Hello Kitty

What if we could agree that mentally ill people should not be allowed to own a firearm?  I have to first wonder, can they own & operate an automobile?  Why is the ownership of portable means of inflicting death or injury something to prohibit but several tons of comparable potential is allowed?  But for the purpose of discussion, say I will agree to such restrictions.  Now lets look at the devil.  (The devil is in the details)

What is “mental illness”?  As I have observed life, it seems everyone has some issues.  Is fear of spiders or darkness grounds for baring gun ownership for life?  Or is it only if they have ever been treated for a mental issue?  I think many rape victims are urged to see a consoler.  Are they now not to be allowed the means to defend themselves for the rest of their life?

The reality is, we are all crazy to some degree.  It’s also widely known and accepted.  Seal, for one, has had millions sing about being “crazy” and it being part of surviving!

“Crazy”

But we’re never gonna survive unless
We get a little crazy
No we’re never gonna survive unless
We are a little
Crazy
No no we’ll never survive unless we get a little bit
A man decides to go along after seventy years
Oh darling
In a sky full of people only some want to fly
Isn’t that crazy
In a world full of people only some want to fly
Isn’t that crazy
Crazy
In a heaven of people there’s only some want to fly
Ain’t that

crazy

The song is a little dated today.  At least to me, it’s not so craze to not want to fly since you have to put up with the TSA mandated groping first..  Crazy is an acceptable part of our society.  What does dancing do?  Does it contribute to society?  Music?  Humor?  Betty White has a funny show, “Of their Rockers” where elderly actors prank the public, insanely crazy!  I’m thinking we might want to amend our position to violent crazy people.  Remember the Bill of Rights?  It tries very hard to lay down the minimum restrictions on government.  The clear intent is to protect the rights of individuals from the power of government.  Somewhere in there, we started using a phrase, “innocent until proven guilty”.  That should put a very high bar before the government before they can restrict an individuals constitutional right to a firearm.  But I expect different results in reality.  When I filed for divorce from my first wife, the judge issued a restraining order.  I was told it was done “automatically” due to many cases where there were violent words, threats or actions by one or both parties involved.  This included restricting my firearm rights.  I was guilty and now a “crazy, violent” person for seeking to legally divorce my spouse.

So how would the mentally ill fare under this system of “justice”?  I have seen many stories about how the US over-medicated it’s schoolchildren.  It hits close to home because one of my children has a learning disability.  He has been diagnosed with attention deficit, but does not suffer the normal hyperactivity that usually goes with it.  Should mean something, but he gets lumped as ADHD and the last “D” is the important one, DISORDER!  He has taken Ritalin to treat his chronic  problem with paying attention in class.  With all the hype on “mental disorders”, am I wrong to think the future might be tending toward an America where he would be found guilty without ever having been tried in court?  And I would not want to bet on the justice system that stripped me of my rights for filing for divorce being “fair” to a mentally ill plaintive.  But maybe I’m spending too much time on what might happen…So how about a look at what has just happened instead?

Five year old girl suspended from school for making ‘terrorist threat’

Rick Moran

Her “terrorist threat” consisted of suggesting that she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles. Her weapon? A “Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower.”

No, this is not an Onion story.

ABC News:

The kindergartner, who attends Mount Carmel Area Elementary School in Pennsylvania, caught administrators’ attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.

“I think people know how harmless a bubble is. It doesn’t hurt,” said Robin Ficker, an attorney for the girl’s family. According to Ficker, the girl, whose identity has not been released, didn’t even have the bubble gun toy with her at school.

The kindergartner was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during her 10-day suspension, which was later reduced to two days.  The evaluation deemed the girl normal and not a threat to others, Ficker said.

The girl’s family is considering a lawsuit against the school to get the blemish – all because of bubbles – off their daughter’s record.

“The mother has tried to get the girl in another school since this time, and they won’t take the little girl because of this mark on her record,” Ficker said.

The suspension comes one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which has created a heightened sense of alert at schools across the country.

The Mount Carmel Area School District told ABC News, “We are confident that much of the information supplied to the media may not be consistent with the facts… The Mount Carmel Area School District takes the well-being and safety of students and staff very seriously.”

No, they don’t take “the well-being and safety of students and staff very seriously.” In fact, they don’t have the intelligence to take anything very seriously. They have traumatized a 5 year old little girl, forced her to see a psychologist, and then have the gall to tell us we don’t have the facts? The only “fact” that’s relevant is that these morons believed a 5 year old was a threat to do anything except perhaps wet their pants.

We can blame the hysteria generated by gun control advocates for this, but really, this is on the school and their beyond-hyper response to bubble gun terrorism.(1)

Have we, as a society, just destroyed an innocent little girls life?  Anyone want to say “isolated incident”?

A Philadelphia elementary school student was scolded and searched by administrators in front of her entire class after she pulled out a paper gun in class last week, according to her mother.

Melody Valentin’s mother, Dianna Kelly, tells Fox 29 that school officials went too far when they reportedly punished her daughter for pulling out the gun, which she says looks like a folded sheet of paper.

Fox 29 reports that one of the fifth grader’s classmates reportedly saw the paper gun and notified administrators as she was going to throw it away.

“He yelled at me and said I shouldn’t have brought the gun to school and I kept telling him it was a paper gun but he wouldn’t listen,” Melody tells Fox 29.

Kelly says school staff searched her daughter while other students watched.

The gun was made by Melody’s grandfather, according to Kelly, who says her daughter has suffered nightmares as a result of the incident.

Kelly says she is keeping Melody out of school to avoid harassment. Calls made by FOX 29 to district administrators were not returned.

Someone again, tell me what crazy is or what it means?   It looks to me like the inmates are already in charge in some places.  And since crazy, insane thoughts & ideals are part of this article, let me share a personal thought.  I think part of passing ObamaCare was to start a national gun registry.

It mandates health records to be entered in a national computer database.

It  will mandate gun ownership questions be asked.  They may not be answered, or not truthfully.

Sometime, down the road, it will require answers on gun ownership or treatment will be withheld.  There will be penalties for providing false information.

National registration is the first step that must be completed before confiscation can occur.

I think I will try to buy myself a “Hello Kitty” bubble gun now, while I still can….

(1)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/five_year_old_girl_suspended_from_school_for_making_terrorist_threat.html#ixzz2IcuIo6D7

(2)http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/23/philadelphia-girl-scolded-searched-after-pulling-out-paper-gun-at-school/#ixzz2IpJgAPM3

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/why-mental-illness-is-the-avenue-to-gun-confiscation/

Advertisements

Comments

  1. This certainly fits in with D13’s and Buck’s chat about background checks. I have many issues with background checks in general, as they are open and ripe for corruption. Do the violent mentally ill know that they are violent and mentally ill? So many questions to discuss 🙂

    • One problem I have is they keep talking broadly about “mentally ill” and restricting guns. Remember the VA put veterans on the no gun list if they allowed someone else to manage their personal finances. And there is probably a list of Ron Paul supporters somewhere….Bet they are at the top of Homeland securities crazy list!

      • The current system is ripe for corruption. I would consider agreeing to the States handle the checks, and the feds can share with them, any Felonies and what those convictions were for. No out of State sales, must be a state resident. There are ways to do this, but I still have an issue with corruption. Maybe that can be overcome somehow.

        • I’d trust the FBI before Trenton and Albany. here in NJ, we have this incredible system where a dealer has to go through the State Police in Trenton to get the Federal background check done. they do it for him and charge $ 16.00. Recently this has resulted in one week plus delays in getting the checks done because, on their own and without any political oversight, the superintendent has decreed no phone checks. The NJ form must now be faxed to Trenton through the one fax number they have set up. Transactions cannot proceed unless that is done. I just went through this rigamarole to pick up a Model 1873 single shot .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield I bought out of state, on line. ,

  2. Of course, I would feel differently if our President wasn’t hell bent on violating the Constitution at every turn. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/court-obama-what-part-do-you-not-understand

  3. Colonel, entitlement spending, i.e. welfare, SS, debt service, etc., exceeds the federal income by about $10B. So you could shut down all the departments of the government, defense, Ag, Interior, State, … and still not balance the budget. The government operates on 100% borrowed money. Should interest rates rise, the problem becomes much worse. 1% or $16T is $160B more. We are on the precipice.

  4. Short hijack,

    (NaturalNews) Quietly and without much fanfare, the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), or more accurately the congressionally-sanctioned kangaroo court whose sole purpose is to shield the vaccine industry from liability for vaccine injuries, has essentially admitted that vaccines cause autism. As reported by the Huffington Post, two more children who developed autism following routine vaccinations have been awarded millions of dollars to help pay for the lifetime of specialized care they will need to address their injuries.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038858_vaccine_court_autistic_children_damaged.html#ixzz2JHcHCbpA

    My disdain for vaccinations, as well as my belief that they are dangerous, seems to be more fact than conspiracy theory. 🙄 Being right doesn’t fix all those who suffer. It won’t help unless people know what the real dangers are. That is the challenge.

    • I commend then for being so computer savvy. Here in NJ when I worked the polls, we were advised in any questionable situation to have the voter fill out a provisional ballot which would supposedly be checked at headquarters before it was counted. To my knowledge, there is still no way here in this state to prevent multiple registrations in different districts. I finally succeeded, this year, to have two of my children who went out of state 14 and 6 years ago be taken off the rolls. I will be sure finally in June when the primaries occur.

  5. Will New York police fire on their own neighbors and relatives?

    Now the question becomes this: Will law enforcement officials across New York now wage an actual shooting war with private gun owners who refuse to comply with an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral law hastily passed by Cuomo and other enemies of America?

    If so, New York police, state troopers and other law enforcement officials should expect to take considerable casualties as they attempt to disarm the citizenry. As has been written about in many places across the internet, including in articles by firearms instructor Paul Howe, any members of law enforcement who engage in armed raids against the homes of gunowners will likely see their own homes and families targeted with retaliation. Yes, we are talking about the potential of a New York guerilla war where those who participate in gun confiscation are put on “fair game” lists to be targeted and taken out. This is what is being discussed across the ‘net, on blogs, in personal conversations, on radio shows and elsewhere.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-owners-go-gandhi-in-new-york-with-plans-for-mass-civil-disobedience-over-cuomos-tyrannical-gun-grab.html

    This falls inline with some questions I had about the local police allowing the Feds to violate citizens rights. I think that I would join my neighbors and organize in the event of this becoming a possibility. What say all of you?

    • This is going to be a tough one. Despite commending the “stop and frisk” results in NYC, the program is an obviously a “precedent” for other much more intrusive illegal searches. After all,both are aimed at taking guns “off the streets”. With the continued brainwashing of the general public, obviously it would meet with widespread approval. Far be it from me to look into the minds of people like Schumer, Bloomberg and Cuomo but I’m sure that killing off a few reactionary Neanderthal gun owners with Waco style raids would be an acceptable way for them to scare everyone into cooperating. paranoia notwithstanding, this sort of explains the rush to judgement after Oklahoma City and McVeigh, to tar and feather all “militia” groups. After that I suggested to a friend that the best way to organize a militia group would be under the cover of being WW2 re-enactors.

      • Gang Violence and Gun Control
        By Michael Geer

        Guns and gangs. Haven’t read anything from the Left about that. Certainly nothing from Congress. But with FBI statistics showing more than 1,500,000 members of recognized gangs across the nation and something like 33,000 recognized gangs in the FBI’s stats, you’d think Gun Control advocates would list these as a major target of their efforts, especially since gang activity is responsible for at least 48% of criminal and violent activity throughout the US. [1]

        You’d be wrong.

        Stats:

        – 100% of cities with population greater than or equal to 250,000 reported gang activity in 2001

        – 85% of cities with population between 100,000 and 229,999 reported gang activity in 2001

        – 65% of cities with population between 50,000 and 99,999 reported gang activity in 2001

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gang_violence_and_gun_control.html#ixzz2JIDwHcgd

        • Feinstein actually mentioned it on Face the Nation, how the cops had to go to a gun store and get guns to match the firepower of the armed gangs in a shootout. Not for nothing as my late friend used to say, but why, outside of those bankrobbers with the reworked fully auto AK’s a dozen years back I can’t remember any other shootouts. Outside of Sheriff Andy in Mayberry, most small and large PD’s around the country have quite an interesting arsenal out there these days. A couple of years back, folks were shouted down out here in suburban, small town NJ because they dared to question why our local PD needed a dozen MP-5’s.

      • Coumo had better not do anything close to WACO, because he is effectively asking for all out war. NYC is a different animal compared to the rest of the state. A Waco event would be a huge mistake for government. The anger would be immense, almost too the point that I can’t comprehend it’s power. Pray that don’t happen!

  6. An example of govt corruption. There is no way I want these people to have any decisions involving the declining of rights in a background check. To continue to allow this is asking for your rights to be destroyed by corruption. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/27/EPA-email-Scandal-worse-than-originally-thought

  7. Sounds like thought and word crime. The child is being punished for even thinking about shooting someone-even if it’s only with bubbles. Nothing that represents, uses the word, or even the mear thought is allowed. If one does -then obviously they are crazy and have evil thoughts in their minds.

    Like paying cops and robbers-they want to destroy even the thought of play shooting someone. So now thought is a crime.

    • Parents need to step up and raise some hell ::evil: All this is , is political correctness gone wild. Things are really getting crazy, I hope you are prepared 🙂

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    Before we go much farther on Rand let me ask you this.

    Where does Rand’s philosophy lead to IMMORAL action? I guess I should ask HOW, not where but you get the idea.

    • Sorry JAC-a little busy today. But in answer to your question-We have discussed by main concerns before-I think we aren’t gonna ever agree. But the main thing is her acceptance of Abortion and her reasoning as to why it is okay-the fact that a child is not an individual until it is born-just sucks as a reason. And her teaching people that they do not have a moral responsibility to help their fellow man. Yes. I know all the arguments about altruism but to say individuals should not be forced and that individuals should make the decision is different from just flat out teaching that it isn’t a moral responsibility to help if you can and if you believe the person is truly needy.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I am not trying to get your agreement to anything. You were asking questions so I am trying to explain HER views and reasons. Because I think that some of your complaints are based on false understanding of her reasons. Much like the one commenter who was using values as a primary starting point.

        I know you will not accept her view on abortion. No matter what her reasons or how logical they might be. Even if it is those same reasons that support that absolute NON COERCION ethic when it come to those who have been born.

        On obligation, answer this. Are you “obligated” to help someone who you know has been cheating the system? Do you still have a “moral responsibility” in your mind whether that persons apparent need is real or not? Is your perception or his/her claims enough?

        As to the matter in a more basic way, morals are those concepts which allow us to interact in a way the benefits us all. When you add “obligation” to the word “moral” you are saying that the moral standard you choose is “mandatory”. So WHO enforces this mandatory moral standard?

        • I have to admit -I would like to get you to agree with me. 🙂

          I’m not sure why the fact that values weren’t her starting point matters, if it became her ending point. Perhaps you can explain what you mean?

          And No, an emphatic No-I could care less if those same reasons support Non Coercion ethic for the already born. What possible difference does that make-is it the no contradiction rule? How is it possibly moral to destroy millions of babies based on some idea that you simply can’t contradict yourself. Actually that is my exact point about her objective reasoning theory-she misses the other half of the coin. Self responsibility and the responsibility to help your fellow man. And it isn’t mandatory-it is the two sides of morality. It is a moral mindset of loving your neighbor as yourself.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            I am going to have to find a better way to explain her philosophy and thinking. Based on your comment about her “objective reasoning theory” I get the feeling your not understanding the meaning of that concept. In fact there is no such “theory”. If you assigned theory to the topic you would say her Theory that mankind must use REASON to identify and deal with REALITY. And with reason and logic Man can identify a system of morals, ethics, values and virtues that will allow him to select those goals which he wants in order to live a flourishing life and then to pursue those goals. All the time using REASON to adjust and adapt as needed. She used the word OBJECTIVE to describe her philosophical system because it includes Man’s dedication to REASON. Thus by THINKING we can discover a way to live that is better. Thus that way is considered to have been discovered by Objective evaluation as opposed to Subjective, ie arbitrary, or by WHIM, magic, guessing or as dictated by others.

            This is why I cringe a little when you say Objective Reasoning leads to evil or immorality. Your claim is that by thinking in a way that is consistent with reality, that by using logic to make sure we aren’t trying to fool the universe, that somehow this can lead us to immorality or evil.

            The corollary is of course that the only way to understand, or discover, Morality is to guess or simply accept another person’s view point. But then where did the other person get their views?

            I think our discussion is getting off track. This started with you having some pretty specific questions that really weren’t about abortion in particular or our obligation to help others. I feel like we left those unanswered and I don’t want to leave you hanging on those.

            One of those was the existence or perhaps the nature of God, I believe. That is the realm or field of Metaphysics. So I thought I would post some of her comments on metaphysics. Both as a refresher and perhaps a place to deal with questions in their proper place. The following are excerpts from various writings:

            Metaphysics

            Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute—and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real—or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer—or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man’s consciousness? Are they what they are—or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?

            The nature of your actions—and of your ambition—will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy.

            The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless.

            P.S. From now on I am going to try and make my answers much shorter, dealing with one thing at at time. That might help us stay on subject. I think my tendency to get long winded may sometime be a detriment rather than benefit to understanding. Your welcome to let me know either way at your pleasure.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Might as well put up her words on REASON. Some are Piekoff’s towards the end. The last one connects REASON to the notion of OBJECTIVE.

            REASON

            Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

            Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

            Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.

            The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.

            The alternative to reason is some form of mysticism or skepticism.

            [Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort.

            • 🙂 Sorry I made you cringe-What would you like me to call her ???????????????

              I will happily read your info. on Rand-Will ask a question when I have one. But most of my comments have been based more on your stated examples of her conclusions. But for us to really discuss this-I will have to learn more about her ????????????. So supply any information you want too. If you want too or Stop when you want to. I make no promises other than to read them and THINK about them. 🙂

              And perhaps you, will read the Bible to try to understand where I am coming from. 🙂 Your choice of course.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                No worries on the cringing. But you lost me with this: “What would you like me to call her ???????????????”

                Not sure what you are getting at. Care to explain!

                I will provide more but I would like to make sure you feel you understand one step before taking the next. Otherwise we are liable to take to many side roads or rabbit trails.

                Also don’t discount the chance that I may have misrepresented her ideas in one argument or another. While I have studied her writings extensively and intensively, I am NOT one of the Objectivist Cultlike Creatures that many say are her “followers”.

                You may recall I have called my philosophy a Modified Objectivism. For one, I don’t discount God from the equation. I also believe Govt can have proper roles beyond those she envisioned. And, given the very Nature of Reason and Objective thought, there is a distinct possibility that over time our knowledge and understanding will change, which in turn could lead us to a different set of morals, ethics, values and virtues. Perhaps a different Metaphysical understanding as well.

                By the way, I read pretty much the entire Bible when young. Two different versions in fact. I admit I don’t remember much detail, like I do other works. I have tried reading it again in recent years but just can’t get through it. Just like I am still struggling with John Rawl’s Theory of Justice.

                Oh, I got a copy of Jefferson’s Bible for Christmas. I am just starting it. Have you ever seen a copy?

              • Bottom Line says:

                “…starting point… …ending point. ”

                lol

                Rand was brilliant, as was Marx, both fellow INTJ’s. We have expansive minds, as it is all about the question of ‘Why?’

                You see, prerequisite to answering why, it is most logically necessary to determine What, When, Where, and How…or Who, if required or relevant.

                This is where our thought process starts. Our approach to anything will start with Why. And because of all the prerequisite answers to Why, we are already thinking deeper into things from the start than the vast majority of people. The Why is then weighed against value and form to determine worthiness and efficiency that when reasoned out, will come down to some sort of judgement call.

                I suppose you could even say that some of us have a natural inclination to over-think things. The reason Why is that we will stay focused on the Why longer before weighing in worthiness and efficiency,and thus a delayed judgement call.

                The more we analyze Why, the deeper of an understanding we get, thus eventually ending up with a more accurate judgement/answer.

                (Carl Jung, an INTJ, must have somehow had a deeper understanding of our deeper understanding.)

                To completely ignore the rest of the process and stick to the Why, is to have an expansive, exponential and perhaps even, theoretically, an infinite understanding. I suppose it can be compared to a numerical set such as the Mandelbrot, only infinite rather than finite, ..if there is any real difference.

                Human culture, human nature, our time here, our free will, our whole existence, etc… is of infinite possibilities with respect to cause and effect. You can think of a gazillion ways to manage it, but unless you’re a god, you are unable to keep up with all of it. I suppose you can try, but you’ll just end up going crazy and cause chaos as it is beyond the capacity of mortal humans.

                Ayn Rand, Carl Marx, and many others, from what I can tell, are/were analyzing pieces of the same puzzle as if there were a difference or better means. It looks like an all of the above thing to me. The universe in it’s entirety, is of infinite Chaos that always comes full circle into some kind of Order. To try and control it is not only futile, but arrogant, in my humble opinion.

                Perhaps that’s part of what becoming closer to god is about…to not worry about value worthiness and judgement, but rather to simply try to understand and live free and happy and respect each other…in Order to find some kind of balance. We need to get over our hang ups and all that divides as a species., to utilize our strengths to resolve our weakness. We need to learn how to let go, let god handle it, however you define what god is. I like to think of God as everything combined, as in …everything. Who is bigger than everything?

                Instead of worrying so much about how to best manage and trying to control everything accordingly, Why not focus more on Why? Why are we here? Why do we do all these stupid evil selfish greedy judgmental things to each other? Personally, I like the way Rodney King said it;

                ” Why can’t we all just get along? ”

                Maybe that’s what Genesis and the whole parable about the flood was about. Maybe it was a question of our worthiness as a species when contemplating our form.

                You once asked me if I thought a functional and peaceful Anarchy is possible, and if so, How so? I don’t know for sure, but I think it is simpler than anyone realizes.

                Perhaps The Golden Rule is How. Because as a whole, we have to get along in order to get anywhere. If we would all simply make a conscious effort to treat everyone the way we want to be treated, we would be able to become better people, both as individuals as well as a whole.

                Besides, it is inefficient to fight and argue.

                It is all connected. As far as I can see, it all comes around full circle to the one thing.

                “All you need is love” – John Lennon

                Youth is King – Everything we are as a species always ends up in the hands of the next generation, thus we should teach them The Golden Rule, and do whatever we can to leave them the best possible world to live in that we are able.

                Learning is Fun as promoting wonderment is our path to enlightenment

                Teaching is a Reward as it gives us the satisfaction knowing that we have secured something better for future generations.

                Knowledge is Power as it enables us to handle the responsibility of doing so.

                Truth is Freedom as it empowers us with the knowledge to see beyond that which divides and stifles us.

                Order out of Chaos is the nature of the universe that we must seek to understand in order to be empowered with the knowledge to teach future generations as to How and Why to live a better life.

                Of course, maybe I am guilty of over-thinking it too, as much or more than Rand.

                I am not sure whether there even IS a starting point or end point, or whether there is a particular point at all, as it all looks like the same point to me.

              • Bottom Line says:

              • He he -it wasn’t an insult-Obviously I’m not as precise with word usage as you are-I figure she has a theory of how one should reason in order to be objective instead of subjective-objective reasoning theory 🙂 So I was just looking for the proper word usage-since my choice hurt your head. But even if you didn’t understand the question you did answer it. So from now on I will call it her philosophy instead of theory and use Objectivism instead of objective reasoning when appropriate or at least I will try.

                I will also ask questions if I do not understand something, I was simply thinking perhaps I needed more of a tutorial of her philosophy before I raised areas of disagreement or agreement. Of course you can also give directions to where I can find the information and I can research as I have time. Either works for me-You posting it is just easier.

                No, I haven’t seen the Jefferson Bible, I seem to remember you mentioning it. I’m assuming it’s a regular Bible with a study guide by Jefferson or using Jefferson’s past writings or some such?

                I have a few verses that might be helpful.

                1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

                Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

                Luke 24:45 Then opened He [Christ] their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

                Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

              • Hi Bottomline,

                You made many points-I’m still trying to bring them all together to grasp the main point. Make it easier for me-narrow it down. What is your main point?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                Moving to the bottom.

  9. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but at least it’s fully documented. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/facts-and-stats-about-gun-use-in-the-us-2548974.html

  10. This is interesting. A different kind of reality show with a subject that is never addressed.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/new-christian-reality-show-about-women-recovering-from-abortion/

  11. I have been harping about psychotropic drugs and those who have murdered other while on them or just getting off of them. Here’s another article in support: http://www.prisonplanet.com/drug-induced-murder-what-caused-the-connecticut-school-shootings.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      YES!

      • I agree. Although, it’s not a crime for them to have sex with a teacher, which makes little sense. Young men will take advantage of the situation, with a fairly attractive woman, everyday. This is nature in action. Because the woman was married, this would make the actions immoral. The young boys will learn nothing. The teacher will have made a life changing decision.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          Your question was their responsibility towards the CRIME.

          They know it is a crime. Yet they freely participated. Thus they have some responsibility.

          But due to our arbitrary application of beliefs,whims, etc, we have written a law that absolves them from wrong. We have made a “legal determination” that they were “coerced”. This is the essence of this particular law. Because it is not sex at this age, nor even sex with a married partner. It was sex between a person in a position of power over others. Such as employer vs employee.

          And why is the married woman having sex with someone else considered IMMORAL?

          If we assume that the issue of Fidelity among married people is a moral issue, then that is an issue between them alone. Why would the boy’s actions be IMMORAL? They were not married. Here is your proof.

          Married people cannot cheat without KNOWING they are doing wrong, whether you call it moral or not.

          However, a single person sleeping with another may not know they are married. If one cannot know they are acting immorally then how can their actions alone be immoral?

          And how can this magically change just because they do know?

          • JAC, Morals are an individual issue, normally based on one’s upbringing. While my morals believe that adultery is immoral (based on my Christian upbringing), it may not be immoral to someone of a different religious upbringing. That is one of many things that differs between people, mostly based on their religion and upbringing. Morals can also change as one ages or changes religions.

            That brings me too an interesting question. Morals, or one’s proper way to live and act in life, come from a religious upbringing and belief in a higher power (God) that one will have to answer too in the end. Where do Atheists get their morals? Do they have morals?

            • Nope, us atheists have no morals whatsoever…

              Why is it that so many people believe that, absent religion, one cannot have sound morals? Where do you, as a Christian, derive your morals? I sincerely hope the answer doesn’t boil down to “Because God says so”…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                😉

              • I just asked a question, not meaning to offend 😉 When I grew up, the closest thing to an Atheist I knew was Mike Stivick on “All In The Family” 🙂 My teachings basically were that morals came from what a persons religion taught him/her. Truthfully, I never even thought about Atheists and the moral issue till reading all this stuff being discussed. I’m guessing that you got your moral beliefs when you grew up also, like most people. Or am I wrong? I’m not trying to be mean or anything, just keeping with the discussion. 🙂

              • Sure it came in part from my upbringing and also, as JAC points out below, from my own thinking on the matter. But I absolutely reject the notion that you need god to have morals.

              • That is what everyone has experienced when it comes to morals. At least us sane folks 🙂 As we age we change our morals, either by strengthening what we learned growing up or by experiences and personal thinking. I will ask one more question if you don’t mind. Were you parents religious in some form?

              • Not particularly.

                But that’s besides the point. Religion may or may not influence someone’s morals. Nothing wrong with that. But there is a problem when one’s morals (or, more specifically, the reasoning behind one’s morals) can be boiled down to “Because God says so”.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              The most MORAL people I know are Atheists. They discovered their moral standards by thinking about them.

              However, it cannot be denied that their cultural background would have had to have an impact on this reasoning.

              Most of us were raised with some religious exposure. These highly moral atheists I know took those teachings and then applied some logic and investigative thinking. The result was discarding the dogmatic and retaining that which makes logical sense.

              Interestingly, Fidelity to your significant other DOES come up as a moral standard. Although many cannot explain why, other than human feelings and nature seem to prove it true.

              Ironically, Ayn Rand actually created a reasoned argument in its defense. One that was based on her “selfish” view of morality. Yet she apparently had a boyfriend on the side.

            • Buck, Cool 🙂 I’m not a “God Said So” type of person. Everyone is different in many ways, but the same in many ways. Most people think that murder is evil, but killing another human in self defense is OK. While it still results in a dead human, the circumstances change the moral thinking. I’ve never thought of Atheists as immoral. It never crossed my mind actually. I think that, besides our upbringing, as an intelligent life form, we all have some form of morals built in to our DNA. Your thoughts?

        • Bottom Line says:

          I remember this girl in high school. She was rather tall to the point of awkward for her age, and had an unusually bold personality. She was an athletic type, a big smart healthy young woman she was. She was intimidating to most of the boys and was probably having difficulty finding a boyfriend.

          There was also this teacher who was old enough to be her father. He was a big tall broad shouldered good looking family man, and likely at that age where he was entering that mid-life crisis stage. They were both at points in their life where they were experiencing vulnerability and weakness within their judgement.

          Well, by whatever means that I cannot be sure of, they connected with each other and ended up sneaking around and connecting quite literally you might say. They eventually got caught by the police while having one of their ‘sessions’. His career, marriage and freedom was at stake as he was about to be fired and go to prison for statutory rape.

          That’s when she spoke up as she often did about things. She made it very clear that he was the victim and not her. She explained that she was pulling a Lolita on him, that she fully willingly and consciously seduced him. Whatever she said must have made a difference, because charges were dropped and he was allowed to stay employed, although not in the presence of students, if I am not mistaken. I cannot be sure what happened to his marriage.

          The fact that it was a teacher/student thing was what made it stupid on both their parts, as it was unnecessary drama for all parties. Neither were incapable of understanding the gravity of the situation, and could have done the right thing. You could argue they weren’t victimizing each other, but rather themselves in their time of weakness. Ultimately, what made it wrong was that he was married. His wife and children were the real victims.

          Ironically, there was another affair happening at around the same time between another student and faculty member. Only it was a little different. She was almost finished with high school and only attending half days to get the necessary credits to graduate. She was basically legal and transitioning to adulthood, getting her own place and checking into colleges. And my god was she gorgeous.

          He wasn’t her teacher, but was an employee of the school. He was a real handsome guy only a few years older than her, who had recently graduated from college. They were both single and very attractive intelligent organized kinda people. And I have no doubt that they were genuinely falling in love. There was something very good and natural about their interaction. You could tell when they had been on a date the night before as they both had a subtle glow on their face, as if they found it difficult to hide their happiness. They actually made a good couple. There was nothing sleazy immoral or bad about it. They were dating in the context of her being courted. I don’t know what happened to them after that year, but I’d like to think they ended up married with children and lived happily ever after.

          So I wonder when contemplating these situations, what laws applied to either one? How could coercion make either situation any better? Law just does not apply, but rather the concepts of human nature and the basic sense of morality, wrong/right, good/evil, which I could argue, is about The Golden Rule.

  12. You will not see these parents testimony on gun control by the mainstream media, it does not fit their agenda. The parents son was killed at Sandy Hook.

    http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/mark-mattioli-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-says-better-enforcement-not-new-laws-are-needed/

  13. North Dakota: the land of opportunity!

    http://www.startribune.com/188503971.html?refer=y

  14. Some political comedy (at least I think so) to start your day! 🙂
    http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/killer-fawn-takes-on-neutered-conservative-leadership/

  15. I started looking at mental health numbers. They say around 20 million have ADHD, 20 million are or have once been depressed (heck, every registered Republican is suffering Obama induced depression). So what will our wise and benevolent government do about guns since we’re all crazy in one way or another?

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-09-05/CDC-Half-of-Americans-will-suffer-from-mental-health-woes/50250702/1

    • It won’t be hard for the Feds to claim we are all mentally ill. This takes me back to how a background check can be corrupted. All the Feds have to do is get enough shrinks to make thinking a mental disorder, and poof, nobody can have guns. Getting the shrinks will be easy, look how many scientists they corrupted for the global warming fraud. Money talks, but I gotta think that some lead will doing some talking before to long.

  16. leave the inmates
    free the guards

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    Time to simplify and clarify.

    I was not cringing over your use of the word theory to describe Rand’s system. It was connecting it to the concepts of reason and objective. However, now that you have explained further lets clean this up.

    Reason and Objective Reasoning are concretes in discussion of human thought. Well almost concrete. There are some variations in definitions but they are definitions. The same holds true for Subjective Reasoning. In short, these are definitions not theories.

    Rand’s Objectivism on the other hand is a THEORY. I have no problem with you calling it a theory. Rand is proposing a Philosophical System based on the use of Reason and Logic. A system that applies the thinking processes of objective reasoning to topics typically thought of as “subjective”. Thus it is at variance with other theories of philosophy.

    To one of your other points. Rand WAS in fact making a case for a particular type of thinking to discover truth. It is LOGIC. Remember she says reason is man’s means of discovering the truth, and the proper “method” of applying reason is logic. Again, logic being simply the application of a thought process designed to eliminate contradictions.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Objective vs Subjective Reasoning

      Here is an explanation from a different viewpoint than Rand. It shows how some consider these as distinctly different while she is using objective methods to deal with subjective topics.

      “Objective and Subjective Arguments
      (Recognizing your Biases)
      • OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos, that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).
      • SUBJECTIVE arguments are most often those dealing with the personal situation, feelings or experiences of a particular individual, family or group, and are usually arguments from ethos or pathos (though material subjective factors may involve arguments from logos as well).
      EXAMPLE: A person who is asked, “Why do you believe in equal rights for people with disabilities?” might respond, “Well, it’s simple justice!” or “Because people with disabilities can often perform just as well on the job as people who claim no disability.” In other words, just the facts. These are objective reasons. Other reasons might be, “Because if I live long enough, I myself will almost certainly be disabled in some way, and I don’t want to be discriminated against at that time!” Or, “because my sister has a disability, and I don’t want anyone to discriminate against her,” or “Because my religion [or political beliefs, or ethics, or ideology] stands for equal rights for everyone.” These are subjective reasons.
      Subjective reasoning may come from upbringing or past experiences. For instance, Charles Darwin wrote in his book, The Descent of Man, “It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason” (as quoted in http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/this-i-believe).
      Thus, one who is raised in a Muslim household is very likely to become a Muslim, and someone raised in a Christian household is more likely to be come a Christian than vice versa. A person raised in Texas is more likely than a person raised in Minnesota to argue for the value of adding jalapeños to one’s diet. A person raised as a monolingual English speaker may likely differ with a bilingual person on the value of bilingual education. An American in San Diego whose parents or best friends are undocumented immigrants may argue quite different things about immigration reform than someone who lives in Iowa or Maine and has never actually met or spoken with an undocumented person.
      Subjective reasoning can also come from what one is or belongs to. A woman may have a different view on childbirth, or wearing a beard, or buying a sports car, than a man. An African American may have a completely different take on whether racism still exists in America than an Anglo, and the events of September 11th, 2001 will hold a very different significance and degree of pathos for a person who was 25 or 50 years old at the time as opposed to someone who was born in 1992 and was only 8 or 9 years old in 2001. Subjective reasoning may also come from one’s own religious or political background. For instance, a practicing Muslim or Roman Catholic will almost necessarily be against abortion, while a committed feminist may have a differing opinion. A committed Democrat will likely see President Obama in a a favorable light, while a staunch Republican will probably look up to Ronald Reagan as an exemplar of good leadership.
      And, subjective reasoning can come from what one does or how he or she makes a living. Thus for instance, a person who works for a living may see the unemployment rate or the value of the stock market far differently from one who lives on the rise and fall of investments and dividends. And the phrase “a woman’s right to an abortion” will mean quite different things to a person who is sexually active than to one who is not. A person who runs a small business will look at an increase in the minimum wage very differently from one who earns that minimum wage. A student will regard a tuition increase very differently from a college budget officer or a state legislator. The words “reform” or “radical change” will sound very differently in the ear of a person who is well off and satisfied than to a person who is out of a job. A motorcycle owner will see the question of helmet laws very differently from how it is seen by a police officer or an experienced emergency room physician.
      There is even false subjective reasoning. Thus, a working person might say, “What’s good for the rich is good for me, since I know that some day I’m going to set up my own business and become a billionaire myself!” (even though the likelihood of this actually happening is effectively zero). In the same way, a woman victim of family violence may say, “He beats me up because I deserve it,” or a student may say, “We minority students are no good at computers.” This sort of reasoning is buying into a hostile lie. “

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    Now lets talk about your latest posting.

    I am not sure what these verses are supposed to help me with. So why don’t you simply put into your own words what it is you believe is being said here. Then perhaps you can tell me why you think that is important and/or how it fits into the larger subject.

    “I have a few verses that might be helpful.

    1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

    Luke 24:45 Then opened He [Christ] their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

    Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”

    • Nope, it is the Word of God-I do not wish to interpret it’s meaning for you. I simply want you to think about them.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H

        I asked what it meant to you. To say it is the word of God and then stop discussion is pretty silly in my book. Unless that is your point.

        Namely that we must take these words as absolute fact that were written by MEN long after events occurred and which were APPROVED by other men, centuries later, and which were later TRANSLATED by yet more MEN into a language you could read. Oh and which appear to be in conflict with each other.

        We cannot know but then Christ opened our understanding. So which is it? Can we know or can’t we know?

        • JAC,

          You are asking me to look strictly at reason in an attempt to define morality-to find truth.

          I am simply asking you to think about the possibility that there is more than reason. To look at the Bible as you read it and attempt to interpret it’s meaning as taking something more. I cannot teach you this-I cannot convince you it’s even true, I have no big theory-I simply have the Power of God’s Word. So I supplied some.

          • I need to complete that sentence-“as taking something more than just Reason.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            I never ASKED you to do anything. You started this discussion with an article by someone who was trying to show religious people that the Bible provided evidence that Rand’s approach of using REASON was compatible with the Bible.

            You asked some questions to confirm this.

            Now because I tried to show the relationship you think I am demanding or asking you to adopt HER method. I did no such thing.

            But I take it you accept the words in the Bible as God’s words. Is that true?

            Then HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

            • Dang JAC-it’s like you think I am accusing you of something. I just thought we were having a conversation. And trying to learn something at the same time. I have an interest in trying to understand Rand-and the original discussion included the Bible. But no-I do not think you are demanding anything. I am not demanding anything.

              And Yes, I accept that the Words of the Bible as God’s words.
              because I asked-I was willing to accept the possibility and I humbled myself enough to acknowledge that I had sinned and that I needed help and I asked if you are real God-show me.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                You said: “You are asking me to look strictly at reason in an attempt to define morality-to find truth. ”

                My reply: I am not.

                So lets continue. If there is more than REASON then what is it? How does it inform your knowledge of the universe. Or does it?

              • I’m thinking maybe we’ve covered enough for one day-I will read all the things you’ve already posted.

  19. Bottom Line says:

    V,

    In short, I was trying to elaborate a little on the point I made a week or so ago.

    We can think ’till we are blue in the face about how is best to manage our world. But we are just people. It’s just too big for us, even for deep thinkers. Not that trying is bad, but just that we are mere humans.

    The best we can do is try to do the right thing. As far as I can tell, it isn’t that damn complicated anyway.

    The best I can come up with is to look out for the kids, keep it simple. Live and let live. Practice The Golden Rule and it’ll fall into place.

    Ordo de Chao

    🙂

    • I find a lot of truth in your words-the problem with that Live and let live idea-is that there are two many people who will not do so-and we have real big disagreements about exactly how to define what is or isn’t intruding on ones freedom. I suspect there isn’t a perfect answer but there probably is a best answer. We’ve certainly spent a lot of time the last several years trying to find it.

      • V When someone intrudes on your freedom, tell them NO and always be prepared to defend your freedom. Freedom is not a given in our world, it demands constant observation and battles to be free. The disagreements are simply a way of defending your freedoms without violence. I could live the rest of my life in peace in the country, enjoying nature and so on, but there is a bunch of people who continuously want to shove their ideals up my backside. So I fight. 🙂

      • Bottom Line says:

        V,

        Indeed you have a valid point. That is why we have,as G mentioned, the right to protect our rights and freedoms.

        If you are honestly following the Golden Rule, and are being violated, try to extend that courtesy to others that do so as much as you can tolerate. At some point, you may have to fight for what is right.

        So be it. That is your right.

        In the end you will, at the very least, have the piece of mind that you are/were within the realm of righteousness.

        • Well, We can certainly hope and pray that we are, none of us are infallible. 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            Indeed.

            I know I am far from it.

            Personally, I feel like a complete turd with a LOT of work to do in the interest of improvement.

            I think a key aspect to our existence is that we have to understand just how fallible we are. How else can we become a better people if we cannot recognize our flaws?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Further,…

      The INTJ thing.

      Like Jefferson, Rand, Marx, Jung, Flag and others I am also an INTJ, thus I am able to follow them as our thought process is at it’s core, virtually identical.

      I dunno what happened to me, but about a year ago or so, my mind seemingly exploded into some kind of massive expansion of thought where I started to see a great deal more than I ever have, …even to the point of insanity.

      Among other things, what I learned was that everything always comes around full circle into some kind of order, in spite of what we do or however much chaos is at hand. It is simply the way the universe works. Thus, to try and control it is almost laughable. It is just too big and out of our control anyway.

      Let go, do the right thing and be happy instead of trying to control everything. It’ll work out eventually.

      Even further,…

      I recommend everyone take the Myers/Briggs type indicator test as it will likely help you to discover more about yourself in the interest of self empowerment.

      Carl Jung figured a way to map out the human thought process. Later, Dr.’s Myers and Briggs expanded on Jung to create a test to categorize different thought processes.

      I recommend taking it a few times in order to be accurate, and to try and be honest and really think about the questions. It is about 70 questions and 15-20 minutes long. Try, if you can, to look into how the functions work.

      What you will discover, once you have a feel for your particular thought process, is how to use your mind to it’s greatest efficiency. You will see it in everything you do. You’ll begin to easily identify and understand those that think as you do as well.

      It’s just really cool and helpful. That’s all.

  20. Good article about the rights we are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and why people should leave them alone: Let’s use Al Sharton as an example of stupidity on steroids: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9202/al-sharpton-people-do-not-have-the-right-to-unregulated-rights-in-this-country/

  21. At some point in time, I’m sure that we will have fighter jets that are unmanned. I think it should be imperative that we do NOT allow any unmanned aircraft fly in our sky’s. This could be the most dangerous thing that we ever face, and I’m sure that many of you can figure out why. 🙄

  22. Oh No….a government that is not going to spend a surplus? What is this?

    Gov. Rick Perry will use his State of the State address to call for amending the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return tax money it collects but doesn’t spend back to its citizens, according to an excerpt of the speech released to The Associated Press.Perry, who is scheduled to deliver the speech Tuesday morning to a joint session of the Legislature, will tell lawmakers that he has “never bought into the notion that if you collect more, you need to spend more.”

    And this……..Kansas governor telling Texas to “watch out” ……it is going to follow the Texas example and stop State income taxes. Kansas governor saying that Texas has it right…..guns and no income tax….why should they be the only state to do this. The Kansas governor telling Texas to “move over”…..here we come.

    Texas governor Perry told the Kansas governor……bring it on…..plenty of room in the free land.

    • I wonder what the future holds as more and more states are losing their most productive citizens and companies that are able to move…..and more governorships are becoming more and more conservative to spending and freedoms………..interesting.

  23. Bottom Line says:

    JAC, G, BUCK, SUFA, MANKIND, ETC,

    Re: Morals and Atheism

    I am still learning but I think I get it and have an answer as to where morality comes from. The simple answer is ‘from within’, as taught by a historical Jew known as Jesus or Immanuel, or whoever or whatever his real name was/is.

    As I understand it, there was a decryption code discovered as part of an archeological find somewhere a few decades ago. I am not even sure of the details, but here is the basic idea. When you apply this code to the Bible, specifically the book of Revelation, it ‘reveals’ yet another hidden meaning.

    Essentially, it describes in reference to a process of spiritual growth and enlightenment known as the ‘Lake of Fire’ where you will either come out of it as one with the Messiah, or the Antichrist. You either end up at one with G[o]od or [D}evil. It either makes you or breaks you.

    It is to say that if you are looking for God, you can find it from within as we are all a part of God. And if you aren’t, nor care, well, too bad, as we are all children of God, that we all have it within us whether we like it or not. It is simply a matter of discovery.

    I think in the broader context, it was to suggest that if we are looking for God in something that is an idle or fairy tale or something respective of worship, that we wont find it, as it simply isn’t there.

    As it was explained to me, the original intent was from Jesus to other Jews as a message of advice, or perhaps even a warning about which direction to go and/or avoid.

    To summarize, We all have a basic sense of morality. We all have an inherent knowledge of wrong/right, good/evil.

    This is where I get this idea of the importance of The Golden Rule, as it is a great basic and arguably definitive reference as to how to gauge wrong or right when there is doubt.

    Oh, and BTW, the number isn’t exactly 666 – I think it is 6661 or 6665 or something.

    😉

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bottom Line

      There can be no “decoding ring” for the Bible because there was no such thing as THE Bible. The current Bible is a collection of writings selected by a small group of people whose goal was to maintain Christianity as relevant.

      As for the Book of Revelations, the Catholic Church’s own Historians believe that this book tells the story of the Roman Empires downfall. It is filled with descriptions which allowed the Jews and Christians to tell the stories without being prosecuted for inciting insurrection.

      • Bottom Line says:

        As I mentioned, JAC, I am still unclear of the details, so I am in no position to argue it’s origin.

        I am simply trying to help.

        For whatever it is worth, it makes perfect sense to me regardless of where it came from.

        Think about it. Take the Pagan ‘Wicker-man’ for example. Do you honestly think you can find spiritual growth and enlightenment by burning a straw man?

        Isaiah 51:12 – I, I am he who comforts you; who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass.

    • I think western civilization is built on the ten commandments. Compare what we accept as “moral” to a devout Muslim. Think about China & N. Korea and their culture. You can take the religion out of it, but the history that produced our morals is Judo/Christian.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Indeed.

        And if you continue to further search for origin, you may find that it all comes from the same place.

        I cannot be sure as to where that exactly is, but rather, I am seeing the connections correlations and patterns that connect it all. I suppose it would take a long time to figure it out, but there is a common thread to every culture on Earth.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Morality: per Ayn Rand.

    What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

    The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

    Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?

    Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival. . . .

    I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”

    The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

    Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.

    Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

    Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.

    The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

    dized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell—but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there’s no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

    Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man’s instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.

    If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

    My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

    You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

    A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means.

    A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly.

    Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice.

    A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.

    In spite of all their irrationalities, inconsistencies, hypocrisies and evasions, the majority of men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right and will not oppose the morality they have accepted. They will break it, they will cheat on it, but they will not oppose it; and when they break it, they take the blame on themselves. The power of morality is the greatest of all intellectual powers—and mankind’s tragedy lies in the fact that the vicious moral code men have accepted destroys them by means of the best within them.

    • That is quite interesting. I do not believe that a man’s moral code is something he is born with. I think that the moral code is developed over many years and continues to develop till death. As an example, I am what I call a moral man, I want freedom and wish for all others the same. I will not kill, just because I disagree with one’s own moral code. My moral code is to live, that is the #1 issue that one must accept to be free. To live, may require many actions in life. While many people will go through their lifetime and never have to act against their moral code and kill another person to stay alive, it’s still their #1 part of life.

      One’s upbringing will determine the vast majority of one’s moral code. Human’s have evolved over time, but life is still and always has been #1. There are however times when saving another will overtake that #1 issue. I believe that is an emotional response to violence can overcome ones own desire to live. A parent will naturally do this to save their child in most cases. That is nature, not morals that cause that.

      Let me think more on this, but I think nature still rules life, not any moral code. The moral code simply directs one’s path.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I agree that there is no inherent moral code per se’. However, I believe that an inherent basic sense of morality, be it wrong/right, that is indeed born unto us which enables us to develop a moral code, and thus a social order.

        Consider this…

        Take a 1-2 yr old baby for example. It doesn’t yet understand with any complexity as to what morals are. It has no list of rules in it’s memory, or a capacity to understand them to any depth as it simply isn’t developed enough mentally to do so. It’s mind is a relatively blank canvas.

        Now, snatch a toy or a bottle from it’s hand. What happens? It will likely get upset and cry.

        It is at that point that the baby discerns the difference as to what is wrong/right. It knows it has been violated.

        Initially, from birth it has a sense of wrong/right, although it is motivated by selfishness. (Reference Freud’s ‘Id’)

        However, over time as it develops an understanding of self awareness through social interaction, it will begin to understand that wrong/right and respect is a two way street, so to speak. This usually starts at around age three or four. The older it gets, the more developed it’s social skills become, the greater the level of understanding of morality it will have.

        Eventually, it will indeed have a list of rules written or otherwise. It will have an understanding of do’s and do nots, all of which developed from an inherent sense of wrong/right.

        • I understand your position. It is possible to be born with the same principles as the mother. Maybe that is part of the DNA process that takes place. I do not believe that all people believe what is right or wrong, as we see it, hence the major difference in people. We are animals, period. go to Chicago and ask was is right or wrong! Ask the members of a Mexican Drug Cartel what their “morals”are.

          Good people are good. Good is morally correct. Bad people are bad. To good people, they are immoral. yet the bad people will tell you different. Morals are what an individual believes.

          • Bottom Line says:

            ” I do not believe that all people believe what is right or wrong, as we see it, hence the major difference in people. We are animals, period. go to Chicago and ask was is right or wrong! Ask the members of a Mexican Drug Cartel what their “morals”are. ”

            You touch on a key point, G.

            I think we have a foundation from the start, and as we grow and develop into our respective cultures, we learn standards and rules. I also think that many of these distract us from that fundamental sense of wrong/right. Rules and laws on top of rules and laws begins to turn into a chaotic mess, when it is really unnecessary and often ends up doing the opposite of what is intended.

            When you start delving into the complexity of different cultures and different sets of standards and rules, you begin to see all the inconsistencies with respect to wrong and right. It begs the question ” Which one is correct? ”

            One thing I like about the Golden Rule is that it is universal and simple. It works for almost any culture and situation, and is so simple that even a lay man can understand.

  25. A Puritan Descendant says:

    How about: ” It isn’t ‘Moral’ if it goes against ‘Natural Law’ ” It shouldn’t be to difficult to figure out…. or is it?

    I Googled morals and natural law >

    http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/eternal-and-natural-law-the-foundation-of-morals-and-law.html

    • I think morality is a perception, and perception is the reality of the person.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Yes, but for that perception of morality to be correct it must come from a correct perception of natural law. If one’s perception of morality comes without natural law or simply from man, then it may not be such a good thing.

        But don’t take me to serious, I am ingrained with 100s of years of Puritan programming and can’t help myself… 🙂

        • Correct? That is also perception. Remember that natural law is “only the strong survive”. We don’t live that way, as we protect our weak.

          I’m easy to get along with, be as serious as you want 🙂

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Natural law to me is a lot more than just the “strong survive”. Example: (Thinking cave man) When man finds woman and they make child, the emotion of love is involved. Without love, why would the man stay around to protect the woman and child from Saber tooth tigers when he can wander off for greater pleasures. In other words it is God’s Natural Laws which help guide us in the correct thing to do or not to do. The emotion of love is not from man, it is created within man by God.

            But like I said, maybe I have it all wrong from the start, and just had to much good sleep lately in the frozen north. 😉

        • Just A Citizen says:

          If it does not come from man then where does it come from?

          How is man going to discover it if it is not from man?

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            When I say simply from man, think “Buck” :-), or someone much much worse, who is totally disconnected from God’s natural law, someone who has lost their way. “Someone who has lost their way” is a lot like our Constitution slowly losing it’s meaning due to erroneous precedent rulings. Both are like a snowball rolling down hill going faster and getting larger at an increased pace until we reach the point of no return, without an inevitable awakening when we the snowball crashes.

            Man needs a foundation which begins with God’s natural law. Even with that it isn’t easy to avoid straying from the proper path. Bottom Line’s “Golden Rule” is a great palce to begin.

            Now I will answer G-man as maybe I don’t even know what “natural law” is to begin with 🙂

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” But like I said, maybe I have it all wrong from the start, and just had to much good sleep lately in the frozen north. ”

              “…as maybe I don’t even know what “natural law” is to begin with ”

              No, …you get it.

              I think you pretty much nailed it, PD.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Morality is not a perception. It is a conception.

        You perceive a chair. You imagine a moral principle.

        • Tonight, I will respectively disagree. All of life’s thoughts are one’s perceptions. Perception is one’s reality. If a man perceives that he will be killed by all the police surrounding him (when he is a criminal of course), he may start shooting (suicide by cop) or whack himself. He acted on a perception.

        • JAC, You sit in a chair. That is not a perception, but a reality. Conception is the act of making a child. What are you drinking tonight 🙂

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          You can imagine a moral principle (conception). Or you can just know instinctively a moral principle ingrained by God (perfect perception).

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Change Up.

    It’s not about how we finance our debt, it is about HOW MUCH WE SPEND in total. Although printing money to pay the deficit instead of borrowing looks to be a better option.

    http://mises.org/daily/6350/The-Flipside-of-the-Trillion-Dollar-Coin

    • We will all learn how Fiat currency is nothing but a ripoff scheme. Our buying power will be crushed by these morons we call govt. Everyone from the Fed Reserve, the banksters and the govt should be arrested and convicted of fraud. Then Hanged!

  27. Oh Crap! I just threw away my tin foil hat, it’s useless now HAHAHA! 🙂 Camo, tin foil lined football shoulder pads should work, with a tin foil lined helmet cover. Damn, I’ll have to take the cool spike off the helmet 😆

  28. OH, how true this is. The liberal media at it’s finest 😆
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/notorious-gun-map-wildly-inaccurate/

    This is why I have no faith in the media. The MSM and it’s rag newspapers are a disease in our age. What a shame.

  29. I wonder if people with a conceal carry permit and a side arm would be this fricken paranoid? I’m sorry, but this is just damn stupid! http://www.prisonplanet.com/discussion-about-toy-nerf-gun-causes-lockdown-at-bronx-elementary-schools.html

    I bet it was an Obama voter who caused this. 👿

  30. Pretty cool how the beloved and trusted government can make a mass murderer out of a dead person, 😆 http://www.prisonplanet.com/date-on-social-security-death-record-for-adam-lanza-is-december-13-2012-one-day-before-the-sandy-hook-massacre.html

    Second time i’ve pointed this out. If it’s a mistake, it would have been fixed by now.

%d bloggers like this: