Theft and justice

In virtually every nation and society, theft is considered to be a crime, and the punishment for thieves and robbers can range to something very mild, such as a reprimand or to actual prison time, depending upon the severity, the justice system, and the incorrigibility of the thief.  It does seem strange though, if thievery is so frown upon, that characters such as Robin Hood, known for his stealing from the rich in order to give to the poor; or Jean Valjean from Les Miserables, who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephew, was then arrested and thereupon sentenced to nineteen years of hard labor, only to in the end, to demonstrate the nobility of his character to such a high extent, that Inspector Javert, his nemesis, fatally recognizes that Jean Valjean is a more noble man than he, mainly because Javert had become an obedient pawn to the letter of the law, thereby unable to overcome such;  of which these two archetypes , though thieves, are well respected as men of high character.

We presently live in a world, very neatly divided between the haves, and the have-nots, and whereas there are certain countries that have developed a middle class, as well as upward mobility, the dividing line between the privileged and propertied class, and the disparity between the very rich, and the impoverished, is to a very large extent, no different than what it was at the time of Robin Hood or of Jean Valjean.   In no uncertain terms, the rich, powerful, and connected run the show, which is the very prevailing reason why there are so many with so little, and so few with so much.

This signifies that laws that make robbery and thievery a crime, in all circumstances, and in all conditions, fundamentally must be wrong, for the poor are entitled to a fair return for their labor and for their effort, and to not have such, in this modern day and age, when there never has been so much material richness, is unacceptable.  So too, thievery or general unrest is going to be the result of having pockets or even huge swaths of the population that are ill educated, ill housed, treated unjustly, and given little or no opportunity  to fairly develop their inherent talents.

The poor of this world have rights, of which, they are entitled to a fair opportunity for decent housing, decent education and decent healthcare, and if these things are lacking, the end result, more often than not,  will be crime or civil unrest, of which America, a land with endless reams of laws upon laws, criminalizes just about everything.   The whole reason why the rich in the past as well as in the present, set themselves apart from the masses, is because they know that they have done the masses wrong, and because the rich live so well, they don't want to risk their good health and their good treasure, being raided, justly or not, from those that have little or nothing.

In point of fact, if the government will not fairly and appropriately tax the rich, in order to help and to assist the poor, and many governments do not; then the poor have the inherent right to tax the rich in their own way, for surely they have little to lose, except for the heavy chains that have been unfairly foisted upon them.

Why Dictators and Monarchs die with their boots on

In certain industries there are mandatory retirement ages, but for those that are in the highest echelons in politics, whether as a dictator or a monarch, they are almost never subject to mandatory retirement ages, and a surprising amount of those in office, will not voluntarily relinquish their office, even at very advanced ages, or when in obvious ill health.  The closest semblance of an American President taking on the mantle for life was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected four times to the highest office of the land, before dying in office.  Since the passage of 22nd Amendment which limits the term of a President to two terms, Americans will no longer be subject to possibly having a President that will essentially be a President for life, though it has had members of Congress, serve terms of 57 years.

In today's world, Queen Elizabeth II of England has been the Queen for 65 years, and became 92 years old in 2018.  So too, the Sultan of Kedah, and supreme head of state of Malaysia, died in office at age 90, after serving 59 years; as well as  King Bhumibol Adulyadej  of Thailand, died in office at age 88, after serving 70 years.  Dictators such as Fidel Castro, who ruled 52 years, left the office before his death, only because he could pass the office onto his own brother. Kim Il-sung ran North Korea until his death for 48 years, and Chiang Kai-shek, ran the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan, for 48 years, until his death. The list of monarchs and dictators that served in office for incredible long terms is quite extensive, demonstrating that those that are placed into power, and cannot be democratically overturn from that power, often do not give it up, until their physical death.

The most plausible reason why those that are very old, and are often suffering from physical bodies and minds that are in noticeable decline, yet still are clinging onto their power and position, is certainly not because they are needed by the fellow countrymen, and definitely not because they are irreplaceable, although both of these reasons are touted as being correct; but rather that the power behind the throne, the power that is often unseen, unknown, and disguised, has a vested interest in the dictator or monarch continuing in power, as long as they shall live, because their power depends upon the status quo, and they do not wish to risk their position with a changing of the guard.

The fact of the matter is, to run any country, especially a nation that consists of millions upon millions of people, with different religions, different factions, a mixture of private and public enterprises, domestic insurrection, wars, famine, infrastructure, modernity, the internet, and so on and so forth, is a task that necessitates a strong team of individuals for advisement, logistics, and throughput, of which, no dictator and no monarch, even at their peak of their health and mental powers, could possibly keep their hand upon the wheel for everything that is happening.  This does mean that dictators and monarchs are absolutely dependent upon the people and personnel that ostensibly report to them, and they are at the mercy of those seemingly endless reports, of which, the manipulation of a dictator or monarch that is on the wane, is child's play for those that wield the power behind the power.

All banks should be nonprofit

America is supposed to be a free enterprise capitalistic society, but it really isn't, for the government, time and time again, favors some at the expense of others.  A prime example of how the government doesn't play fair with its citizens is the massive billions upon billions of dollars distributed as a bailout for certain banks and insurance companies, with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), of which, some banks, brokerage companies, and insurance companies, were dissolved, whereas other, favored banks, brokerage companies, and insurance companies were saved.  What the dividing line was between those that were subsidized and provided material aid as opposed to those that were allowed to be dissolved and have their assets sold off at fire sale prices, is not something that lends itself to a clear answer, but suffice to say, that government and certain industry leaders work hand in glove, all of the time.

In point of fact, some of the biggest banks of America, such as Citigroup, Bank of America, as well as a slew of others, were provided billion dollar guarantees, in addition to the purchase of preferred stock by the federal government in order to prop up these banks that had made bad decisions, and had become essentially insolvent.  This decision of providing the bailout for these favored banks was a grand disservice to the American public, for their insolvency should have been used as the opportunity for the federal government to either nationalize these banks or to simply dissolve them.

This then leads to another issue, which is the inherent unfairness of having a banking system that profits upon the sweat labor of those that are working, by having a banking system that is for profit, as compared to having a banking system, which should be similar to credit unions, and thereby be non-profit.  Basically, the loaning of money should not be a profit-based enterprise, but rather should be conducted as a service to those that are credit worthy and in need of loans.  If banking was nonprofit, then the fees so generated, as well as the interest charges for loans, and the interest rate for deposits, would all be fairer to the general public as well as the governance of a nonprofit incentivizes that structure in working with the customer on behalf of that customer, as opposed to exploiting such.

The fact that at the present time there are banks that are classified as "too big to fail" signifies that it is the American taxpayer that is unjustly stuck bailing out banks that make egregiously poor decisions; in addition to the fact, that banking profits are at its core, do so represent the taking and extraction of additional money from the taxpayers in order to benefit the ownership and executive offices of these banking institutions.  None of this is really even necessary, for to simply loan money to those that have a need of it, should not in itself, be structured as anything other than non-profitable, for the whole purpose of loaning money in the first place is to help create wealth, jobs, and prosperity by the investment of that money into worthy enterprises, as well as to provide material aid in the credit capacity of customers.

Apple and fair taxation

As reported by the irishmirror.ie, European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager stated that: "…Apple was paying €50 in tax on every one million euro of profit it made in 2014."  That equates to a tax rate percentage of 0.005% which is essentially zero.  As might be expected, Apple likes to project the image that they pay all their taxes, as CEO Tim Cook defiantly stated to Congress, "We pay all the taxes we owe, every single dollar."  A statement such as that is disingenuous as best, and in reality is actually fundamentally and foundationally a total lie.  In point of fact, the people that work at Apple and work with Apple, are extremely clever and gifted, in which, as anybody with any sensibility knows, part of the money that you keep, is reducing taxes that are paid; such as the tax set asides so granted for property tax relief, as well as all the other governmental services that lobbyists can get subsidized on behalf of Apple, such as research and development tax credits; in addition to all the favors generated for Apple by counties, localities, States, and nations.  After all, Apple has the largest market capitalization of any corporation in the entire world as well as being highly respected, so that, what Apple wants, Apple typically gets.

There are multiple problems with Apple not paying their fair share of taxes, of which, the first problem is the non-recognition that fair taxation as contrasted to the legal amount of taxation that is due and payable are not now, and have never been the same thing.  The next problem is that competing against Apple is not going to be fair to begin with, because of the gargantuan size advantage as well as the influence of Apple, so that when Apple pays their taxes at an appreciably lower tax rate, than what their competitors pay at, then Apple's advantage is even greater.   So too, companies such as Apple are essentially able to get legislation, taxation or otherwise, that favors Apple, written for Apple, not only because of the size of the corporation, but also because of the prestige of being associated with Apple, since the products that they sell are so highly sought and praised.  The most egregious problem with Apple not paying their fair share of taxes, though, is simply that Apple, perhaps more than any other corporation in American history, has the ability and capability to easily pay their fair share of taxes, of which, those taxes fairly paid, would be redistributed throughout society, localities, and communities in such a manner that the least amongst us, would be able to have a better opportunity to have good shelter, good healthcare, good education, and food enough.

When the richest amongst us, corporate or individual, does not pay their fair share in taxes, but instead has those taxes passed onto those that are already heavily burdened and struggling, so that this lack of taxes being collected, does its part in contributing to massive governmental fiscal deficits, thereby being callously passed onto future generations yet unborn; this signifies, that the tax code as written and implemented is seriously broken, and the fact that massive corporations such as Apple seem to take perverse pride in not paying their fair share, indicates that the division between the have and the have-nots is only going to get wider and wider.

The not so permanent orthodontics

Americans have some wonderful smiles, of which, some of them, come quite naturally to a given individual, whereas others are created by the aid and the usage of orthodontics.  Quite obviously, for very young children that get orthodontics, such as preteens, of which, their permanent teeth have not yet all come in, they are in all likelihood, going to need additional orthodontic treatment after those adult teeth do come in;  of which, orthodontics at such a young age is typically recommended to take care of an overbite or to basically help preclude current problems from getting worse by addressing them at a young age.

Then there are all those others that get their braces after their permanent adult teeth have come in, of which, such are typically teens, but many are adults, as well as even older adults, in which, their orthodontist comes up with a plan to create that winning smile, that Americans so hanker for.  After the orthodontics phase of straightening out the teeth with braces is accomplished, a retainer is then created for those teeth, which is meant to be worn at night, or as necessary, in order to keep the teeth straight and in their appropriate position.

The main problem with retainers for some people, is that they don't follow the instructions as given by their orthodontist for the usage of their retainer; in addition to the fact that most users of braces, after completing their treatment, do not ever see their orthodontist again.  As might be expected, not following instructions has consequences, of which, the very first one is the basic non-recognition by patients of how teeth are moved via braces to begin with.  That is to say, the whole reason why teeth will move through orthodontics is because of the pressure applied, not to the tooth itself, although it may seem that way, but actually to the ligaments that hold that tooth in place.  Therefore, not too surprisingly, in absence of that pressure still being applied, through the regular and the correct usage of that retainer, and especially the amount of time that the retainer is actually on in a given day, then the teeth having no longer any pressure being so applied that will preclude them from moving, will ever so slowly, but inexorably, go back to where the ligaments feel comfortable having them be placed.

This means that over a period of time, someone that has had braces, even for a lengthy period of time, may look in the mirror, some years down the road, and clearly notice that their teeth and therefore their smile is no longer straight but that their teeth are actually back to being crooked, necessitating getting orthodontics to correct such, once again.

The prevailing reason that some people need orthodontic treatment more than once, is very similar to someone that has corrected a former bad habit with a good habit, but inexorably, have gone back to their bad habit; often because of a lack of concentration, diligence, and preventive maintenance; believing incorrectly, that they no longer need to be on watch, when in actuality there are certain things in life that require eternal vigilence.

Doing and Hearing is not the same thing

We read in Holy Scripture in James 1: 22 "But be doers of the word, and not only hearers…" of which clearly this means that to hear and to thereby know what to do, but then not to do it, is a serious fault within the character of anyone that has the audacity to believe that they are a good Christian.  This indeed means that a lot of the world's troubles can be laid at the feet of mankind, that clearly knows what the difference is between right and wrong, but insists upon doing wrong; as well as knowing what they should be doing, but insists upon waiting another day to get around to doing it, and then they wait another day, and then another day, until the end of their material time.

The main problem that so many people have, which is exacerbated by today's instant gratification society, is that they don't want to put forth the effort to do the things that they should be doing; but rather they want to either get things done in a halfhearted way or they seek for shortcuts to accomplish things, not seeming to recognize or to acknowledge that there are certain things in life which necessitate effort, drive, persistence, and throughput and are not susceptible to shortcuts.

In point of fact, the very things that are most meaningful for you, are the very things that necessitate hard work and dedicated labor, for what you really want in life is those things that you earn; because having earned it you appreciate all that went into getting it done, as opposed to having something just handed to you, which though it may well be appreciated, it will not be held in such high esteem, for that lack of personal sweat labor.

Additionally, part of life is to absorb the lessons of life, and then to pass on that wisdom to other people, of which, if you haven't done the very things that you are urging people to take care of and get done, than those lessons that you are proselytizing about aren't going to be readily taken to heart;  as compared to the person that has actually been out in the battlefield and competition of real life, and of real struggles, who have risked a lot in order to gain a lot, having no doubt also suffered losses and made sacrifices along the way.

When you look around the world, and appreciate the greatness and beauty that this world does offer to people, as well as the modern day conveniences that we all enjoy utilizing and taking advantage of, recognize that these very things have all come forth from those that do, and not just those that hear the words; and thereby we owe a huge debt of gratitude for all those that have accomplished so much, as well as the fact that continuous progress for mankind is made from having learned at the feet of previous giants that have accomplished so much.

So too, the whole reason why we watch movies and television as well as reading books, is to listen and to hear their stories, but if all we do, is to admire them, but to do nothing of merit ourselves, then we have failed those storytellers because it is in the doing that we truly write our own tales.

Idolatry

We read in Holy Scripture in Exodus 20: 3-4 "You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourselves an idol…" and further we read in Romans 1: 25 "who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…"  Of which, these scriptural passages nicely sum up the religious truth that there is no other legitimate god but God, as well as that it is a mistake to worship and idolize what our Creator has created, over the Creator.

This so indicates that while it is one thing to appreciate the beauty that this world offers us, which certainly would include our rightful respect of mother earth, it is though a wrong belief, to take earthly things and to thereby treat those objects or creations as superior to the Creator of it all.    While this world has many things that are worthy of our admiration, it is an error in judgment to see those things, outside of their context, that somehow makes those objects as something that is noble in and of themselves, for they are, in the scheme of things, only material objects, though they may be quite beautiful, they ultimately, in one form or another, are still subject to the law of entropy, decay, and disappearance, for each of these created things have a beginning and so too there will be their end.

When it comes to our human relationships, while it is right to honor our mother and father, and to do right by our spouse and children; all that we have in a material sense, will ultimately depart, leaving only the lessons that we have taught and the love that we have given out.  To believe otherwise, indicates a false belief that the reality of this visible world, trumps the reality of the invisible world, but it is that which is invisible that actuates the visible.

Any good scientist wants to keep on searching until they find the ultimate truth, for to do nothing less, means that they have not done all that they could do to comprehensively understand what it is that is being studied, so that the very purpose of great creations is not so much to study that creation, though that has merit, but to find the Creator behind the creations, for to settle for something less than the full truth, cannot be the full truth, and there is only that One truth.

The biggest deception that humanity suffers from is having the belief that what they see is what they should believe; but without the unseen nothing would be seen.   The very cycles that human life deals with, generation after generation, as well as the cycles of life and death in the world of fauna and flora should indicate to all of us that the merry-go-round of material life is circular and repeatable, but unable to ever generate enough velocity to escape into the world beyond this world.  So that, to the degree that idolatry distracts people from the reality that our highest mission is to find our way back to our Creator, this then means that that distraction is at best, a very small reflection of what the reality of the Creator actually is.

Open borders and the decline of the American wage premium

The middle class of America has lost serious ground vis-à-vis the overall economic strength in America.  So that, as reported by fivethirtyeight.com: "In 1970, 55 percent of U.S. income was earned by households in the middle 60 percent of the income distribution," but by 2013, this number had fallen to about 45 percent.  Yet, America's overall economic strength is still preeminent and remains the strongest in the world, signifying that though good money is being made, it mainly is being made at the very top, while the middle class earnings have precipitously declined and the impoverished in America remain impoverished.

There are plenty of theories about the economic decline of the middle class in America, but such a decline has nothing to do with the economic pie of this country shrinking, for the top 1% as reported by cbpp.org demonstrated that their "… share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from just under 30 percent in 1989 to nearly 49 percent in 2016," so that, in all likelihood the most significant reason why middle class wages have declined is that open borders and low or non-existent tariffs are not beneficial for the middle class, but are extremely beneficial for certain businesses, while, on the other hand, being quite destructive for other domestic businesses.   Further to the point, American workers have over the last century, received a wage premium over other workers, even those from European nations, but this wage premium is currently in the process of eroding by virtue of the fact that because the world has appreciably grown smaller, with goods being able to be easily transported from one port to another, indeed, at a very reasonable cost; that any country that has the same sort of technology skills, imported or not, as well as operator skills, in addition to the requisite management skills, are readily able to undercut most domestic manufacturers that do not outsource anything.

So that, corporations that are headquartered in America in order to remain competitive on a worldwide stage, have deliberately moved certain segments of their production as well as their technical knowhow overseas because of the incredible labor and production savings, and consequently many qualified workers in America, are either now out of work, or have mainly found alternative work but at a lesser hourly rate, or have trained/educated themselves into some other work.  While it is fairly easy to replace many blue collar jobs with robotics or relatively unskilled labor, it is another thing to replace those that are highly educated, but it's now being done, especially by countries of large populations with educated work forces, such as China and India. This indicates that a higher percentage of white collar workers are now susceptible to the very same things that blue collar workers having been suffering through over the last few decades, which is wage stagnation or even worse.

The bottom line is that if the most important thing for a corporation is to make money, and in particular, making as much as they can make, than they, quite obviously are going to continue to outsource jobs overseas because those that labor overseas are substantially cheaper in their wage needs than domestic American workers.  So then, as great as the economy has been in America, those that reside in the executive office, are the ones that make the lion's share, and those that are not, get nothing but the scraps, if even that.

Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) knows everything about you

In order to access the internet, a given user, must use for the most part, their Internet Service Provider (ISP), which in the scheme of things, should just be the conduit connecting people to the internet, and should not be in the business of actually monitoring, recording, and tracking the sites actually visited, but, in fact, the ISP seems to know everything about you, by virtue of seemingly tracking all that is being done by you over the internet.

For instance, if you download content, the ISP, tracks such information being so downloaded, and will, if provided appropriate notice from the content provider that content so downloaded from a specific Internet Protocol (IP) address has violated their copyright rules, will probably subject that user of the ISP, to a notice indicating that they have been identified as allegedly infringing upon a copyrighted work.  This clearly indicates that your ISP really does tracks and records not only the sites that are visited but indeed the content being so downloaded.

In fact, the ISP, appears to keep track of every site visited and every keystroke so made upon that site, so that, anonymity of the user does not exist, and in fact, is tracked per their unique Internet Protocol (IP) address.  In the scheme of things, there isn't a necessity for any ISP in a free country to actually track and record the sites so visited as well as the keystrokes made per site, except as a necessity in the ordinary course of business for the user to access the sites, so that, an ISP should just provide the infrastructure so that users can access the internet, and not be data collectors of such sites visited by IP addresses.

As it has been stated, information is power, and knowing a given IP address and what sites are visited, and thereby seeing everything that these users do on those sites, gives an incredible amount of inside information in regards to the individual as to who and what they really are.  This, most unfortunately, is very much something that governments and businesses are only too eager to collect and have access to, for monitoring and tracking purposes, as well as for exploitation and marketing, or even more nefarious purposes.

The fundamental problem with the current structure of the ISP, and thereby having identifiable and unique IP addresses, is not that there aren't some pretty decent workarounds from such monitoring, but rather, that such workarounds should even be necessitated; over and beyond the point, that many people won't ever bother to getting around to actually doing any workarounds, whatsoever. 

The greatness of America is its freedom of speech as well as its freedom of the press, of which, the monitoring and tracking of all that people do through their ISP, most definitely limits that speech and will constrain that press, all because those that do the watching and the collecting, essentially are in the catbird seat in regards to what is said and seen.  Further to the point, because information collected can selectively be used against certain people or certain organizations, this thus favors those that collect, at the expense of those that are collected from.

The precipitous decline in corporate taxes collected

Nobody really wants to pay taxes, but taxes are necessary for governments as well as its infrastructure to function effectively and to stay up-to-date.  The sheer size of corporations is something that most people have great difficulty, conceptualizing, of which, the highest amount of sales by any US based corporation in 2017, was WalMart, which had revenues of an astonishing $500,343 billion dollars.  The company with the biggest profits in 2017 was Apple with an incredible $48,351 billion dollars.

Americansfortaxfairness.org states that:”corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013."  Such a drop in tax revenues collected from corporations clearly indicates that corporations are extremely gifted at avoiding their fair share of paying such taxes, and thereby effectively burdening individuals with even more of such taxation.

So too, this makes it very clear, that those corporations complaining about how high corporate rates are vis-à-vis other countries, which was successful in dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% in 2017, effectively duped the government.  For the truth of the matter is that few corporations, ever paid at 35%, having readily demonstrated that through their sophistication of maneuvering money all around the globe, and other assorted end-a-rounds, that they are quite gifted at tax avoidance.

When it comes to taxation, the best entities to actually tax are those entities that actually have the money to be taxed, of which, today's mega-corporations have loads upon loads of dollars that should be fairly taxed.  Yet, the ensuing decades from the 1950s onward, clearly indicates that corporations are not paying their fair share, thereby burdening individual tax payers by shouldering onto them far more in taxation than is fair.

Additionally, it doesn't make any logical sense that individuals are charged their taxes based upon a progressive tax rate as determined by the government, whereas, corporations are subject to a flat tax, of which they not only don't pay even close to that rate, but strangely those corporations making modest amounts of profits, are taxed at the same flat rate, as those companies that are making billions upon billions of dollars.

The fact that the corporate share of federal tax revenue paid has dropped so dramatically, clearly demonstrates that corporations are working hand-in-glove with the taxing and governmental authorities, for corporate profits have never been greater, yet, the percentage of taxes so collected from corporations have essentially plummeted. 

This means, when it comes to budget deficits, a very good argument can be made, that such deficits could be reduced considerably, if corporations were more appropriately taxed as they should rightly be, and if this government, made it a point, to actually monitor and to audit corporations so as to extract more money from those companies, so that they will once again, pay their fair share.

In addition, if the largest corporations in America paid a higher percentage of their profits to federal tax authorities, no doubt, this would, in effect, strongly help to redistribute money from the superrich to those that are struggling and thereby reduce somewhat the income inequality within America.

There is no national ID card in America

Although, in many respects, America in its citizen surveillance has never had so much ability to be so intrusive into so many lives, yet, there are still a few things that America policing agencies do not have access to, such as a national ID card and database. If there was a requirement to have a national ID card, this would obviously necessitate having to produce such a card, upon being requested to do by policing authorities, as well as other agencies, public or even private as a form of identification check.

While it is true, that a driver's license serves as a quasi-identification card, not everybody has a driver's license, nor is it a requirement to have a driver's license upon one's body, while not driving.  So too, each individual is required to have a Social Security number, but this number is NOT for national identification purposes and citizens are NOT required to provide their Social Security number to police or other legal authorities, though, the Social Security number in conjunction with an individuals' driver's license behaves as the quasi-national ID.

This would seem to indicate that Americans have some free air to breath, knowing that they actually have the right, at least on paper, to be about their business without having to actually produce papers that prove who they are.  The practicality of the matter though, is that those that are not able to satisfactorily identify themselves to policing authorities will often find that, their freedom of movement, is seriously restricted or under assault, which quite obviously demonstrates that national ID law or not, the freedom to not be disturbed, unless under exigent circumstances, seems to have vanished.

While there are plenty of people that actually support a national ID card, they are fundamentally trading convenience or a false security for something that in the hands of those that wish to do harm, is a very effective discriminating tool to do so; because easy identification of those that have been classified as unacceptable, for whatever reason(s) makes it very straightforward in being able to separate the franchised from the disenfranchised. 

When government authorities know exactly who you are, and exactly where you are at, the rounding up of people that are an inconvenience to state authorities, is not only easily accomplished, but it could be argued, is going to be something that will be accomplished, in way or another, sooner or later.  The government wants to know everything about you, not so as to aid you, though they may speak of aid, and may even offer some kind of aid, but the prevailing reason is to control you, to manipulate you, and to eliminate all those that are not in lockstep with the prevailing governmental desires and decrees.

The national ID card is a very effective way to get everyone to get with the government and its policies, and to more readily discriminate against all those that are not with the government and its policies, basically, stifling civil dissent.  A government that serves the people, does not need a national ID card, but a government that desires to be served by the people, does.

The stock market and the top 10%

The stock market goes up and it goes down.  So too, there are several television stations that are dedicated to nothing more than stock markets, international or domestic, which in the biggest scheme of things, is mostly of interest to those that actually own stocks.  While, it is true, because of pensions, 401Ks, and mutual funds, that stocks or their equivalency are actually owned by a fairly wide swath of Americans, the bulk of such monetary ownership, pretty much matches the wealth of America, which means, that such wealth is at the very top echelon.  In particular, as reported by time.com:  "the richest 10% of households controlled 84% of the total value of these stocks in 2016,” as stated in a recent paper by NYU economist Edward N. Wolff.

This means, or implies, that for mainstream America and those that have even less assets and income than that, the stock market really doesn't matter much to them, because they have no direct investment in it.  However, when it comes to the economy, money, and jobs, it would be a mistake to not recognize that stock market rises and stock market crashes, most definitely has a significant effect upon people, and is especially of real relevancy when the market crashes and burns, such as during the Great Depression, when unemployment went up to 24.9%, or the Great Recession of 2008-09 when unemployment went up to 10%. 

This signifies that when the very rich are getting their tails burned by a persistently falling stock market, that mainstream America will not be far behind in suffering the ill effects of lower or even negative economic growth, leading to layoffs and reductions in job promotion, wages, hours work, and opportunities; for when the rich are licking their wounds, they aren't going to be expanding their businesses, or investing more money into the corporate world, but rather they will be net equity sellers and investing a lot less of their money into equities, making it a foregone conclusion that corporate businesses will have to cut expenses to accommodate this material change.

This indicates that when the rich turn tail and run, it matters; simply because of the fact that so much of America's wealth is in the hands of the very rich, so that when an economic tumble comes, the rich will not hesitate too long in taking their money back from their erstwhile investments, and simply sit on it instead, because they have enough wealth already, that they need not recklessly risk it and thereby they do not.  

This is the inherent danger of the unequal distribution of wealth, for wealth that isn't invested into the economic engine of growth for America, or is mal-invested, leads to unemployment, and the inevitable recession or even depression.  The stock market is a fair reflection of the confidence that the top 10% have in America, and when that confidence is breached, it's the other 90%, that is, those that have little or no say on the matter, that essentially suffers the brunt of the damages, and it is these people that stand in line at the soup kitchens.

Approval and disapproval

Most people have a strong desire to see themselves validated by others, especially by others, that they respect and interrelate with.  If, such approval, stopped with only those that were most important and pertinent in our lives, that might indeed provide material benefits, for those that know us well and have our best interests in mind, are certainly people that should be engaged in order to get appropriate feedback and to help us to become the best people that we can be.

On the other hand, seeking approval from everyone is a path that can only lead to dissatisfaction and hurt.  The very first thing to be cognizant of, is self-respect begins with ourselves, so that, those that feel a need to be liked or approved by everybody, are inevitably, compromising who and what they really are, in order to ingratiate themselves with others.  While, this may even be effective in certain social situations, the downside is incredibly harsh, for when our happiness and satisfaction is actually held in the hands of another, then they so have the power to use such as a whip or as a carrot, in order to more easily control the situation for their benefit.

While it might be okay to fantasize about being loved by everybody, recognize that such is always just a fantasy, for even the very best amongst us, are not now and never will be universally liked or loved.  For instance, some people are hateful, for their own reasons, of which this may be because of their own failures, frustrations, envy, and jealousy.  Others may not like losing attention when outclassed by someone of far more impressive credentials, and so and so forth.  The list of reasons why someone would not like us is literally endless, and because of this, trying to seek the approval and respect of everyone, is not ever possible.

While most everyone has a desire to be liked, that is not the same thing, and should not be confused with, being respected, so that, to be liked by one's peers, may just come down to following their lead, agreeing with them, and always going along to get along; whereas, a person of integrity, does well the things that actually actuates them, for the overall betterment of themselves as well as for others, of which, by staying focused, and on point, this will garner them the respect of those peers with discriminating minds.

There isn't a necessity of needing approval of just anyone, especially from those that don't really know you.  In addition, even those that do know you and care about you, may have their own agendas from time-to-time, of which their expressed disapproval  or approval are a means to manipulate or to control the situation, so one should not only consider the source but also the motivations behind the source. 

This is your life, and it cannot be someone else's, for they have their own lives.  Those that are too fearful to do this or that, unless expressly approved by someone that is not them, are forging the chains of their own imprisonment, not seeming to recognize, that they were created to be free of such entanglements.

Facebook and the Faustian bargain

Facebook likes to advertise itself as simply a social media site, but in point of fact, it is almost inconceivable that a social media site that did not correlate, integrate, cogitate, and analyze, everything posted from the millions upon millions of users of such a site and the intricacies of that usage; providing all this actionable information to advertisers and marketers of all sorts for a very pretty price, could be worth a market capitalization of over $600 billion dollars, which is the current market capitalization of Facebook.

Facebook says an awful lot of things, of which one of the more pertinent ones is their effort to give people the impression that Facebook is on the user's side, thereby implying pretty much that everything Facebook does is done on behalf of their users; in addition to reminding their users that because Facebook is free, and therefore of no monetary charge to the consumer, users are able to freely enjoy the benefits of the site by keeping up on current events, their family, their friends , and making their own Facebook posts and likes.

However, there are some things that are free, but have in actuality a very real price attached to them, and in a world, of which computer processing power and capabilities have never been cheaper or better, all those "likes" that people put on their Facebook page, and all their personal information and interrelationships that they have carefully constructed, are there for the taking for those third party entities as authorized or quasi-authorized by Facebook, along with "bad actors" that basically permit all these organizations to know Facebook users in a manner that not only is in almost all cases not beneficial for them, but actually puts these entities in a very strong position to exploit  and to manipulate Facebook users, in a manner that is both effective as well as relentless.

This then means that the Faustian bargain that has been constructed is that the typical Facebook users' personal life, of which, their belief is that all is foremost under their control, is actually far more exposed to marketers and advertisers, as well as other assorted entities, in a manner in which for them, unbeknownst or not, they have  ceded far more control of who and what they really are in essence, to those that do not have their best interests in mind, but rather are delighted to have a commodity or an asset to monetize, of which the Facebook user gets paid, nary a dime.

Further to the point, young people, and especially all those that post and utilize Facebook as almost their personal diary, have not yet developed or have failed to develop the discernment, maturity, and wisdom, to truly comprehend that some things are best left unsaid, uncommented upon, and are forgettable; for they fail to comprehend that in the Facebook world everything is remembered, classified, recorded, and subject to endless sophisticated algorithms.

The thing is Facebook knows their users, in a way that treats each of those users as a valuable piece of property and thereby, in ways both large and small, those that freely post on Facebook are essentially freely providing all of their personal substance to Facebook, of which, the only real thing received in return from this false flag social media site is a modern day steroid version of Big Brother, which serves well the purpose of greedy for-profit commercial interests as well as the intrusive security interests within America, all in good service to the devil, that delights in such.

House of Representatives and fair representation

At the time that the Constitution was written, those that were enslaved, for purposes of how many seats that would be allocated to each individual State in the House of Representatives, were counted as:  "three fifths of all other Persons," thereby providing for those States that enslaved fellow human beings, an entitlement of representation for an extra three fifths per person that was so enslaved.  The 14th Amendment to our Constitution overturned the three fifths per person of those so enslaved, for slavery was eradicated by the 13th Amendment, and therefore the 14th Amendment counted the whole number of persons within each state for appropriate representation in the House of Representatives.

Since, the eradication of slavery, we have since progressed into a new era of strict immigration policies, of which, there are now millions upon millions of people residing in the United States of America that are not actually citizens of the United States, and further are considered to be illegal aliens and/or non-citizens within America, yet, these illegal aliens and non-citizens, are considered  to be for purposes of representation within the respective States-- whole persons, that are counted exactly the same  for such apportionment as those that are citizens.  In short, every physical body within America, as recorded by the census every decade directly influences how many seats are allocated in the House of Representatives, thereby in its own way, rewarding those States that have more illegal aliens and non-citizens as residents of their States, with additional apportionment, at the expense of those States that do not.

Perhaps a better way to get a fairer allocation of representatives within each State, is not to count the physical bodies within the State, at all, but rather, count only those that specifically are enfranchised to vote, and only those that are actually registered to vote, as opposed to those that are of age, but have elected not to enfranchise themselves or have had such enfranchisement revoked, because of a felony conviction or similar.  After all, the representatives within Congress should be a reflection of those that actually exercise their democratic right to vote, and the numbers of those representatives should be a true reflection of actual voters within that State.

If how many members of the house of representatives per State, was based not on the sheer numbers of people within a State, but the actual numbers of those so voting in that State, than each State would have a high incentive to get more people to register to vote and to actually vote within that State; in addition to probably deciding to re-enfranchise more of those that have previously been disenfranchised for a felony conviction or similar.  This seems to be not only a fairer way to correctly apportion how many representatives that are allocated within each State, but a more honest reflection of what representation and voting should actually be about.

So too, with each member of the house of representatives up for election every two years, the census for such allocation numbers per State, should also be done every two years, and if it was based on who is eligible to vote, per the voter rolls, such would not be an overburden upon the States in appropriately knowing and counting how many voters each State actually has.

The taxation rate of wage earned income

For the most part, those that make their wages by receiving a paycheck for their work, are doing so, because that is the way that they earn their living, therefore, the tax rate that they pay on that wage income is of special pertinence to them.  So too, the tax rate that people pay on unearned income, such as through dividends, capital gains, and interest makes a material difference to those individuals receiving that income, but these two forms of income are two very different things.

For instance, the fundamental difference between wage income and unearned income is that the person making that wage income is actually laboring for it, whereas the person that is receiving that unearned income, certainly is not personally laboring for that income; rather the money that has been invested is earning income for the owner of that money.  While both of these forms of income are taxed, the fundamental question actually comes down to the fairness of such taxation, especially in regards to which form of income should be more heavily taxed, and  which should even be taxed to begin with.

Originally, the federal income tax applied only to the wealthiest Americans, and not to ordinary earning Americans.  In fact, it's fair to say, that the original federal income tax was specifically passed to "soak the rich" but has morphed into soaking relatively modest wage earners and above, with all sorts of workarounds for the very rich to avoid paying their fair share, or their anticipated forecasted share.  This would indicate in practice, that the Federal tax authorities believe that the easiest way to collect taxes, is to collect it from individual wage earners, upon each time that they receive a paycheck, as a sort of a pay-as-you-go system, of which, various taxes are taken out of wage earners' paychecks, for State, local, Social Security, Medicare, and Federal taxes.

On the other hand, with unearned income, such is only subject to the higher ordinary income tax rate for dividends and short term capital gains; of which this pales in comparison to all those that have a wealth of money and are gifted at getting their taxes reduced to a minimum because they are helped greatly by the fact that the long term capital gain tax rate is just 15%, and subject only to  the 20% tax rate, when their taxable income is above $464,850 for those that are married; whereas wage earners that are married, are subject to a 35% tax rate for all taxable income above $400,000.

Clearly, wage earners are getting the short end of the stick, especially all those that are laboring and making at least a decent wage or better, for they really are net tax payers, and not privy to special tax considerations and set asides that the biggest corporations and wealthiest Americans are able to avail themselves of.   In point of fact, wage earned income should be taxed less, and unearned income should be taxed more, for the difference between the two, is that wage earned income is from actual labor and productivity, whereas unearned income, is fundamentally, unearned by any personal labor, whatsoever.

Quit Pretending

Once you deviate from truth, your life just becomes a lot more complicated, because having told a story, or exaggerated, or just outright lied about something, it's nigh impossible to actually remember everything that you have said to everyone, and eventually having done that, this will bite you back and reflect clearly to others that you are not truthful.  Perhaps you are okay with that, or even more than okay with that, but it would probably be better to reduce or eliminate the lies, and to actually be the person and/or do the things that you really want to do and to accomplish.

So too, when you basically are all of the time pretending to be something that you really are not, to everyone, in ways, big and small; at some point, you are going to lose track of who you really actually are, because in order to live with yourself, you have to kind of start believing your own tales, though, all the time knowing, deep inside, that such tales, even well done, are just tales, just the same.

The clearest way, though, to get a good grip on your life, is to actually consciously pay attention to literally everything that you are saying and doing on a given day, and then stop yourself, anytime that you are doing something deceptive, misleading, or just being dishonest; and the more times that you have to stop yourself, the more that you will know exactly how unbalanced your life actually is.

The message that should thereby be crystallized, is seeing clearly those areas of your life that you are unsatisfied with and consequently have been propping up within your life with some misrepresentation; signifying that rather than pretending or wishing that you were different, it would actually be more productive to do those things that would make you a better person, instead.  That is to say, some people will expend an incredible amount of time and brainpower trying to wear a mask that isn't them, rather than just trying to improve who they currently are and to thereby become closer to what it is that they so desire to become.

Of course, in a competitive and material world, there are plenty of situations in which, no matter how much effort is expended, becoming that person that you believe that you want to be, just isn't possible, but that is missing the forest for the trees.  Actually, the most important concept to comprehend, is to work hard on building the characteristics, or the back story, so to speak, of what it is that you want to become in character, and that in itself, will make you not only a better person, but bring you closer to what it is that you desire to fundamentally be.

The closer you become to being the real you in your interactions with others, the less you will have to worry about pretending to be what you really are not; and the sooner you will understand that most people will accept you for who and what you really are, especially if you are working on being a better and more caring person to others.

Judicial activism

There are plenty of people that appreciate judicial activism, especially when that activism, benefits their cause, specifically.  The thing is though, the Constitution is a written document, and those that believe that such a Constitution is a living document, or an evolving document, are really in a fundamental sense, using that as the raisons d'être for their beliefs, making it seem as though what they are accomplishing or supporting through the overzealous judicial branch is appropriate, sound, and justified; when, in fact, it isn't any of these things.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that Constitution is a written document, which specifically must be adhered to, of which, there are policies set forth for amendments to that Constitution, of which, to date, there have been a total of twenty-seven amendments that have been ratified to our Constitution.  When the Constitution is respected as the highest law, the people through their legislature representatives are still able to effect change through amendments to the Constitution.  However, judicial activism, at its worse, is actually a runaround that limitation, so that, new rights and new laws, or current rights and current laws, or the interpretation of rights and the interpretation of laws, can and have, suddenly been changed by that judicial branch.

This basically means that the legislative branch, as well as the executive branch, and by definition, the Constitution, itself, are all capable of being superseded by the Supreme Court of this land, when that court interprets such, in any manner that they so see fit to interpret it as.  This then becomes a land in which the unelected judges, that are appointed for life terms, effectively interpret and make laws that this esteem group so wishes to enact, negating the voice of the people, in the most undemocratic way that such can be done.

This does mean, that the popular vote on propositions by the people, and thereby enacted by the legislature of that people, are subject to being overturned, dismissed, and overruled by the judicial branch; even of laws that are long standing and historically sound.  Not only is this clearly an abuse and misuse of the Constitution, but clearly such decisions will favor one class of citizens over all other citizens, and specifically will favor the ideology of that court, so that, the supreme law of the land, is the prevailing ideology of that court, and not the Constitution.

The only possible workaround to judicial activism, is to purposely put judges back in their place, of which, the greatest exponent of such an ideal, was Abraham Lincoln.  That is to say, when President Lincoln took office, the law of the land was apparently the Dred Scott decision, that stipulated that blacks were not entitled to citizenship or constitutional protections, but of this decision, it was defied by Lincoln and the North.  So too, the Supreme Court ruled that the President had not the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, during the Civil War, but Lincoln did so suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Lincoln, was a true Constitutionalist, for he stated on many an occasion, that though he detested slavery, that he did not believe that the Constitution gave him the right to overturn such in those States that permitted such.  In point of fact, slavery was not constitutionally overturned until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, demonstrating that the Supreme Law of this Land, is quite capable of positive change; and judges that do not recognize this salient fact, need not have their judicial decisions, obeyed.

Dissent and petitions

The 1st Amendment to our Constitution clearly states in part that it is: "….the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," which is exactly what a government of the people, for the people, and by the people should be about.  That is to say, it is not the government's responsibility or certain representatives of that government to determine that certain dissent and petitions will not be permitted or allowed, whereas other orthodox or favored petitions will be aided and abetted.  This government essentially should allow an open forum of ideas, conversations, and debates to be part and parcel of this country, of which, by doing so, makes for a more vibrant and inclusive society, as opposed to one that deliberately is set on stifling inconvenient dissent.

Of course, not everything that people say is really worth listening to, but they have a right to say it, and if there is an audience for it, so be it.  No doubt, some of those things being written or talked about by certain people, is of no real merit, but then again that is also true of numerous things that the government wishes to promulgate, with the caveat being that the government has the power and tools to make their voice heard; whereas, the people, for the most part are limited in their budget, limited in their time, and limited in their voice to actually being heard.

When those that have a different viewpoint and wish to petition the government, or to dissent against the government, are not permitted the means to do so, than the very things that may warn us, or that may improve us as a society, are being silenced, which may be of a real detriment to the country and the people as a whole.  While there are a few people that will change their viewpoint and their opinion about subjects of real import in a blink of an eye, in point of fact, most people do not; and hence, ideas that may not be popular now, that may be dismissed currently, may, at a future point be seen as not only being better but as being correct, and not only that, they were better and correct when first expressed.

The most important thing to recognize is that those that are in power, have a tendency to not want things to change, because their position is rather comfortable, so then, they have a very strong incentive to keep things just as they are, primarily, so as to continue to benefit themselves, at the expense of others.  On the other hand, those that lack power, and/or have little voice, want what they are saying to actually be heard and contemplated, not only because they believe in what they are advocating, but also because they have little to lose, and possibly a lot to gain, not just for themselves but also for others.

When the government, or any entity, makes it their point that they will, either undercover, or out in the open, stifle all dissent, by whatever means that they can do so, and do not pay the price for such a violation of 1st Amendment rights, even claiming, that the majority supports such an action; then the country has effectively neutered its 1st Amendment, for the 1st Amendment right of the people to assemble, clearly means the people have the right of dissent, which is the right to think one's own thoughts and to thereby freely express them, which this government has not the right to interfere with.

What the cross truly means

The cross is the premier symbol for those of the Christian faith, of which, many people wear it as a matter of habit, or of preference, or in recognition and respect for the Christian religion.  While the wearing of any symbol that identifies you with that particular faith, has its place, it is important to also recognize the meaning of such a symbol and the incumbent responsibility that one has for wearing it; for a symbol that seems to stipulate that you are a valid representative of the Christian faith, but without works reflecting such, is a rather hollow representation of where one actually needs to be.

That is to say, it can be argued, and has been argued, that those that wear a badge of honor must do their part to show that honor in their demeanor and in their accomplishments, or they might even be considered to be worse than someone that wears no symbol at all, for their apparent hypocrisy.   Of course, in order to appropriately reflect what the cross means, would also necessitate, knowing what that cross means, of which, there is a wide divergent of opinion in regards to this very thing.

In point of fact, the cross should be looked upon as for what it demonstratively has told us thru Scripture, which is that, our Savior, Jesus the Christ, was crucified upon a cross, until his physical death.  That should definitely signify that the cross should be seen as a symbol for each of us, that we have a sacred responsibility to symbolically crucified our old selfish and sinful self, so that, we are thereby reborn, becoming therefore  a true representative of God's very own.

This means, that those that lightly wear the cross, without thinking through their incumbent responsibilities to the meaning of that cross, are not true Christians, though they may be good people, and may wish to be seen as such, but they are only surface Christians, and not Christians, through and through.  For the bottom line is that Jesus the Christ, went to his physical death, of which, such a death was a travesty of justice, but He did so, to demonstrate that not only is there a Supreme Power that actuates each one of us, and that not only is there a Supreme Power that is beyond this physical plane, but to let us know for a certainty that to become what we need to become is to recognize that we need to let go of our fear of physical harm and death, in recognition that we are not of this physical and temporary dimension, but that we are in essence, spiritual and eternal.

The cross should be our reminder that we will not become enraptured within a world, that though it may have its moments, is too often filled with injustice, hatred, strife, confusion, and chaos; but rather, instead, recognize that each one of us is a child of the very same God, so that everything that we do which is to fulfill our own ego needs and selfish desires, is a distinct step away from God, of which we need to bear foremost in our mind that the cross is our grounding point, which should serve to remind us, that we must reconstitute and resurrect ourselves, daily, to be that which is love.