American War Profits and War Tribute

Many Americans are not aware that per our Constitution, war can only be declared by an Act of Congress, and no other.  So that, the last time that Congress declared war was on December 8, 1941, yet since that time America has been at war with several nations and principalities and is currently at war, though, none of today's wars are a Congressional declared war.  Instead, the President as Commander-in-Chief has aggrandized unto himself, the power to take war upon any such country that the President so desires.

The reason that the President utilizes his Commander-in-Chief status so frequently thereby involving America in foreign conflicts all over the world, so as to engage in military battles wherever America so desires, is clearly because the military needs to constantly justify its gargantuan budget, which is well over 50% of the nation's fiscal Discretionary Budget spending, therefore having that military used under the purported purpose of defending and protecting this nation from foreign insurgents of nation-states, or terrorists, must be constantly called upon.  It should be noted, that though the military is made up of personnel, in order for that personnel to be highly effective as a killing force, they must have the most modern weapons and infrastructure to help accomplish their missions, which means, that the military works hand-in-hand with corporations and institutions all throughout America to do exactly that.  Incredibly, the proposed fiscal year 2019 budget for the Department of Defense, including emergency allocations as well as the Department of Homeland Security, is an absolutely unfathomable amount of nearly $750 billion for just that one year!,  This signifies that all of these companies and contractors involved in the Defense business, whether on the periphery or directly, have a strong vested interest in securing that business, because that business provides them with both growth as well as profits.

This so indicates that the real reason why America is constantly at war, that is, undeclared war,  such as America has had with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and Libya, is because the amount of monies and profit to be made is so great, that those involved institutions cannot risk the possible delay of warfare, which may lead to potential treaties, negotiations, and resolutions, but also cannot risk Congress denying the actual declaration of war, because there is way too much money on the line, so rather than treating the Constitution, as an instrument to  preserve, protect, and defend, our Constitution is treated instead as something to circumvent so that America is run not as a republican form of government, nor even as a democracy, but as an empire, controlled by a President, who for all practical purposes is an Emperor, in which, that President in order to even be enthroned to begin with, has implicitly, if not explicitly, agreed to the terms of the military-industrial complex which is the power actuating the Commander-in-Chief's policies for war.

America is constantly at war because of the profit and the power that these wars so richly provide certain institutions and their leaders, in which, unelected elites of some of the most powerful corporations the world has ever known make money hand over fist, as well as generals that constantly flex their muscles against opponents that cannot hope to successfully defend themselves and find that their country and their sovereignty are ravished by these American invaders, that they must thereby pay homage and tribute to.

The perpetual power of corporations

They say that the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes, but that only applies to individuals, and does not apply to corporations.  Not only are corporations perpetual, but they are also taxed quite differently than individuals.  For instance, Colgate was founded in 1806, DuPont in 1802, and Jim Beam in 1795, of which none of these corporations have been subjected to an estate tax, because these corporations are still in existence as of today, so that monies that have been earned and invested, as well as property that they hold and have acquired, all these have stayed within their corporate hands, subject only to present day taxes, of which corporations can avail themselves of all sorts of strategies to reduce their tax footprint considerably.

For instance, corporations are allowed to deduct items such as medical insurance, travel expenses, vehicles and their associated expenses, meals, entertainment, office supplies, and numerous other assorted business expenses.  Additionally, if that company has a year in which they lose money, those losses can be utilized later against future gains, by being permitted to deduct those previous losses against their tax liability. So too, inventory can be written off, buildings and equipment can be depreciated, the cost of borrowing money is expensed, the perks that high executives receive are expensed, income from controlled foreign subsidiaries can be deferred, special tax laws for production done within the United States is utilized, and accelerated depreciation of certain assets is available.

Basically, though corporations rail against the tax code as being unduly high within America, these same corporations are afforded all types of tax set asides, privileges, and a wide swath of exemptions, that suppresses their legitimate tax amount owed to government entities by such a great deal, that as reported by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) these publically held corporations "paid no federal income tax from 2008-2015," which includes International Paper, Priceline.com, General Electric, and Duke Energy.

Not only do corporations often find a way to minimize their fair taxation, but the sheer size of these corporations dwarfs individuals, so that even though Bill Gates is the richest man in all of America, with an approximate worth of $89 billion, he is far surpassed by the market capitalization of Apple, which is approximately $877 billion.  These giant corporations that are perpetual are only matched in their power by the Federal government, for even the largest State government in America, which is California, has a budget of "only" $171 billion.

This so indicates that this country is effectively run by the Federal government, which is also perpetual, in conjunction with the biggest corporations in America, of which, because the Federal government is the taxing authority, and the corporations are enabled to avoid and to avert fair taxation, that we essentially live in a country that is run not by the people and for the people, but are run instead by governmental and corporate entities that are made up of privileged people that assert their power and influence in a manner that they control everything of real meaning and purpose.

So that, though each individual is entitled to a democratic vote, those votes in actuality do not change public or corporate policy, and therefore the peoples of this great nation, bit by bit, but relentlessly, are losing their sovereignty, with such, begin replaced by a new form of servitude to the government/corporate powers.

Hell and You

The bottom line is that whether or not you believe in hell or not, will not and does not change the fact as to whether hell exists or not, because you are not the arbiter of such an existence.  So too, many people have many different opinions of what hell is or what it represents, of which some of these have validity, but still fall short of the complete truth. 

In point of fact, hell exists, and whether you go to hell or not, is controlled by your actual essence.  There are many that feel that whether they go to hell or not, is controlled by their faith, so that their faith in God, and their rebuking of their former self or of their sins, will thereby wholly absolve them of their former sins and therefore they will not suffer the punishment of hell.  Perhaps this belief will be effective for certain people, but it certainly won't be effective for all people, for words are words, and deeds are deeds, and true beliefs are not necessarily the same as professed beliefs.

In truth, hell exists for all those that insist that they and they alone, are the master of the universe.  That is to say, those that truly believe that their mind, that their thinking, and that their deeds, which is all built around themselves, is the be all and end all of life.  So that, their desire and their mindset is that they live to themselves, think only of their own, and owe no obligation or debt to any other being, but to themselves. This type of thinking which is centered on the philosophy that all that matters is that person, and all else is thereby not relevant, of which, then, their highest good is their own selfishness is hell.

Of course, many people aren't quite so dogmatic in this way of thinking, but nevertheless, their thinking centers around their ego and their personal desires to the virtually exclusion of all else, so that, they must have their own way, because that fulfills their needs, and in order to get their own way, if they need to do a few morally questionable things, they worry not about it.   Further, they believe that the highest good is taking care of themselves, of which, their belief is that all others should have the same sort of self-centered belief, never seeming to recognize, that if everyone is out just for themselves, the ultimate result can only be tragedy for all of the very worst order.

There is but one truth, a truth that is consistent, just, fair, universal, and bends not to man's will, so that the greatest quest that all mankind has is to find this truth, live to this truth, and testify to this truth, of which, the non-recognition that there is one Supreme immutable God, is the fundamental lie that leads to the wrong belief that therefore there is no universal moral law, that therefore truth is subjective depending upon the circumstances, and that therefore nobody needs to answer to anyone other than themselves, subject to man's arbitrary law. 

It is your mind, so do what you will, but recognize that all that believe that they are sovereign unto themselves and thereby owe no tribute to the Creator of it all, live now in hell, and will continue to do so, until they live in truth.

The Honor we owe fallen Police Officers and Soldiers

The United States goes to extraordinary lengths to honor their dead that have served their fellow countrymen by their service in our armed forces in wars, as well as police officers that have died in the line of duty within the States.  These occasions, may involved and often involve, a lengthy funeral procession, governmental escorts, burial in hallowed ground, and speeches of great import, along with the attendance by important personages.  These funerals are treated as a big deal, and the amount of honor that is accorded to those police officers and soldiers that have departed from this world, is exceptional.

The pomp and ceremony, along with the tradition, that are part and parcel of military service is there for specific reasons, of which, one of the most significant reasons, is that soldering has historically been in civilization after civilization, a way for those in the lesser classes, or those not even considered to be citizens of their state, to take up arms on behalf of the country that they reside in, not so much for the sense of  a honor or a sense of duty, but in the sense of opportunity and in earlier times in the sense of booty so available for victorious soldiers.

So too, these soldiers, that were successful in the field, could indeed pick up the spoils of moving up the ranks within their service as well as earning additional perks and privileges, of which, one of them could be to become an official citizen with rights within their country.  Additionally, because such a high percentage of the men historically serving in the armed forces were poor as well as being illiterate, with little or no opportunity of economic advancement, being a soldier was one of the few paths readily available for them.  Then too, because being a warring soldier was such a dangerous profession for those with their boots really on the ground and doing the actually fighting, most countries made it a firm policy to honor those soldiers so fallen, so at least, the families of the soldiers that had died in their service to their country, could take solace in knowing that their kin were held in high esteem by the state as honorable men.

Today's police officers, from the perspective of honor, are best seen, as domestic soldiers, and though police officers are fairly well compensated with good benefits, they do put their lives on the line, when they go out onto the public streets of America, of which, some of those streets are not ever traveled by good and decent citizens, so that police officers see things and perform work, that above all, simply put, keeps the barbarians far from the gate, and for that, they are honored for having done so.

The honor that is shown to today's police officers and soldiers, is done deliberately by the state, so as to encourage those participating in such, to continue to do so, for these dedicated public servants, are ideally serving and protecting all the citizens of the state, from enemies, foreign and domestic, of which, for having done so, the state has made it abundantly clear, that for those that have fallen, though their lives may be gone, that their honor for having done so is not, and is thereby given as a public tribute for them and their dedicated service.

Real Climate Change

As reported by livescience.com, the "Average surface temperatures rose a total of 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) between 1880 and 2016."  Such an increased has been blamed primarily on the usage of fossil fuels, of which to preclude such continuance of this greenhouse effect, would necessitate as reported by the International Energy Agency, "… will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050," in order to switch from today's fossils fuels to alternative low carbon sources of energy.

This estimate that $44 trillion will be needed in order to avert continued global warming, should not be seen as the clarion warning that we need to dig deep within our pockets and to thereby voluntarily lower our standard of living and our quality of life, but rather should be seen for what it really is, a battle royal between the forces of fossil fuels which have basically ruled the roost since the late 19th century, against all other alternatives that wish to become the new energy kings.

In point of fact, while global warming has its issues and troubles that will effect to some degree: mankind, our land mass, oceans, foods, and just about everything that we relate to, gradual change, is however, something that clearly mankind can and does well adapt to.  That is to say, gradual change is not something that will result in the end of the world, but rather will result in mankind using its ingenuity to adjust to meaningful changes that are wrought from such a continual global change.

If mankind wants to really worry about climate change, they should worry instead about natural disasters that could dramatically change climate or create upheaval and havoc, and should be specifically concerned about earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorites, and most especially, catastrophic volcanic eruptions.  The fact of the matter is a catastrophic volcanic eruption of epic proportions, would, besides killing and destroying all that would be in its way, would also change the climate, virtually overnight, for a considerable and meaningful part of the world, in addition to wiping out huge swaths of land mass.

For instance, as reported by howstuffworks.com, they state that: "Around 200 million years ago, a super volcano erupted with such insistent energy that 75 percent of the species on the planet were eradicated. It was so gigantic that it pulled apart North America and Africa and created the Atlantic Ocean in between."  That is the difference between something to really worry about, and to at least consider spending $44 trillion on to prevent, as opposed to simply just adapting to global warming and any other gradual changes, that mankind is especially adept at.

This earth can be a dangerous place, because catastrophic and unexpected change can happen so suddenly and of such natural violence, that mankind is not able to adapt or to withstand such a change.  It is these natural disasters, more than anything, other than mankind's insistence upon constant warfare, that is the challenge that mankind needs to address, if it is even possible to address.

Those that are up in arms about global warming, are surely missing the forest for the trees, for though global warming has its challenges, these challenges are being met and will continue to be met in a competent manner, and further if there are things that can or need to be done that are both cost effective and highly efficient, to help reduce these gradual temperature changes, than that has its place.  However, to devote trillions of dollars of mankind's money, simply to have a changing of the guard, of who and what provides our energy, is stupidity of the highest order. 

Those that like to worry shouldn't worry about global warming, that's a sideshow, at best, and instead they should worry about catastrophic natural disasters or apocalyptic nuclear war.

Not all bank interest is equal

Americans are in aggregate debt as of the fourth quarter of 2017, at the highest limits ever recorded, with non-household debt alone as reported by newyorkfed.org at $3.82 trillion, whereas in the fourth quarter of 2008, it was just $2.71 trillion.  All of this debt, which is loaned money, must be paid back, of which the lending institutions of this debt, are banks or bank equivalents such as credit unions, that charge their consumers of such debt, an interest rate, based on negotiated terms, credit worthiness, and other assorted factors.

When it comes to Americans paying their taxes, the interest that Americans pay on those taxes, is not equal in the sense that some interest payments are deductible on those taxes and some interest payments are not.  It use to be, before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed, that all interest payments were deductible, and while there are some interest payments that based on the passage of recent tax legislation, that limits the amount that is deductible, for mortgages, as well as student loans, those limits, for the most part, are limiting only to very high mortgage amounts, and/or to the third personal home, and to the fourth personal home, etc… in addition to student loans that max out at the $2,500 interest deduction along with phasing out such a deduction for high earners.

However, for most people, mortgage interest as well as student loan interest is deductible, subject to those limitations and cap rules.  On the other hand, personal loans for your car, and personal credit card loans or installment interest are not deductible, unless such is for a non-personal use, that is, for a business enterprise.  The fact that business loans for cars and business credit card loans and business installment interest is deductible for businesses, is clearly prejudicial for those that have the means to actually have a business and grossly unfair to those that do not.

In point of fact, almost by definition, the people that own houses and pay a mortgage, along with those that have a business and have a business car loan, are, for the most part, people that earn more money and have more assets than those that just have personal loans for cars as well as for credit cards.  This so indicates that those that are allowed interest rate deductions on their tax payments are beneficiaries of governmental largess, whereas the poorer people, are not.

It doesn't make a lot of good sense, that this government makes it a point through its tax policies to provide tax deductions for interest payments, that deliberately segregates out some interest as not being worthy of any tax deduction, whereas the preferred interest type is permitted.  This quite obviously reflects that the power structure of governmental officials in conjunction with those that have their ear, favors a certain class of citizens, that already have more income and more assets, over other citizens that have far less income and far less assets.

The thing is from a banking loan perspective, interest is interest, whether business or personal, consumer loans or car loans, it is all interest, of which the prevailing rate of that interest being charged, reflects the credit worthiness and type of loan so proffered, yet, from a taxing perspective, not all interest is equal, and those that struggle the most, aren't even permitted the opportunity to use the tax interest deduction, despite typically paying the highest prevailing rates on such interest.

American income generational growth has fallen precipitously

A working paper as issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research, performed a detail study on "absolute income mobility", that is, "the fraction of children who earn more than their parents", of which the study combined historical data from the census with de-identified tax records, showing that as reported by the nytimes.com, that children making more money than their parents of those born in 1940 was 92%, of those born in 1950 it dropped to 79%, for those born in 1960 it further dropped to 62%, for those born in 1970 it slightly dropped to 61%, and for those born in 1980 it further dropped to just 50%.   This indicates that in the last two generations, somehow, in this, the richest nation in the world, that the children of previous generations which had been increasing their income at an exceedingly high rate vis-a-vis their parents, have seen that for those born in 1980, that this has now become essentially a coin flip.

Though the United States in the ensuing years, has continued to grow its GDP, that rate of annual GDP growth, has gotten slower, which means that though the pie has gotten bigger in aggregate, the rate being slower, correlates also to an overall slower income growth rate.  Additionally, as reflected by the massive drop in percentage of those of the present generation earning more than their parents, is the fact, that today's income distribution is far different than it was in earlier generations, so that the rich are far richer than they were in previous years, meaning that much of the wealth of America has become more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, which is why succeeding generations from more equitable times are not able to so readily out earn their parents as was previously the case.   

This indicates, that the American income generational growth, in a nation that still grows its GDP, albeit at slower rates than previous generations, has over the ensuing decades, created an America that has never had so few that have so much, while keeping the poor in their place, and eviscerating the great middle class of America, so that, the American dream of each succeeding generation of Americans, having the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of their parent's generation and to therefore, out earn those that birthed them, has been devastated.

Further, to the point, the recent precipitous drop in those making more money than their parents, is so steep, that should GDP growth slow even further, and if taxation of the rich, along with their gross overcompensation is not appropriately rectified, than we can count on future generations routinely earning less than their forefathers.  So that, this country will devolve into having basically a nobility of the rich and privileged, with a continued massive underclass, serviced by that government, of which that government, itself, because it cannot get its own house in order, routinely runs massive deficits, and taxes not the rich appropriately in order to pay for services so needed, but instead through regressive taxes of all sorts, essentially taxes the middle class and the upper middle class to pay for it, with the end result, that the children of these newest generations are not only stuck with massive unpaid national deficits, but are often not going to progress any further than their parents before them, in fact, they will fall behind.

The freefall of Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Some retired workers are covered by a Defined Benefit (DB) pension plan which behaves as a lifetime annuity for that workers' service, in which the payment of those benefits is based upon the length of service in years as an employee for that company, as well as taking into its calculations the average salary over the last few years of employment.   Over the last two generations, though, DB pension plans have been frequently replaced by many corporations and institutions with the Defined Contribution (DC) plan, which is an investment plan owned by the employee, of which the employee invests in authorized mutual funds as permitted by the company during the employee's term of employment, in which, the DC account, may have employee contributions matched, up to a certain percentage, by the employer.

As reported by mybudget360.com, in 1980, DB plans covered "38% of the workforce" but by 2008, only covered "13% of the workforce", whereas DC plans covered "14% of the workforce" in 1980, and by 2008, covered "46% of the workforce".  The primary difference between these two plans is that in DB pension plans, the employee will after finishing their service, of, for instance, thirty years, receive from their DB pension plan, a fixed annual annuity payment, which typically, but not always is adjusted for Cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).  That is to say, DB pension plans, have a specific amount of money that will be paid out yearly to the recipient of such, and frequently, this annuity will adjust to a higher amount, based on COLA.  On the other hand, DC plans, are ultimately controlled by the individual, of which, that individual, upon having finishing their service, for instance, of thirty years, will have accumulated within that plan, their lifetime retirement savings, typically designated as a 401K, which has been matched according to the specific corporate policy during their tenure at the company, of which, whatever total amount that 401K now entails, is the complete retirement monies that the employee will have accumulated, so that this is the retirement money that must now generate the income needed for the balance of that employee's life, in lieu of an actual annuity plan.

While, it is true that some people upon retirement with 401K plans can and do have over $1,000,000 in their account, so it also true, that far more have not even $100,000 in their 401K plan, and often times have considerably less.  According to brookings.edu the average DB pension plan amount for the college educated worker is as:  "computed from the Current Population Survey, is $33,281 a year."  In order, for those that have a DC plan, to have a retirement income of $33,281 a year without drawing down upon their principle, they would need $550,000 of money saved up within their 401K, assuming that their investments would actually make a steady 6% a year, in which, if for some reason, that performance was considerably worse in a particularly bad year or a series of years, this would then devastate their lifetime retirement savings and the amount of money that they could subsequently prudently withdraw from their retirement account.

The bottom line is that corporations and institutions have in recent decades placed the burden of taking care of employees after their retirement onto the shoulders of the employees themselves, in which, even when these corporations match such at a high percentage for these DC plans, this costs them considerably less than a corresponding DB pension plan, leaving the corporation with not only more financial flexibility and less commitment, but also with considerable savings in money, allowing such the opportunity to compensate at a higher level those at the very highest positions within the company.

The value of silence

There is so much talk and noise going on in the modern world, that people, seem to have lost their knowledge over the necessity and value of silence.  This is not to say that silence in and of itself, is necessarily always good, rather, that sometimes we should actually gaze at one another in silence, we should contemplate while silent, we should consider more carefully our words before not remaining silent, and we should understand that sometimes words cannot adequately convey what we are feeling or thinking, so sometimes silence is indeed, best.

The thing about talking is that it brings attention to the person that is doing the talking, and attention is something that a lot of people want to have, most of the time.  This then means that in our conversations, too often, people aren't actually have a dialog, but more of a monologue of one person speaking their part, and then another person speaking theirs, in which neither is really interested or paying much attention to what the other person is saying.

So too, the more talk that there is, in which each person says something, the longer the talking continues and continues, so then, when your response instead is silence, it has a tendency to slow the talking down considerably or even to lead it to its conclusion, especially when certain people won't stop talking until they get the last word in, but what of it, if you have already moved on, anyway.

Additionally, not everything that comes to mind is worth speaking of, as some things that are thought of, are most definitely inappropriate and even mean to say, so they really should not be said.  Also, when someone is very passionate about something, of which your basic feeling about it is fairly neutral or mildly against it, there isn't any good reason to have an argument or to get involved by speaking your mind, for your opinion is reasonably quiescent, so why not leave it that way, and let the other person's passion, eventually burn out.

While there are definitely times to talk and to speak out, that would imply also the corollary that there are definitely times to be quiet and not to speak out, of which, since words have power, both good and bad, it would behoove us to more often keep silent about saying things that are hurtful and spiteful, for it doesn't do us any real good for saying them, and the person receiving them, most definitely would agree.

Once a word is spoken, you cannot take it back, for it has left your mouth, whereas what you think in silence, most definitely can be taken back, for no one is the wiser of it.  That is why we should value the discretion that silence provides for us, in addition to the fact, that if we talk less, people might indeed listen to our words more, because we will not have the possible reputation of being one that prattles on about things that do not really matter, but rather may well be known instead, for being pithy, incisive, and wise.

The hoarding of money

As America, has devolved into a nation in which never have so few had so much,  the issue of appropriate taxation of the estates of these rich people needs to be seriously addressed and redressed. As it stands right now, though there are taxation laws that are applicable against very large estates, those people with the greatest amounts of concentrated money, typically have unique access to the best lobbyists, legislators, and attorneys that their money and power provides them access to.  None of this is to the advantage of those without money, and all are to the advantage of those that have incredibly gargantuan amounts of money.

While an argument can be made that the money that you make is yours to keep, this assumes that such money so made was made without undue favoritism, cronyism, and outright corruption, but even if we were to cede to those superrich individuals that all their money was legitimately made, the usage of such money should be limited to the length of their lives, and upon their demise, any monies so left, should be and must be heavily taxed.  For, while living, was not this money, their own to do whatever that they so desired to do with it?  Therefore, when dead, they should not be afforded the right that the vast majority of this money lives on through foundations or charities that are controlled by their principles, thereby subverting the democratic process, or assets subsequently passed down to their children or grandchildren that have labored not a whit for it.

It is of critical importance that the concentration of money during the lifetime of those that have money, but have chosen to hold onto it without ever properly investing back into their communities with it, that this demonstrates a true reflection of their selfishness and desire for the power that such money brings by having such within their hands.  That is to say, that far too many communities and the people that populate them are starved of both opportunity as well as the beneficence of money that should be well circulated within those communities; for when an exceedingly small few, control an exceedingly high percentage of the wealth within a community, all others are at the mercy of what those superrich so command to do with their money and their allocation of it.

The money that the superrich have, is theirs to do with, whatever that they so desire to do, while they are yet alive, but upon their death, the tables should turn, and these massive estates should be subject to a progressive estate taxation so that much needed funds can be provided to the people, as allocated through the state apparatus, of which, the people have been unfairly denied such, while these superrich were hoarding their money during their lifetimes.  That is the very least that the superrich owe as their just due to society, for they have had theirs to enjoy and to spend, for life here is for those living, and those dead, need no money at their final destination, whereas the living, most definitely do, for money is, the coin of the realm, and the engine for growth and continual prosperity.

What makes a hero?

To be heroic, is one of those fantasies, that most people have had at one time or another, but for most people, it remains just a fantasy, and never comes to fruition.  In order to know what a hero is, it is best to start off with what a hero really is not, which is, pretty much most everything that you see at the movie theatres in regards to superheroes, of which, these superheroes simply do not exist in the real world.  To be a hero, you do not need to have superhuman powers, or superhuman strength, that, in of itself, kind of defeats the purpose of our viewpoint of a hero, for to be superhuman, as implied by its definition, is to be beyond mere humanity, whereas, real heroes are real human beings, subject to the same temptations and foibles as any other human being.

This means, that each of us, is capable of being a hero, and the heroic tasks that we can accomplished are not limited to mere physical acts, though the saving of a drowning person in an ocean, or the physical defense of someone being attack, are acts of heroism that are physical in nature.  For instance, to be a hero, is to go within your community that is scourged with illicit drug usage and sales, and to thereby create programs, activities, and education so that the youth that are exposed to that type of lifestyle and behavior, can have something of real value to turn to instead, so that they can have a safe sanctuary that enables them to have a real chance and a real opportunity in this world, rather than being encased into a world of poverty, neglect, and incarceration.  So too, a hero is one that enlightens those that are engaged in unethical activities, of for instance, cheating on their exams, or purposely doing poor work and in general slacking off, as well as lying to hide mistakes that they have made, in which, each of these things is morally wrong, and that each of these if continued, will have a strong tendency to lead to additional shortcuts, lies, and cheating, of which none of these are conducive towards creating and displaying good character and moral rectitude.  In addition, a hero is one that just doesn't talk the talk, but walks the walk, by conducting themselves in a manner in which their words of advice and caution, are matched by their actions, so that they live clean lives, are respectful, diligent at school and at work, are generous with their time with others, and contribute positively to their community.

All of these above people are heroes, for a hero is made by the voluntary actions that they take, that are excellent exemplars to others, of how a good life should be lived, in which, these heroes take the time to directly engage with those that they congregate with, so as to positively help and to aid in their development and growth.  These heroes help to transform others into productive and positive members of society, by demonstrating to them that their individual decisions matter, that they do indeed have choices, and that the better the choices, the better their lives will be for themselves as well as for others, in which, heroes are made, from all those that fight for justice, fairness, and opportunity, fueled by the knowledge that it is the right and most appropriate thing to do.

Moral Absolutes

It is stupefying, that as mankind has gotten more sophisticated and more intelligent over the decades, that so many different categories of human beings, but, in particular, the intelligentsia has taken upon itself, to eliminate God, as irrelevant or a myth, and to thereby to declare that man is the measure of all things.  This means, that in place of moral absolutes, we live in the time in which many societies have essentially replaced such moral absolutes with moral relativism, which basically means that the morals that we live by, are determined by man, as man so resolves, based upon their perspective at that time, and that our laws are subsequently built around that relativism.

So then, it follows, when people state that cheating is wrong, or that killing another is wrong, or that stealing is wrong, that wrong is the absolute wrong word to actually use.  None of those things in a world of moral relativism, are wrong in itself, they may be illegal under certain conditions, as legislated and adjudged by civil authority within that state, but they cannot be wrong in themselves, because without absolute morals, than morals are viewed within the prism of that society, within the perspective of that society, and most importantly, morals, if even thought about, are in their essence, individually decided upon, so that in a world of no absolute morals, there are no absolutes at all, therefore, all that is labeled as wrong, is fundamentally flawed, for nothing is absolutely wrong, for there are no absolute moral codes.

This means that the people are not subjected to absolute moral codes, instead, they are only subject to the laws of the state, and nothing else.  So that, the reason that people do not cheat, the reason that people do not kill, the reason that people do not steal, has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with the punishment that they will receive if prosecuted and convicted by law.  This also means, that for the general population there is no escape, from the oppressive nature of the law without moral absolutes, for laws can be specifically written and are specifically written to oppress and imprison certain people, and to favor and to benefit certain other people, and this isn't wrong, for there are no moral absolutes.

In a world of no moral absolutes, anything goes, subject to the laws of the land, of which, these laws are forever shifting  as well as being deliberately manipulated in order to support and to protect the ruling class, so that they can keep themselves in power and to keep all others in their thrall.  This means, in that world of no moral absolutes, the prevailing tendency would be for the rich to get richer, the powerful to get more powerful, the poor to get poorer, and the unhealthy to get unhealthier.

When mankind is, in effect, its own god, this is the cruelest god of all, for that god is arbitrary, unjust, cruel, selfish, corrupt, and unfair.  For when mankind, or those that lead mankind, really believe that there are no moral absolutes, than there is absolutely nothing to stay the hand of those in power, who will then use that power for their own self-serving benefit, and thereby ruthlessly exploit all others for their profit and for their comfort, and think absolutely nothing of having done so.

Rebellion and Secession

The Southern States, upon the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who would then take office March 4, 1861, took it upon themselves, to setup within each of their respective States, a special convention, of which such a convention through their State legislature, would vote upon the petition as to whether to succeed from the Union, and thereby having this petition passed, declared that each, in turn, was now a separate and independent State, and no longer part of the Union.  This so indicated, that if, for instance, South Carolina's position was legally correct, than any State, at any time, could through a special convention of their legislature, take upon themselves the question as to voting upon their secession, and if passed, simply to leave the Union.

Though the South believed it had the right to succeed, this right to succeed, had previously been addressed in the manner of whether a State could nullify a federal government law by President Andrew Jackson in 1833, in which, that State, any State, if such was permissible, would thereby have the right to nullify any such Federal law of its choosing within its borders.  President Jackson saw this nullification for what it really was, rebellion, under the guise of sovereign State rights, which no longer existed, as soon as each State became united into one supreme body politic, and Jackson was prepared to use federal troops to put down such a rebellion.

The Southern States, that than insisted that they had the right to nullify, or to secede, did so, under the false interpretation of the Constitution, and deliberately utilized the term to secede within their respective legislatures, so that they would take on the aura, of legally separating themselves from the Union that since they had previously voted to be part of, they could then at a later date, take a vote as to voluntarily leave from, and if passed, to secede.

The truth of the matter was the Southern States never seceded, for they had not the legal right to do so.  When defeated at the Presidential ballot box of 1860, of which, Lincoln won exactly zero Southern electoral votes, yet Lincoln still legally won the election for the United States by his delegate count exceeding 152 delegates with 180, the Southern States thereupon made a purposeful determination that if they could not win the Executive office, which they did not, that they had the right to secede from such. 

Lincoln, quite properly, saw the Southern secession not as secession, but as an active rebellion, in which the Southern States by firing the first shots of what would become the Civil War at the Federal soldiers inside Fort Sumter, made it a foregone conclusion that the Union would put down such a rebellion, and at no point did Lincoln ever consider, any other possible recourse, but to take up arms to defend the National Union, and to defend federal property and its outposts, and to defend the Constitution, which he as President, had been sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend." 

All this, Lincoln did, for this is a nation of fifty States, indissoluble, secession is not a legal possibility for any State, and those that think so and implement such, are traitors to the national government, and thereby are in active rebellion.

Love and Hate

There are plenty of people with good love in their hearts, that somehow find themselves hating others or other things, perhaps when they are mad, or perhaps as a matter of course, as they "hate the sin" but not the sinner, and so on and so forth.  The thing is though, those that truly love do not have any hate in their hearts, for love eliminates all hate, and there are not any exceptions to this rule.

When people do wrong, or wrong actions happen, or someone is thinking wrong, in which, all of these things are indicative of destruction and evil, if, when you ponder upon these things, hate wells up inside of you, then you need to take a careful look at yourself and who and what you really are, for hatred directed against another, will not only seldom correct a wrong, but in most cases will surely add to the negativity to all that has been created, and make you, the hater, a lesser person than what you should really be.

Of course, there are many people, that believe that righteous hatred is good, because it drives and motivates the person that has this particular hate, to strike back at those that are evil and to thereby make the world a safer and more just place, which is why there are so many that subscribe to the "eye for an eye" philosophy, but in the land of the blind, who will be left to see, except those that are absolutely convinced that they are the righteous ones, and all others are not.  This type of self-serving philosophy is especially pernicious because those that believe that their actions of good retribution through their hatred that overcomes evil is actually doing good, makes for a world, in which, forgiveness is always by the sword, and never by the heart.

If, in your heart, even without taking overt action, you hate someone or something, you are not right for having that hatred, for love and hate are not compatible, so that, those that hate, do not love, or at a minimum, do not love fully, completely, and entirely.  For, only in complete love, does hate have no place whatsoever, so that, having that love, you are able to always reason and to adjudge in a manner that bespeaks of someone that is in control of their emotional and psychological makeup, rather than someone that is overcome by the burning desire of retribution and revenge.

There isn't any good point in hating anyone or anything, for wrong is wrong, and hating that wrong, will never make it right; whereas, through love, and through the positive constructive process, one can try to channel that hate, and hateful people, into becoming better people, themselves, and this is best done by the application of compassion, empathy, and love, as opposed to punishment, retribution, and hate.

Everything here on earth, comes from the Creator of this earth, as it is the Master's handiwork, and if we hate the creation, or certain acts that those that have been created have done, then, in effect, we don't love God fully, for we hate the parts of God, so created, that we do not approve of.  Our hateful attributes are not in keeping with love, for love, has no room to hate, for any hate is not part of God, for God is entirely love, and no other, for a house divided cannot and will not stand.

The unexpected tax

We have been told that all are subject to the certainty of death and taxes, and this is true, for none can escape physical death, and none can escape economic/societal taxes.  Yet, there is that unexpected tax that many aren't aware of, but we should definitely keep in our mind, for our bodies themselves, carry a tax that must be paid upon them, for each of us though granted a physical body, are periodically sent reminders that this physical body is not who and what we are in essence, as the body provides the housing of our immortal soul, and consequently this signifies that our soul, is paramount to the physical.

Those that solely identify with the body and nothing but the body, will always live the most difficult of lives, even when they are happy and when everything is going just fine, for they know that like Damocles' sword, that their body will age, and that sooner or later their body will begin to fail them, for no matter how powerful that they may be, or the amount of money that they have in their pocketbook, eventually such a body, because it is physical, must expire.

So too, those that have great minds that they have utilized well in this life, are subject to body frailties, of which, if they believe that the body solely houses the mind, will distress them to no end, knowing that when the body completes its cycle back to dust, than the mind must surely follow.

Then there are those that are intuitively cognizant that they are not the body, yet, because the body is the form that they see themselves in, day after day, the spirit is basically forgotten, and the body is therefore concentrated upon, especially its needs and desires, so that, despite knowing that they are a soul, they act as if they are not, and hence their decisions and preferences made are often body specific and body driven.

Finally, there are a few that rightly know that they are not their body, that their origin has not ever been from this material world and that the true purpose of their earthly sojourn, is to aid others in their pursuit of the only thing that really matters, which is their rightful return to their Creator.  For the earth was created, not for the restricting placement of souls, but rather as an outlet of such, of which, when playtime is over, it is time to return to the very First Cause.

This does mean that our Creator has placed upon each physical body, a form of tax, that all are susceptible too, so that our conscience will be pricked and we will therefore not lose focus and misapply our energies and emphasis solely or mainly upon our body, but rather re-dedicate ourselves to our soul.  This tax subjects us to physical discomfort, pain, debilitations and disease of the physical body, as well as sadness, melancholy, sorrow, and grief that touches our mind, of which, these represent the eternal alarm clock that all must answer to, so as to wake up from the delusion that we are just the physical, when, in fact, we are and will forever be, the eternal and indestructible spirit.

The Social Security Program

Most non-governmental Americans that are employed as well as the employers of these Americans are subject to the Social Security payroll withholding tax which mandates that 6.2% of their paycheck for the employee as well as 6.2% matched by the employer is earmarked into the Social Security Administration for distribution at their retirement.  Not too surprisingly, this amount of money withheld equates to a very large number, in which as reported by nasi.org that "In 2016, the Social Security program received $958 billion in income." 

The money that each individual contributed to the Society Security Administration is for the most part, transferred to those that are currently retired in order to pay those people their benefits that they have accumulated during their lifetime of employment.  This also means that those that currently contribute to the Social Security Administration have no say as to how those monies or excess monies are invested while they are so employed, of which, those funds are actually invested into special Treasury issues, of which, as reported by nasi.org, "The average interest rate on the portfolio held by the Social Security trust fund was 3.2 percent in 2016."

All of the above, seems like a rather dubious way to fund each person's retirement, for social security doesn't really take each individual's social security withholding tax and then invests it on behalf of the taxpayer, so that it will grow and accumulate each year, making it something akin to what most people do with their retirement plans, but rather, the Social Security system is some strange hybrid of a "pay as you go" program, which basically means that the current generation of workers that are having their paychecks reduced by Social Security withholding, are actually having that money, more or less, directly being paid out to those that are already retired, so that the current generation of workers, are paying for the retired generation of workers.

This would indicate that those that believe that their Social Security taxes are actually being held or placed into some sort of secure account, for their future benefit are sadly mistaken, though the Social Security Administration does provide each taxpayer an accounting of their projected Social Security monthly stipend, such a payment as that, is only as good as how solvent the Social Security Administration of these monies is, at the time of that particular individuals' retirement period.

On the other hand, federal employees have a true retirement savings plan known as the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), of which, this plan allows each individual to self-direct the investment of their retirement monies into a choice of six different types of funds, of which, each of these funds offers a tradeoff of potential appreciation v. risk, and therefore includes stock index investments as well as governmental securities investment.  For the years 2008-2017, the Ten year compounded return of these funds ranged from a high of a +9.37% annual return, which is stupendous, to a low of a +2.23% annual return, of which, a given individual's overall return is based upon that individual selections of the funds so available for them.

All those that are mandated to contribute to the Social Security Program have absolutely no say as to the investment of those monies paid, because firstly those monies aren't actually set aside into their own personal account, and even if they were, the Social Security Administration invests those excess monies from the pay as you go program solely into special Treasuries.  This means, in effect,  those contributing to the Social Security Program, have no control over how their money is invested or allocated, and despite what some Social Security Administration paper stipulates that they are entitled to upon their retirement, whether they will  ever actually receive what they are anticipating in their retirement years.

Where are the inexpensive brand new cars?

Americans bought 17.2 million brand new vehicles in 2017, of which, not a single one of these vehicles were priced to sell for under $10,000.  The cheapest brand new car available in 2017 appears to have been the Nissan Versa for $11,990, but even that price is very deceptive, because it is not only the bare bones model and hence a manual transmission, but to actually finally that vehicle, available to be sold at the price, would be problematic, because so few of these models were ever manufactured.  In addition, even before considering what financing would be available for the purchase or the down payment required, those purchasing such a car would have added onto the price, depending upon the location of where they were buying that vehicle: sales tax, destination charge, documentation fee, and the title and registration fee, not to mention dealerships trying to add on fees such as: advertising fee, extended warranty, dealer preparation fee, and so on and so forth.

In point of fact, it's deceptive for consumers when a car is advertised at a price in which few, if any of those vehicles are even available, in addition to the fact, that any additional taxes or fees, that are mandated by State or Federal law as having to be applied to such a car should be part of the advertised price to begin with, excepting the sales tax, because that is the way typical consumer purchases are priced in virtually any other transaction of a material good in this country. 

While, it is true, that the price of cars have pretty much kept up with the pace of inflation, so that, cars that were available for $2,000 back in the early 1970s, with inflation would go for around $11,750 today, it also true that the manufacturing of cars is global, utilizes more lightweight materials than previous years, and that the percentage of vehicles utilizing unionized labor has plummeted over the last two decades.  All of this combined, would imply that cars should be cheaper than they currently are, and that these cars should be available for sale in America, for other countries such as India, have new cars being sold that equate to around $5,000 brand new.

One of the main reasons why they aren't any inexpensive brand new cars, is that the profit margin of the cheapest vehicles is small for the manufacturers as well as for the dealerships, and the corresponding commission rate for those cars being sold is also small, so these entities have every incentive to want the people purchasing cars to purchase more car than they really need in order to make more money on each vehicle sold, and for those dealerships or manufacturers with a financing arm, to also make more money from the loans necessary for buying a higher priced vehicle.

This government provides all sorts of incentives and tax advantages for certain manufactured things and companies, such as electrical vehicles, in which tax credits are initiated, in addition to other perks which may include vouchers and rebates.   There isn't any reason why this government cannot make it a priority, to set aside a program that rebates or initiates tax credits for consumers and/or the manufacturers of vehicles in which the price of that vehicle when it meets a governmental low-price objective, initiates a subsidy for the consumer of such, so that more vehicles would be purchased at that lower price point, of which, those vehicles would because of their lower weight and smaller form factor, create both far less pollution as well as being far more energy efficient, in addition to saving the American consumer some much needed money.

Appearance and true appearance

One of the reasons that so many people are deceived so often, is that we look at the symbols that people represent by the clothes that they wear, their general look and demeanor, the words that they speak, and the body language that they present, and believe that we know them, even though we have just met them.  So that, those that know how to act the part by their appearance which is nice and pleasant looking, in addition in speaking in a calm and considerate manner, lure us into believing that because of their looks and the words that they represent, that they must be good and trustful people.

While there are plenty of people that are good people, that do dress nicely and speak with consideration, there are other people that mimic this look and behavior in order to take advantage of us, so that, it isn't good enough to come to conclusions about people, just on their basic image and words, but rather it behooves us to actually want to engage them in a conversation and to thereby get to know the other person, before we make any sort of commitment, monetarily or other, that will take something of value of ours, such as our money or our reputation, and have it be vulnerable to someone that we do not honestly know.

It is important to develop discernment, for in this world, not everyone that appears to be of good character is of good character, and not everyone that appears to be someone that has a questionable character is actually questionable, for there are many people that do not look the part in our eyes, but perhaps their lack of the aura of authenticity is because their background is different, or we have preconceived prejudices based on how certain people look or dress and ought to look and dress, which prejudges our viewpoint and poisons our discernment.

When we only take our cues only from the surface look of someone and a few considerate words that are spoken to us, we aren't doing enough to utilize our intelligence and our experience to know this person, that we have just met and that we actually do not know much of anything about.  While there isn't anything wrong with returning politeness and consideration with the same to another, when one person clearly wants something of value from us, it is our obligation to find out more about them, for our value should not be something that is ever cheaply given away, or through tricks by the other, taken from us.

This so indicates, that those that look the part, may not actually be the right part, for they have ulterior motives in mind, that are well disguised by their being able to project themselves as something that internally they are not.  Clearly, if you want to fool someone, it is far easier to do so, when you have the accouterments and symbolism that represents goodness, but have larceny in your heart.  This means, that those that are most dangerous to us, are those that are able to lure us in, which are often people that are able to play their role in a manner, in which we drop our guard, to our own ultimate regret.

This is a world, in which not everything that glitters is gold, so it is up to us, to test those things that give off those golden rays of gold, and if is gold, to appreciate the value of such, and if is not, to expose the falseness of it.

"It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end"

The above quotation is from the incomparable, Leonardo Da Vinci, of which there are many, many people that would behoove themselves to take this advice to heart, for it is straight to the point and so very true. 

The thing is that people do all sorts of things every day, of which a portion of these things, and for some of those people, a very large portion of it, are doing things and getting involved in activities that they really shouldn't be doing, for these activities are not beneficial in the long run, nor are they even necessarily beneficial in the short run, but somehow or other, they can't resist continuing to snack, or watching mindless television, or endlessly look at one social media post after another.

The very first thing to remember is that you are sovereign over yourself, and further that your decisions do matter.  Additionally, whether consciously cognizant of this or not, people are often creatures of habit, primarily because they have time commitments to their job, to their school, to their family, to their meals, and so on and so forth, in which in order to accomplish these tasks, habits are typically formed.  It is in the structure of these habits, that people need to take more time to consider them, for habits, good or bad, once they become part of our routine or structure, are exceedingly hard to break free of.

The reason that habits are so difficult to break, is that they soon become thoroughly ingrained within us, which often allows us to free our mind and to thereby think or to dwell upon other things, yet, we still should periodically review our habits, and should consider as to whether they should or should not be our habits in the first place, and if not, to change them.

It is always easier to resist at the beginning because not only has the habit not been formed, but because at the beginning, we recognize that we have a multitude of various options, that we can avail ourselves of, in addition to the fact that we have yet to become biased in regards to confirming that having thought and made a particular decision, that such a decision must be the right one, even when the evidence being presented to us, appears to negate that view.

People, often do not want to admit to a mistake, especially when they have invested time, money, and their reputation to it, in which, that makes it even more difficult to extricate themselves from that decision, for they believe that it often makes them look foolish to make that change, even though using their willpower and determination to undo what has been done would be better, but because they are in so deep, their reluctance to do exactly that, has been weakened, considerably.

You will not need to worry or bother yourself about resisting certain undesirable deeds, if you do not begin such in the first place, for these things not being part and parcel of you, means that they do not have a hold upon you, whereas if you give in, once, and then again, and then again, the hole that you are digging, will just keep getting bigger, till you find that you are in so deep that you can't readily escape so you may as well just live with it, all because you weren't able to resist at the beginning.

Abortion and population control

There are many that are very strong advocates of a woman's choice, specifically, in regards to their body and the decisions that they are legally or should be legally able to make as to whether they can or cannot choose to abort the fetus inside of them.  The Supreme Court ruled in regards to this specific issue, in its notorious Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, in which abortion rules, previous to this decision, were left to the individual States to decide as their legislation best saw fit, but was trumped by the rules so promulgated by that Supreme Court.

As it stands, abortion is the law of the land, of which certain States have pushed back against this national law, by passing legislation in regards to waiting periods, counseling, gestational limits, as well as physician and hospital requirements, which effectively serves to limit significantly abortions conducted within their State as well as impacting their monetary cost.   This means, that a woman's fair access to abortion, or her right to choose, is clearly impacted, not only by the gestation period that her fetus is currently at, but also by her physical location, in addition to the out-of-pocket cost, in which the upshot is that many woman do not have convenient access to an abortion clinic, whatsoever.

This signifies, in effect, that different areas of the country have different rules and different regulations for abortion, pretty much negating a lot of the potency of the Roe v. Wade decision, and to a certain specific degree, placing a woman's right to choose, not as a right to privacy as dubiously argued by that Supreme Court, but instead making that choice, come down to their ready ability to travel to an abortion clinic, in order to have that service successfully performed.

This so indicates that when it comes to abortion as it does in so many other areas of American life, that the laws are different and unequally applied, depending upon where you live, your budget, your ability to safely travel as well as having the necessary time to have this procedure performed and to recuperate from, which are all wildly different depending upon your geographic location.

This means, that the location of abortion clinics matters as to who does or does not have fair access to such, in which, many more abortion clinics are located in urban areas, for the somewhat obvious reason, that there are many more people that live in urban areas than in rural ones.  This too signifies that those that live in urban areas will have far easier access to abortion clinics and hence the convenience and cost of such will be far more affordable for them.

Not especially surprising, this also indicates that those that are of color typically are able to more easily avail themselves of a woman's right to choose, simply because those of color congregate more often within urban cities, and not in rural areas.  The statistics then tell us, that those of color have significantly more abortions than white people, in fact, whites have by far the lowest amount of abortions per capita than any other color, and since abortions, by definition, kill the fetus, this means that if there was a hidden agenda within abortion, specifically, to have those of color abort far more often so there will be far less of them for future generations, and for those that are white to have far less abortions, so that there will be far more of them for future generation, that this is working out all so very well.