. Explain to me the difference between observation and experience, it is why time is not relative, only observationally so.
Let us play a game. If I observe a sun explode today and know that it took the light a billion years to reach me (my observation) then the star exploded billion years ago. Time (observational) here and there proceeded at the same speed as always, it just appeared to be at different times based on where the observer was. Time does not actually speed up or slow down anymore than light does, it is just observed at a different time. Time, by common usage, is an observational experience. This discussion is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy grapples with what we can prove to ourselves and science is based on observations of things that we cannot prove. Science is based upon the belief that you cannot KNOW a thing. Philosophy is based upon the fact that I can know I am. When you start denying that you exist, you can make up any lie that you feel comfortable with.
Now to the absolute best science seminar I have ever seen. I like science, I just think it has a problem with consciousness and that is foolishness.
YouTube - Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe.
Let us play a game. If I observe a sun explode today and know that it took the light a billion years to reach me (my observation) then the star exploded billion years ago. Time (observational) here and there proceeded at the same speed as always, it just appeared to be at different times based on where the observer was. Time does not actually speed up or slow down anymore than light does, it is just observed at a different time. Time, by common usage, is an observational experience. This discussion is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy grapples with what we can prove to ourselves and science is based on observations of things that we cannot prove. Science is based upon the belief that you cannot KNOW a thing. Philosophy is based upon the fact that I can know I am. When you start denying that you exist, you can make up any lie that you feel comfortable with.
Now to the absolute best science seminar I have ever seen. I like science, I just think it has a problem with consciousness and that is foolishness.
YouTube - Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Lights and Lies
Earlier today I watched a report on how for this week planes going into LAX after midnight would have to enter from the east over communities rather than from the west over the ocean. The claim was that the military would be conducting tests over the ocean; but, the reason was not given. Fair enough, strange and unusual; but, okay. The military would not say what the purpose of the tests were. People living in the cities where the planes would be diverted seemed to accept it well enough.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Funny Songs For You
YouTube - Cows With Guns
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
Are Kings Better Than Dictators?
I was watching a series of videos about the Spanish Civil War and found it interesting that the Spanish dictator that came out of that war was originally a monarchist. That got me thinking about how the western nations refer to bad people as dictators. A dictator is someone who took control of a country by force and doesn't let people decide on who is in charge. I then thought how hypocritical it is of politicians in Great Britain to speak about dictators in a negative while accepting a monarchy.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)