Open trade v. warfare

Wars are caused and created by a lot of things such as: a call to arms by their god, the taking of other country's property or territory, the need for certain material assets such as oil, racial, creed, or tribal hatred, the desire to enslaved defeated nations, and occasionally to satisfy the military desires of one's own armed forces.  There are a lot of reasons for war, just as there are a lot of reasons for arguments, some justified, some not, but war is seldom a very good answer, and subsequently, war should not be called upon unless as a true necessity, and specifically in ordinary circumstances for the defense of the state.

In today's world, borders have never been more opened, as well as the fact that the largest corporations aren't domestic and thereby just transacting businesses within their own borders, but are truly international, in which there are many such international corporations, that actually make more profits and conduct more business outside of their own nation than they conduct within it.  All of this makes sense, because the world is a very big place, even if your country is in aggregate one of the richest, it's aggregate riches are still significantly short of what the rest of the world has to offer up on their plate.  In addition, seeking growth from countries outside your domestic borders is a proven way to increase both sales and profits.

The fact that trade borders have more and more been torn down or modified so as to reasonably accept and trade goods country to country, basically benefits all involved, for the basic reason that if a given country can produce a given product at a lower price point, even with the transportation and insurance costs taken into account, than those consumers of such products are benefiting, and monies that would have been spent at a higher price point, have been saved for either investment or other purchases.  That said, domestic industries do matter, so that it is reasonable to have trade agreements that reflect that a reasonable accommodation must be made for domestic industry, which is reflected in tariffs, temporary or not, sliding scale or not, and in general trade agreements that try to smooth out import and export amounts between countries.

Those countries that fairly trade with one another, are consequently, far less inclined, to desire to go to war, because fair trading between nations, allows each to benefit in turn, and a rising boat of prosperity not only is beneficial to the people, but almost always results in less domestic unrest, as when the people are well sheltered, fed, and have decent healthcare, they are far less restless, than when there is nothing but the general lack of these things. 

However, as in all things, there are a couple of important caveats, of which one, is that not every country engages in open trade, in addition to the fact, developing countries, may be unfairly and in actuality exploited for their natural resources or similar, by more developed nations, so that the greatest benefit of infrastructure and resource development within those nations, occurs not to the indigenous people, but to those that have structured business and trade deals that benefit them to an unfair degree, leading to legitimate resentment, especially so when the biggest beneficiaries in a target nation, are the elite of that country, with the people barely benefiting whatsoever.

In all, though, trade between nations is primarily good, especially so when that trading does not allow one nation to hoodwink another, such as when precious metals are exchanged for mere trinkets and mirrors, for as long as trade truly benefits each country, wars, will as a matter of course, simply fade away.

The rich and their hypocritical bleeding hearts

The rich are different than you and I, and the very rich are strikingly different from everyone else.  For instance, those that are extremely wealthy, live lives that most of us are unable to comprehend or even really fathom, be it, the size of their toys, the size of their houses, the fact, that they actually have a winter home or a summer getaway, how they travel, where they eat, the organizations and institutions that they belong to, the schools that they and their children attend, the labor help that they utilized, the people that they congregate with, and so on and so forth.

Be that as it may, it isn't any real surprise that the rich are different, however, it is most unfortunate, that the rich champion causes that in their effect and in their principles, they well know that their personal risk is minuscule because these causes will never actually impact their lives in any meaningful way, form, or function.  For example, there are those that pound the table for equality for all, for affirmative action, for equal justice and equal accommodation, civil rights, fair taxation, and all sorts of things that sound very liberal minded and actually are.  The problem is, that these super rich elites demanding change and fairness, recognize, that whatever comes what may, sure in heck, isn't going to affect them in where and how they conduct their own personal lives.

That is to say, when you live in a gated community in which there are cameras and security to track everyone coming and going within that neighborhood, you certainly aren't going to get much property crime, whatsoever.   When you are part of a particular social milieu, you aren't ever going to be stopped and frisked, and you know it.  Further, if the police ever do stop you, after verifying your identity, they will apologize for the inconvenience, and pertinently, those very rich elites can certainly count on police officers and justice in particular, no matter what the law says, serving and protecting them.

Further, the schools that your children attend are schools that only accept children of like circumstances and consequently there will never be any trouble at these schools, in fact, these schools will reap the benefits of special privileges.  The restaurants that you frequent, and social events that you attend, while ostensibly being open to the public, are, in fact, really open only to those that have the monetary or historical invitation to actually attend.

All of the above, would indicate, that when the rich advocate for the poor and disadvantaged, the rich know that on any given day, they won't be inconvenienced whatsoever by whatever policies are passed, or put into place, because those unfortunate people simply don't exist in the orbits of the very rich.  The rich are all for helping the oppressed, preferably with the other people's or the government's money, with the implicit understanding that all is well, just as long as the masses do not infringe upon their social spaces.

The bottom line is that equality, equality of opportunity, color and creed blindness, and things of that sort, are all championed by the very rich, because they know that "those people" will never tread upon them, and well, it sounds good, and makes the very rich feel good for having said it.

Cookie-Cutter Men

The more modern that society gets, the more that governments and institutions take away and encroach upon our inalienable self-will and self-determination, and replace these most fundamental things with all sorts of meandering laws, rules, and regulations, so that society and economies can be managed, as if those that come up with these things, are wizards that know what is best for all, or at least act the part as if they know.

The problem with governments attempting to manage and to solve the individual puzzles of life, is that it then follows that governments and institutions thereby believe that if only the people cede their individual inclinations and desires into the "greater good" of the whole, than all will be happier and much more satisfied, but that theory holds no water in actuality.  Even worse, in practicality, people more and more aren't even given the option to opt-in or opt-out, as the poorest and most vulnerable in societies are now being managed as if they were mere cattle, so that as long as they fill out all these various forms correctly, keep out of the way of the law, do take these legally prescribed state-controlled medications, but not these other non-state sanctified drugs, while also allowing all of their private business to be managed, smoothed, and manipulated by state agencies, than they will be "given" food, shelter, and healthcare

.

Governmental agencies refuse to believe that societies can run themselves without their overriding and overbearing "assistance", signifying that the government and its affiliated institutions know best what you should or shouldn't be doing, and thereby whole edifices are created and affected amongst the people to demonstrate this mistaken fact.  In actuality, the best government is not only the one that governs least, but the one that makes it its point of purpose, to take the playing field of life, and level it in a way, that all are given a fair opportunity to be the best that they can be, rather than the law and its affiliated institutions favoring a few against the many.

There are plenty of governments that are bad for the people, to wit, most of those very bad governments recognize it implicitly and eventually collapse because those running such governments don’t have enough "true" believers to keep it running in perpetuity.  Then there are the governments and institutions of the western world, today, in which they believe that because they are so much smarter, so much more sophisticated than all that has existed in the past, utilizing their tools which have the most up-to-date analytics, and all their brilliance, that in short order, all will work well like a well-oiled machine.  These "true" believers are the absolute worse, because they believe implicitly in their own hype, and thereby when their planning and micro-management fails again and again, they attribute it to the machine that just needs another little tweak here or there, never once recognizing that no matter how much planning and arranging and re-arranging that they do, it will never work, and it will never be fair to the people.

Governments that insist that they know the song within each person's heart, have it totally wrong.  The person that knows their song within their heart is that individual, himself, and legitimate governments are instituted amongst men, so as to best give the opportunity for people, to develop and to sing their own song, so that together, there will be created the greatest harmony ever known to mankind.

War and Economic War

Every since civilization began, there has been wars between neighboring communities, wars between neighboring nations, wars between nations that wish to conquer other nations, and everything else in-between.  These wars for the most part, have always been physical wars, and obviously physical wars have enormous costs associated to society, to mankind, to trade, to life itself, and so forth. 

In today's interconnected world, there has evolved a new type of war, that involves significantly less bloodshed and significantly less physical destruction, and that type of war, rather than relying on machines and soldiers, is economic war.  After all, if the objective of today's wars and conflicts is to bring your enemy to heel, than a given nation, has an obligation to look and pursue all reasonable avenues that will allow them to achieve that goal, and one of those options is to take away the capacity and wherewithal for a country's capacity to live to fight.

The infrastructure of just about any nation, depends upon the reliable and continuous supply of food as well as clean water in order to feed their population, along with basic infrastructure needs such as shelter, good hygiene, electrical power, fuel supplies, transportation, roads, and typically some form of monetary base that will allow businesses to conduct their day-to-day activities in a manner in which it is conducive to trade and to exchange goods.  When any country has these things disrupted for any length of time, and longer that this is, the impact will be felt almost immediately, and the more things that countries literally depend upon on a day-do-day basis that are disrupted, the more that country has been weaken.

It doesn't matter much how large, or even how powerful your armed forces are, if that infrastructure has been compromised so that the air force, the navy, and the support behind those soldiers, no longer has the means to effectively operate their machinery and to deploy.  Even more to the point, if your armed forces are relatively paltry to begin with, to lose the little that you have, means that it is absolutely futile to even consider putting up a defense, as you are instead, in a position, in which, you must, if there is any sanity, negotiate the best deal that you can, and possibly appeal to the world for the rights of any nation to have its own sovereignty not infringed upon.

Most forms of money and capital in today's world, is not physical currency, which is defined as coins and paper money, but instead is money that is held in various stock markets, bonds, banks, and other forms of capital that have been deposited within what are essentially electronic accounts.  If, access to that money, is disrupted, prevented, or precluded for any length of time, basic societal things that need to be accomplished, have been effectively stopped or damaged to such a degree that very poor substitutes must be created immediately, in which these substitutes will not be able to perform at even close to the capacity needed to keep things running in a competent motion.

Physical war is very cruel, as it kills and hurts both soldiers as well as civilians, whereas economic war, dependent upon the length of time and how effective it is, is while still cruel, or even inhumane, at least keeps the door open, that if a nation that has few options, submits, that things can be restored to a "new normal" in a relatively short period of time with minimal long-term depredations.

This would signify that when contemplating war against a given nation, that taking away the basic oxygen that is necessary for life, can win the battle without a shot ever being fired.

"A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them"

The above quotation comes forth from the father of our Constitution, and the fourth President of the United States of America, James Madison.  One suspects that most people are not only completely unfamiliar of this quotation from the papers of James Madison, but are also confused or befuddled by what it is saying, since most people as a matter of course, do not see opinions as property.  However, if are not able to freely communicate your opinions in public, subject only to basic sensible restrictions regarding credible violent threats, extortion, defamation, and other things of this ilk, than your freedom of opinion, has been truncated, and thereby your conscience has been violated, and when a man's conscience is no longer his own or has been restricted by governmental agents or other institutions, than your freedom has been compromised.

A vibrant society is a society that isn't necessarily comfortable for all people all of the time, because everyone is actually entitled inalienably to their own opinions, their own goals, their own desires, and so forth, so that, in an ideal world, government's position on this type of interplay is a position of hands off, unless one's opinions become actions that are actually crimes against another individual or the state; in the vast majority of situations, though, for most opinions, whether elegant or hateful, all should be allowed in the marketplace of ideas.

When, instead, some given person, some given court, some given institution, or some given government, determines that they are the absolute arbiters of what is or isn't allowed to be spoken, or what is or isn't allowed to be written, or what is or isn't allowed to be thought, than freedom, and in particular that property which is specifically your opinion is no longer free but restrained and thereby imprisoned. 

In point of fact, governments are instituted amongst the consent of the governed, specifically to protect and to uphold impartially the property rights of the individual, of which, your opinions, your thoughts, and your speech, are your own property and should never be violated, without proper due process of law.

Too many present day policies are policies that impinge upon the rights of the people to simply express themselves, so as to thereby narrow viewpoints expressed more and more in the public square, to a place in which a restriction has been made that the only legitimate opinions that people are permitted to have are ones that are in lockstep with the current flavor of the day, and thereby all other opinions are therefore illegitimate and not permitted.  This type of thinking, especially when backed by dubious laws, rules, and regulations, is not only unconstitutional but an illegitimate taking of the property of all people which have been precluded from expressing their opinion in an open and free manner.

In an dictatorial society, first they take away all of your physical property so that you own nothing in your own name, than they control and monitor all of your expressed ideas and actions to conform to state control, and finally, through the diabolical usage of today's and tomorrow's technology, the very last piece is put into place, which is that even your unexpressed thoughts and opinions which are not state sanctified are eradicated, making you effectively just one more cog in the machine.

Cops, Chaos, and Strikes

Most police officers in this country are subject to specific labor law, which precludes police officers from striking.  Offhand, you wouldn't think that a municipality would even need a law like this on the books, because if police office believe that their self-interest is greater than the community's self-interest, one could very well question their loyalty to their given community to begin with, as after all, for instance, uniformed soldiers, do not have the option of only obeying and doing the things that they so desire, and cannot thereby ignorerules or commands that don't suit them, or if they do, the consequences of such an action are rather tragic.

Nevertheless, from time-to-time, police officers have gone on strike, or, have played a game of massive call-ins of sickness, or the reluctance to perform their given, daily duties, all to assert pressure on communities, to give in to their demands, legitimate or not.  These types of behaviors by the officers, themselves, are seldom justified, no matter the circumstances, because all officers have a duty to uphold the legitimacy of the state, and to thereby taking "the law" into their own hands is a definite dereliction of duty.

That said, since there have been strikes of police officers in municipalities as well as sick-ins, one might wonder as to whether or not, communities quickly degenerate into total chaos and anarchy when the "cat is away".  The quick answer is no, for a lot of reasons, of which one of them is, that the citizens of America are capable in extreme situations of policing themselves, fairly effectively, as not only do they have the desire to do so, they also have the wherewithal to do so, as no nation has more citizens that are armed.  In practicality, though, communities that are suffering from a police strike or strike-like actions, are quick to call upon State militia, militia in general, the National guard, Federal troops, and so forth, so as to make clear to the criminal elements throughout a community, that though the "first team", may not be in action, that the backup is quite capable of doing what is necessary to maintain order.

In point of fact, in an era in which many police officers don't know their communities or have little interest in doing so, that police officers have, in essence, marginalized themselves, because if policing is done more and more, by computer processing power and analytics, and less and less by engaging with the people in a mission to actually protect and serve, than a "cookie cutter" replacement, specifically, those that are active duty servicemen and servicewomen, could, in a time of crisis, probably fulfill the duties of policing activity in communities rather well.

When agents of the state, aggrandize unto themselves, that they are bigger or a more important part of the state, the state, will, always, crush that incipient revolt, sometimes with a velvet glove, or sometimes with an iron fist, but make no mistake, those police officers that believe that without their patrolling and police duty work, that communities would unravel into complete chaos in a short period of time, are badly mistaken, which is a significant reason why there are so few strikes.

Unemployed Need Not Apply

Any company looking to employ people that advertise the caveat that: "unemployed need not apply" are not doing any favors to anyone, as quite frankly, there are very good and talented people that will be unemployed from time-to-time, as well as this type of restriction in regards to reasonable due diligence, is a form of laziness, as if taken to the extreme, than all people at the point of their birth, are unemployed, which would indicate that the person coming up with the concept that the unemployed need not apply, was himself, once unemployed, demonstrating the hypocrisy of the whole thing.  While technically, discriminating against one's state of employment, isn't considered to be a federal violation of the law, it, in effect, is definitely discriminatory and obviously hurts those that need and are seeking employment.

In point of fact, too, the "you must be currently employed to apply here" mantra, follows in the lockstep, of winners have jobs, and losers do not; therefore, those that are typically most discriminated against, such as minorities, disabled people, people with health issues, older people, and very young people, are effectively eliminated without even the common courtesy of being able to present themselves and given a reasonable chance or shot at employment.

While, on a certain, sick level, one can appreciate the candor of an advertisement that tells the unemployed to not even try, because that company will not consider you under any circumstances, those that make it a habit to shut the door unfairly on certain people, will, one day, have their comeuppance.  Unfortunately, in the meanwhile, those that need jobs are curtailed from getting jobs, even when well qualified in doing so, which smacks of the same type of discrimination to which certain people were subjected to such as: "Irish, need not apply", "Blacks, need not apply", and so forth.

What is especially insidious is that those that recently lost their job, are at their most vulnerable when looking for a new job, so that this type of bias, serves no good purpose, whatsoever, and can be, rather devastating for those looking for employment.  The fact of the matter is that kicking a man when he is down has never been considered to be the American way, as, in theory and in contrast, this is supposed to be the land of opportunity. 

For those employers that feel that they must eliminate the unemployed because they are unquestionably out-of-touch with the latest this and that, one must respond with the question: does the very act of current employment, prove this theory, true?  Signs and advertisements that tell the unemployed to get lost have no place in America, and should consequently be disowned.  You should not judge a book by its cover, and if you are to judge, judge a man by the content of his character, his experience, his desire, his drive, his intelligence, his responsibility, his certificates, his education, and all sorts of things that are pertinent to evaluating the capabilities and capacity of a man in regards to the consideration of employment of him. 

For those employers that discriminate against the unemployed, for whatever reason, get off your high horse, and recognize, your disdain for those you believe are beneath you or not worth your precious time, are the exact, same people that you must face when that bell tolls for thee.

Plea Bargains and Risk Management

The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution reads in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…" of which, none of this actually currently exists in the form of which it was intended.  That is to say, those that are accused of crimes certainly do not have a speedy trial, in fact, as reported by the nytimes.com, sadly: "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains," of which, plea bargains aren't a form of a public trial, in fact, they are the very opposite of such, and are best considered to be "backroom" deals.

There are many, many reasons why plea bargains are so prevalent in this country, to which, it all begins with the fact that if the sheer quantity of arrests far exceeds the capacity of the courts to deal with such, plea bargains, become a necessary evil.  Additionally, when the criminal justice system over penalizes the accused to such an extent that even relatively modest "crimes" are subject to significant incarceration time, than the defendant to those crimes, is placed into the unenviable position of essentially risk management.

The thing that makes plea bargains, especially insidious, is that the prosecutorial element of the justice system, are not bluffing, when they indicate to the supposed perpetrator of an alleged crime, that failure to take a plea bargain, will often result, if convicted, in substantial incarceration time.  Additionally, the criminal justice system isn't fair on an entirely different level, which is the State or the federal government can, if so desire, in cases that pricks their interest, bring forth the full force of such prosecutorial resources against the indigent or vulnerable, almost without limit, whereas a significant amount of defendants simply don't have the monetary resources, nor the connections, nor the comprehending of the intricacies of our American justice system, to even do much better than to accept a public defender, which equates to, unequal justice.

When it comes to plea bargains, it is highly unfortunate, that these deals are even done in the first place, as this means, by definition, that the accused never gets their fair day in a court of law, but must instead, if they are prudent, along with hopefully having an intuitive understanding of risk management, make a deal, because that deal , all things considered, is, not only the best way to manage their risk, but that deal is known and knowable, whereas an actual trial could easily result in substantial penalties that would effectively end the defendant's options for even an okay life on the outside, although, in theory, the defendant could risk all, to gain all, and thereby obtain his freedom.

In a nutshell, plea bargains are constructed so as to lure the guilty as well as the innocent, to strike a deal, in order to take a reduced punishment that often though bad enough, will allowed such defendants to live to fight another day.  In point of fact, plea bargains should be looked upon for what they essentially represent, which is the bullying and the intimidation by the state against those that do not have the resources or wherewithal to effectively fight back, leaving these defendants wounded and even more vulnerable to basically being treated as a class of citizen, that has reduced rights, and limited freedom.

Students Spend their Student Loans

College is insanely expensive in the United States, of which, how much a given person has to pay for their college tuition and its associated expenses, depends a lot upon how fortunate or unfortunate that person is in selecting their college to begin with, its direct cost, its affiliated costs, and so forth.  In addition, like many things, how much one student is paying for tuition at the exact same college varies considerably, from basically free, for those fortunate enough to get a scholarship that covers everything, to those that pay the absolute full freight, with no discounts for anything, whatsoever. 

In any event, good or bad, this government has consciously made a determination that college for just about everyone is a good thing, so that the loaning of massive sums of money to young adults so that they can attend school, get an education, and receive their degree is considered to be basically a good and desirable thing.  Then, in theory, these students will obtain employment, in which over a period of years, they will subsequently pay off their student loans, while making more income than they would have, if they had not attended college in the first place.  That is the theory, works for some, and most definitely doesn't work for others.

When it comes to student loans, before one is initiated in the intricacies of them, a given student might properly reason that student loans are for college tuition, college books, a college dormitory room, and other expenses pretty much directly associated with the attending of a given college.  If that was true, that would be one thing, but in point of fact, many student loans appear to be given to students, like candy to a little kid, so that rather than a check barely covering all the reasonable expenses a given student would have for attending their college, there can be a massive differential between the amount of money really required for their tuition, and the amount of monies received by the student, and therein lies the rub.

Most students attending college are, for the first time, without direct parental supervision, and are now considered for the first time to be adults, in which, many are lacking in ready capital and forethought.  Their youth and their disposition, has a tendency to make them desire to get as much money loaned to them, for good purpose or not, simply because in their youthful naiveté, they equate money being placed into their hands, without having to labor for it, as free money, never consciously recognizing that it is not a gift, but a loan, with attendant strings and responsibilities attached to it.

The one thing that you can count on when it comes to collegiate students is that when you hand them excess funds, they are not taking that cash, and saving it for a rainy day, but instead, they are going to spend, spend, and spend.  The positive to society for students that like to spend money is that because the economy grows not on its savers of capital, but on those that actually spend their money, borrowed or not, on tangible things, that the sheer amount of money that has been borrowed by these young adults, helps to grow consumption of our GDP, the caveat being, though, that those attributing to that growth, are for the most part, not contributing from their income, but from loans and their future, as yet to be determined, income.

This means that when and if student loans are paid off or paid down, that there is correspondingly less consumption now being made by those that have borrowed the money in the first place, which  becomes a drag onto the economy.  So that, it can be argued, that the reason student loans have grown so much and so fast over the last generation, is a reflection that the short-term interests of those that provide and benefit from such loans, supersedes the long term consequences of providing such easy credit to those, that aren't typically disciplined enough to be prudent with it.

One Man, One Vote

The Congress of the United States of America is divided into two houses, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.  Although, the Senators of each State as well as the Representatives are voted upon by the people, Senators are considered to be representatives of the State, and congressmen are considered to be representatives of the people from each given State.  So too this is the reason why we have a bicameral legislature, so that the biggest States would not dominate the smaller States, however, the size differential in the States of today far exceeds what it was back at the founding of our nation, so that today, the State with the largest population in our country, which is California, has a population that exceeds in aggregate the twenty-two smallest States of the Union.  This means that in the Senate, California has but two members, the same as every other State, whereas those twenty-two smaller States have in aggregate, forty-four members, signifying, that the smaller States have far more influence upon governmental policies than their small size would seem to represent.

In the House of Representatives, with the exception of the fact that each State is guaranteed at least one seat in that House, the seats are apportioned every decade by the population of each State, so that Wyoming, has but one representative, which therefore means that its district is the entire State of Wyoming, whereas California has fifty-three representatives, because of its large population, meaning that California is proportionally represented in the House of Representatives, unlike the Senate.  In any State in which there are more than one representative, there then comes forth the issue as to how congressional districts are divided and gerrymander, which has a tremendous influence on which party does or does not win that district, but beyond that, whether that district reflects or doesn't reflect certain races to the exclusion of others as well as various factors of this ilk.  For instance, if you were to break down each State, by the racial classification of its citizens, whites would represent the highest portion of that population within each State, with the exception of Hawaii, New Mexico, and California.  This means, in effect, that congressional districts could be, and have been structured in such a way that one race is significantly over-represented, to wit, in the 115th Congress, there are a total of 102 minorities, which is 23.45% of the members of the House, whereas on a population basis, minorities are about 37% of the population.  Incredibly, this percentage of minorities in today's Congress is the highest percentage, ever, yet it still doesn't represent fairly their proportion of this country.

All of the above, would signify, that even though each citizen is entitled to one vote, that not every vote is equal, by virtue of the fact, that if a given congressional district is structured in a way, and many are, that your vote as a minority or creed or race or class or circumstance, is basically a vote that will not influence the result of a preordained election, than your vote has no utility.  While, impressive changes have been made over recent years, which has served to make congressional representation a far fairer and equal process, it still isn't in many cases, fair or equal, whatsoever.  The bottom line is that if your representative is not a true reflection of the people, than that representative is not truly legitimate.

"The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people"

The above quotation comes from the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in the Laird v. Tatum case of 1972.  What was at issue in this case was whether the US Army intelligence was legally permitted to gather information on civilians and their activities, in this case, conscientious objectors, protesting military policies of America.  The court ruled in favor of Army intelligence, however, within their opinion, they stated that there was "… no evidence of illegal or unlawful surveillance activities," in the gathering of such information, further, that it wasn't clandestine, and that "…the information gathered is nothing more than a good newspaper reporter would be able to gather…"  If, in fact, this was true, their majority decision was, perhaps reasonable.

Fast forward to today's world, today's technology, today's massive intelligence complex, and, honestly, for a certainty, not even the FBI director, not even the CIA director, not even any director of any type, and certainly not even the President, can tell the American people what is or what isn't being specifically gathered on their citizens, what is or isn't being acted upon, how much and how intrusive such surveillance is, because they don’t really know, except that they appear to gather everything from everywhere.  Never has this government rested so heavily on the backs of the people, while simply stating in their defense of their activity such trite things such as all this is for the protection and safety of the people, rather than what it's real purpose is, which is to stifle civil dissent, to intimidate the population, to criminalize public protests, to harm innocent civilians, and to control and to mold the masses in their actions and in their thoughts.

Government at its highest level, scoffs at the words of Lincoln, that this is a: "... government of the people, by the people, for the people," signifying by their governmental actions and by their laws that the people of this great land are not free and are not independent, but rather in many cases dependent upon the government to sustain them, and if they will not follow the dictates of the government, than they will be punished and humbled for it.  It is unfortunate, that through executive orders, through poor legislation, through poor legislatures, through poor justice, but rather on behalf of those elite people and institutions that effectively rule this country, that this government has more and more aggrandized unto itself powers that were not intended to be part of this federal government in the first place, and thereby vast masses of the people are left susceptible to being assaulted, arrested, and effectively destroyed by government operators at any given moment.

If, civilians have no private sphere, and if the government, has no outside, independent authority on behalf of the people, monitoring what this government is performing domestically in regards to intelligence and information, than the people, have no future and no hope, because information truly is power, especially when the government knows everything about you, such as: where you are, how much you earn, who you owe debts to, your bank accounts, your email and text messages, your cell phone conversations, your travel, your family, your social connections, your health, and mirrors every click of your computer mouse; one man against the power and reach of this government has no choice but to submit, or suffer dire consequences for his dissent.

Growing up my parents were totally impossible, but now I understand they weren't so much

There is all sorts of authority that a given child must deal with in the process of growing up, to which, if that child is rather clever, he can manage just fine in dealing with school authority, and other outside authority, simply because at the end of the day, those authority figures because they have to deal with so many other children and so many other things, cannot devote the time necessary to really know and process everything that a particular child is doing, so that therefore the child typically holds the upper hand, because that child knows himself and can successfully exploit weaknesses in those other authority figures by playing whatever card might work, such as the "misunderstood what you were saying," card, "won't happen again," card, and so forth, with the overall objective being to skirt free of any real punishment or real reprimand, and it often works, because those other authority figures, wantto believe in the good of that child, and with the right moves, the child can help them in that belief.

On the other hand, parents are far trickier to solve, as they know their children on levels of far more depth, than anyone else, and further to the point, since the same game has been played on them, time and time again, they are far wiser to the game, itself.  This puts the child in the problematic situation, of believing, that either he is the smart and clever one, unjustly treated by his parents, unfairly, or that his parents are all-knowing and all-wise, something that many children forego, believing.  When children are not permitted to do this or that at their will and they are stopped by doing so by their parents, their perception is that their parents are ignorant, old-fashion, out-of-touch, arbitrary dictators, bullies, and fundamentally wrong, never once recognizing that children often can't or won't recognize their own faults.

Children like to scream and shout, that "everyone else is doing that, wearing that, having that," or "you are so unfair," so as to hopefully create persuasion or pressure on their parents, and if that doesn't work, than they might try to do a few chores around the house, or work one parent against the other, so that, it's either  a guilt trip ploy to get their way, or a quid pro quo game, or similar, to which, it doesn't matter much, how it's accomplished, as long as it is accomplished.  Then again, desperate situations call for desperate solutions, so children will lie, in order to do what they want to do.

Yet, through it all, time marches inevitably on and eventually these children become young adults, than adults, and then, for most, become parents.  It is at that time, when you become your own parent that you begin to understand, to empathize, as to where your parents were to begin with, that often times, they actually meant well, because they cared and loved you, and wished to protect you, desiring that you prioritized your life well, made good decisions, and stayed safe, because they knew that there are very bad things out there, and very vulnerable situations that one should not want to be placed into.

Sure, parents don't always get it right, nobody does, but most parents offer wisdom, experience, and perspective, of which, all of these things are beneficial for children.  The day that you are finally able to realize that your parents meant well for you, is the day that you finally recognize, that they gave and sacrificed for you, so as to give you a better opportunity in life, which, done often enough and done right, makes for better children, for better parents, for better communities, for better countries, and for a better world.

Big Banks, Big Unfairness

As reported by the Economic Studies at Brookings, the big four banks in America, which are JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, in aggregate have banking assets held by these entities exceeding 50% of total share, effectively making these banks the most important banks in America, by far.  Although, ostensibly these banks compete against one another, in effect, these banks recognize the value of working together in principle as well as in goals, so as to increase their overall influence and importance to governmental agencies and corporations throughout America.

These banks are the leaders in banking, so whatever that they do, it is copied and replicated by most other banking institutions in America.  So too, because of their sheer size and depth of services offered, these are the banks that governments and multinational corporations are going to engage with on an everyday basis, effectively freezing out small, regional banks, as well as banks that simply don't have the experience, depth of resources, or apparent expertise.

This makes, in effect, a relationship to at least one of these big four banks, if not all of them, almost mandatory for governments and conglomerates because the need for ready access to capital, is foundational for the growth and the expansion of governments and their funding, as well as conglomerates and their current and future planning.  Not too surprisingly, when the only game is town is one of the big four, one's ability to negotiate the best deal on behalf of one's own interests, is somewhat compromised.  Still, on an overall basis, each side needs the other, so a somewhat happy middle and accommodating ground is reached.

On the other hand, there then is everyone else, in which that playing field heavily favors the rich, the connected, and those that have stellar credit, in opposition to those that lack these very same things.  The fair access to credit is one of the most important dividing lines, between those that have and will have more, in stark contrast to those that don't have, and don't have much choice.  That is to say, in virtually any business enterprise, capital is needed, which unless already inherited or already saved, one is required to have as well as it being prudent to have good access to capital in order to profitably engage in a given business enterprise.  Those that have wonderful business ideas but lack fair access to capital must then make alliances with those that do have great credit and/or are powerfully connected to such, in order to have any hope of success and growth.  This means that because of the lack of capital, or the lack of access to capital, this will ultimately end with one's given ownership percentage being shared simply with those that have money, even if, that is pretty much all that they bring to the table.

While certainly it is better to share wealth created, then not to have any portion of that wealth at all, it is unfair that the money brokers receive a nice, healthy chunk of profits without actively engaging in the day-to-day activities and attendant responsibilities of a given business.  Even worse, is the outcome for those that lack fair access to capital because of their perceived un-creditworthiness, or lack of appropriate connections, or lack of appropriate schooling, or lack of appropriate bloodline, to which, these people often can find access to capital, but that access to money comes at a far higher percentage rate, with far less forgiveness, with  far less benefits, and far more pressure, thereby squeezing the little man -- into the grip of a relentless and unrelenting vise.

Blacks, Drugs, and Incarceration

In 1971, President Nixon, declared a war on drugs, incredibly, forty-five years later, this war is still going on today, with this war changing dramatically life for those that are its most vulnerable, and effectively criminalizing certain choices that people make in regards to substances that they utilize in small quantities or sell in small quantities, both highly illegal as well as highly punitive in nature.  This war, as in all wars, is selective in its enforcement, and thereby concentrates the bulk of its energies on particular segments of the population, which are mostly black, minority, and "trailer trash" whites, which have been virtually segregated from the general population so as to be treated with utter disdain, contempt, and ruined.

It goes without saying, that mankind, for whatever reason or reasons, has almost an innate desire in some of its members, to want to alter its consciousness.  This desire can be fulfilled via religious ecstasy, particular plants that are ingested, smoked, or grinded, as well as man's ability to synthesize chemicals from the elements.  Certain people have a proclivity to engage in the alteration of their consciousness, more than others, stemming from such things as abusive situations that they try to suppress and forget, hopelessness, boredom, peer pressure, stupidity, enlightenment, and the like.  Not too surprisingly, there is an art to this game, in which, legal prescriptions for mood altering chemicals are considered to be fine and acceptable, whereas choices made not under the direct supervision or approval of a government-licensed physician are a violation, and are often punished severely, depending upon who you are.

It should be acknowledged that when you live in neighborhoods in which the educational system is highly inadequate, the legal independent income is nearly non-existence or pays pathetically, the infrastructure anemic or in disrepair, the positive role models and positive family structures are completely lacking, the people that live there, which are typically blacks, other minorities, and whites on the wrong side of the tracks, are going to have to find something to do within the long 24 hours of every given day.  While the liquor stores, fast food joints, and overpriced convenience stores are abundant in such areas, not every individual finds enough satisfaction from the effects of alcohol, in which, opportunists recognize intuitively that man's misery and dysfunction, creates an ideal breeding ground for the distribution ofalternative mind altering substances.

Everyone that lives in these neighborhoods already knows what is happening within their neighborhood, so too, do policing as well as governmental authorities know the deal, which allows these forces to, at will, arrest and convict, pretty much whomever they so desire, whenever they so desire, in the interests of the state authorities.  The people arrested, and re-arrested, than convicted, and re-convicted, have no money, and have no justice, effectively becoming perpetual wards of the state.  This makes for a permanent underclass that is stamped as non-employable, indigent, and dependent upon handouts or hustling for the remainder of their days, when they aren't already incarcerated.

The question that is hardly ever asked, is where do all these drugs that are in these neighborhoods in the first place, come from; as well as, why sell or distribute drugs to poor people, when surely there is far more money to be made selling to those that actually have money, and live in far, safer neighborhoods.  The answer to that question is that the real dealers and distributors of the drugs are part and parcel of the very system that oppresses the most vulnerable.  After all, the poor are always amongst us, there are scores of them, so that they therefore need to be controlled so as to stop incipient uprisings from occurring, and forever keep them weak, in their place, and disenfranchised.

The Rise and fall of Black Home Ownership

Part of the American dream, is the ability to demonstrate in one's material assets, that a given individual or family, has been successful, and whether or not you own your own residence, is widely seen to be that dividing line.  There is something about being king or queen of your own castle, that separates you from those that do not, for a lot of good and practical reasons, of which, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, makes it clear that one's property is secured from unreasonable searches and seizures by the state, and when you live under the aegis of a landlord or similar, you can easily find that such protections are mitigated, substantially.

While people work for many reasons, one of the foremost reasons why people strive to work hard and to achieve, is to be able to at the end of day, return home to the sanctuary that they are owners of.  That is why home ownership is so imperative to so many Americans, but the racial divide, between whites and all minorities in regards to home ownership is quite pronounced, which, given that whites in aggregate have more income, have more assets, and so forth, should be expected, what shouldn't be expected is that the gap between whites and blacks in regards to home ownership, has widen not contracted since 1980.

According to census.gov, the home ownership rate for blacks before the landmark Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the fair housing bill which was passed in 1968, was only 34.5% in 1950, but by 1970 it had risen to 41.6%, and then in 1980 it had increased to 44.4%, whereas for whites as reported by bu.edu their ownership rate in 1980 was 67.7%.  The black home ownership rate then began to decline so that in 1990 it was just 43.4%, though in the year 2000, as reported by infoplease.com black ownership had risen to 47.2%, while peaking at 49.1% in 2004, whereas today as reported by census.gov the black home ownership rate for the 3rd quarter of 2016 was just 41.3% as compared to the white ownership in the same period of time being at 71.9%.  In taking a look at the rate of home ownership between whites and blacks in 1980, the percentage gap between these two, wasin percentage points, 23.3, whereas in the 3rd quarter of 2016, that percentage point gap was 30.6.

This signifies that since 1980, blacks have materially regressed in their black ownership rate, and since that period of time, the gap between black and white home ownership has significantly widened.  This would indicate that despite all the governmental regulations for non-discrimination and fairness for this, that, and the other, something fundamentally is wrong in America and this is reflected in the fact that rather than blacks making progress in narrowing what has always been a massive gap in home ownership between blacks and whites in this country, things have gotten progressively worse. 

Additionally and importantly, there isn't any real reason to expect that this will somehow correct itself in the near future of generations to come, the bottom line is the system is broken and that is reflected in the huge disparity of home ownership between blacks and whites.

America prides itself as being seen as that land of opportunity, but the proof is in the pudding, and that clearly demonstrates that America and its institutions in virtually all aspects, favors those it has always favored, and leaves blacks with that promissory note, still in default.

The Art of Living in your Vehicle

As reported by aljazeera.com there are estimated to be "…214,000 "unsheltered" homeless people in America," of which some of these people sleep in their car at night.  Of course, coming up with this sort of estimate is problematic, what is true, though, is that in a time in which incomes for so many people are inadequate and inconsistent, as well as the cost of living being so high for so many, that man's ingenuity will at least consider seeing possibilities in taking things like one's automobile and contemplating the advantage of having a car that doubles as a form of shelter, taking into consideration the benefit that a car gets you to places on demand, so as to fulfill work and other personal obligations, while also in theory, serving as a place of sanctuary as well as sleep,  meaning that the extra expense of an apartment, could, when pressed, be bypassed.

Seeing that this is America, one major concern about living in one's vehicle is the legality of it, of which, as always, there are laws passed by certain city councils and governments banning such a thing, which seems to be highly discriminatory against the indigent that obviously do not have the monetary resources or wherewithal to fight back against being charged with such violations, of which, the government's position seems to be that your vehicle is actually not really your property outright, as if there is a limit as to how much time you can spend inside of it, and must therefore vacate your own property or be subject to penalties by the state.

There are advantages to living in a world which is 24/7, which therefore makes it easier to figure out the logistics of living in your car, for instance, there are many gyms that are open at all hours of the day, so that one can not only exercise but shave, shower, and take care of other personal hygiene.  So too, restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, coffee shops, and gas stations are open all hours of the day and night, making it convenient to find a place to transact business or to socialize.  Then also, America offers a lot of public spaces such as parks, libraries, town squares, and other places, that have reasonable hours of operation, so as to have a place to hang out at.

For people that do not have a lot of financial resources and do not have a place that they can share with another, because the affordability isn't there, or they feel that they do not want to be known as an imposition to others, there is actually a sensibility in living in one's vehicle, because when you look at expenses on a monthly basis, just about everybody's highest expense, is their living space, and if you can mitigate that substantially or reduce it to a minimum, while still having your car, in which it is that car that takes to your places of employment or other areas of need and interest, it all makes a certain reasonable sense.

The bottom line is that it costs a lot of money to live and there is a huge swath of the underclass in America that struggles week-to-week, so that, for some, out of necessity more than anything, living in their car, may actually be a practical alternative that allows that person to survive, so as to live to do battle day-by-day.

Your Computer IP Address is like your Personal Phone Number with an Operator listening in

There was a time, way back when, that in order to complete a telephone call to someone else, that the call went through an actual switchboard with human operators, that would connect the call, and while there were rules and regulations in place, specifically forbidding these human operators from listening in on conversations, if they so desired, or if the opportunity was there to do so, they could listen in, and from time-to-time did listen in on those conversations.  Fast forward to today's world, and your computer has an Internet Protocol (IP) address, used to identify your device on the network that it is communicating with via the internet.  While it makes logical sense that each device has its own IP address, just as each phone has its own phone number, there isn't a good and valid reason why the IP address isn't encrypted specifically so that government agencies of all sorts, domestic or not, cannot track back to a specific IP address all of its activity.

If governments or corporations are allowed, explicitly or implicitly to monitor and keep track of the complete internet browsing of a given IP address and have the knowledge that connects that IP address to a business or to an individual or to a family, than your activity, all of your activity on the internet, can be traced back to the source.  IP addresses that are not thoroughly encrypted permits policing agencies or corporations to eavesdrop and to record all activities of all interconnected citizens, whereas the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution clearly states that the people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches, unless upon probable cause, supported by an affirmation, and particularly describing the place and things to be searched and seized.  When that protection is ripped apart from the hands of the people, than the people, essentially when engaging with the internet, have no privacy, and have no rights, because all of their activity is captured, without regard to probable cause, all under the aegis of the day, which at this point, is national security.

It is vital that a national law be passed and executed, that encrypts IP addresses, but does allow a backdoor, under probable cause and with specific rules and regulations, to un-encrypt a specific IP address, under special circumstances, limited in that search to specific, tangible things and for a fixed amount of time, before it is reviewed after such time by an independent court of law to determine whether it should be renewed.  In point of fact, technology has changed things, changed things in such a way, that information and conversations that are private and confidential from their inception, are considered instead to be fair game for governmental or corporations to capture for their own reasons.  To do so, and to continue to do, is a disservice to the people of this country, that should be permitted to go about their business, in their own way, without meddling or monitoring by agencies which are not part and should not be party to their individual proclivities.

The government and corporations for that matter will always push the false flag, that these things are necessary in order to get to the bad guys, or for analysis, or to protect you, but in actuality, the real reason is to stifle civil protests, to find a criterion that compromises you, and thereby to control you to the dictates of the state and its adjutants.

Rich Banks, Poor Masses

Life isn't fair, as the average person can look all around and see that there are a select few with very much, some with an acceptable amount, and a whole lot of people with next to nothing.  This country runs on money and that money in almost all instances are controlled by banking establishments and their ilk.  The first question one should ask about banks, is how is that what should be a low margin business that banks are able to somehow make literally billions and billions of dollars, witnessed by JPMorgan Chase as reported by cnnmoney.com reporting a profit of $5.6 billion dollars in its 4th quarter of 2016.  The sheer amount of money made is indicative of exactly how mammoth in size and girth, JPMorgan Chase is, and that in of itself is troubling.

The most fundamental question to ponder is what actually banks do as opposed to what banks should do.  In today's world, most banks are primarily in the business to make as much money as they can for their stockholders in any way possible, which means that their primary purpose when you get right down to it is to exploit those that need money, and just about every corporation, every business, as well as every individual, has a need for money, and just about all of those will have a need to borrow money at some point.  For instance, unless you literally pay cash for everything, such as your home, your car, your repairs and so on, you will as an individual probably have or have had a car note, or a mortgage, and so on, to which this loan to you originates from banks.  The same criterion fits into big corporations, which typically have to borrow money in order to purchase capital equipment, and in order to stay competitive and to grow.  So too, governments of all sorts, including in particular this Federal government, must borrow money, especially when running huge deficits in order to pay bills, meet obligations, and create infrastructure, amongst many other things.

The banking entity that has the money has the control of who gets the money and thereby what they will charge borrowers for that money, taking into consideration that the depositor of monies must be compensated a certain percentage amount or a fee.  However, unlike normal folk, banks have all sorts of laws and regulations that favor their particular institution, to wit, banks can leverage their deposits, in many instances, at ratios of 20:1, signifying that for every $1 deposited, they can loan out $20.  It is this leverage which allows banks to make not only tons of money on their loans of all sorts, but places a high risk on their ability to manage such leverage, however, this risk is mitigated because certain favored banks are protected by the Federal government, an d thereby given the designation that they are "too big to fail". 

All of the above signifies quite clearly that the institution that controls the money, controls the people, as banks essentially make money by charging usurious interest rate, fees, penalties and so forth onto the people, to which,  in aggregate the people have no realistic way of ever successfully paying back their obligations, in which, if those people don't make good, they thereby go bankrupt and lose their assets and possessions to their creditors, whereas the banks are protected from such failure and bailed out.  The money that banks make comes from the labor of the people, wrongfully extracted from the people as a predatory form of tribute, for whom the bankers, in reality, create nothing, but make sure to take their "pound of flesh" from the people and this present government aids and abets them in doing so.

Federal Liquor Taxes are Way, Way too Low

Government agencies of all stripes and types, like to tax things, and the amount of things that are taxed has grown over the years, which means that some items are probably overtaxed and some items are probably under taxed.  A case in point is the taxation of distilled spirits, or the hard stuff at the traditional 80 proof, that far too many people consume far too often.  While the pricing of your standard 750ml bottle of eighty- proof liquor will vary sharply depending upon the brand, the alcohol type, and the State that you reside in, overall though the price of liquor is very affordable, as a bottle of 750ml liquor can be bought in many States at a price point as low as the $10 range, and a 750ml bottle, provides its recipient and friends, with 25.3605 one ounce shots per bottle, which is plenty of alcohol for a trivial amount of money.

America tried prohibition back in 1920, and that didn't work out too well, in fact, America practices prohibition today in the form of draconian laws in respect to drug usage, which results in an incredible amount of people incarcerated, fined, punished, and so forth, for the crime of possibly abusing their own body.  Adults should be given the choice as to what they do or don't want to do with their body, and with their consciousness, and subsequently every day adults in this country decide whether they like to have a drink, or two, or many more than two.  That said, alcohol consumption has traditionally been seen as something to tax as a "sin" and there isn't any real good reason not to continue that practice which is why, when looking upon the price of alcohol, in comparison to how destructive alcohol is to individuals as well as families and society in general, that the taxation on a federal level needs to increase.

Currently, the taxation of alcohol from a federal level is only $2.14 for a 750ml bottle, which is way too low for this product and needs to be raised immediately, as unlike many other taxes on many other products, there simply isn't any good reason why alcohol shouldn't be taxed at a rate that doesn’t pain or inconvenience the consumer of such, especially for a product that essentially provides no social good, whatsoever.  It's difficult to come up with an argument as to why federal excise taxes on alcohol are so low, in fact, its' difficult to understand why there would even be an argument about it.

Of course, there are two parts to the alcohol situation, which is, you have the consumers of the product, who ultimately suffer from consuming it, and then there are the profiteers of the sale of the product, in which the lion's share of said profits are part and parcel of these massive multinational corporations that have powerful lobbying arms and are highly motivated to keep things just the way that they are in order to make good sustainable profits on other people's vices and weakness.  Be that as it may, there isn't any good reason why something like tobacco, which has been vilified by governmental and health agencies of all types for the last couple decades,  in which, tobacco has been treated like the devil, itself, whereas, on the other hand, alcohol has somehow been able to get basically a free ride.

It really comes down to this, governments need money, and certain people claim they need alcohol, so keep it real simple, raise the federal excise tax 400% from today's insanely low level to collect more in revenue from this insidious harmful vice.

To One, We Owe All

America prides itself on knowing so much, but it has forgotten the most basic and most important thing of all which is: ex nihilo, nihil fit, "out of nothing, nothing comes".    To those that do not believe in a Higher Power, than your highest duty must be to your mother, who created you, for without her, you would not be here.  As for all others, whether they have an inchoate belief that there is something like a Creator, or definitely is a Creator, or something in-between, must recognize than that all we are, all we can ever be, and all we will ever be comes from the very hand of God, and of no other.

This makes for a certainty that our highest goal in life, our highest achievement possible, is to find our way back to God, in recognition that all that we are, all that we have, is taken or borrowed from God, himself.  Humans, way too often, want to credit themselves for their achievements, of which this sort of sentiment most definitely has its place, as our efforts, our decisions, and our actions, are something that we have the right to be proud of, especially when we have indeed accomplished good things for ourselves, as well as others.  However, in full truthfulness, in full humility, there must be the conscious recognition that we did not create ourselves, in fact, we really don't seem to know how we even came about, but intuitively we know that there is a higher power, which knows all, is all, and has always and always will exist.

It is therefore our duty to find our way to the very first things, to return to He who breathed life into us, as there cannot be a higher purpose in life, than to become one, with our Creator, who awaits our return, no matter how long, or how circuitous that path may be.  We read in Holy Scripture that as Saint John stated: "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light" (John 1:8).  It is to that Light, that we must recognize that without it, we wouldn't even live in darkness, we would simply not exist.

Those that keep their Creator foremost in their minds and foremost in their thoughts, recognize that their gifts are to be used for the betterment of their fellow man here on earth, that we indeed are our brother's keeper, and that the greater man is he who serves another, rather than taking of what is not his by right, so as to dominate or to dictate to another.  Those that see nothing but the physical, or nothing but their own selfish desires, or live to fulfill their ego and its demands, have entrapped themselves into an existence that cannot rise above the earthly gravity that forces them down.

No matter how many mind games a given person plays, no matter what justifications are made during the conduct of a life, no matter what propaganda is propounded or believed, if all is not in accordance with the Truth, it is like a house being built on sand, and the crash of that home is inevitable from its beginning.  If you are your own god, when the light of human existence extinguishes, you will recognize for a certainty that you are not; there is only One, our Creator, and our obligation therefore is to acknowledge and to embrace Him in all ways, in recognition that through Him lies both our salvation as well as the opening of the portal that brings us to the blessed combination of Truth, Justice, and Love.