“We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations"

The above quotation says in full: “We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations and the corporation must use its ownership of assets to reflect the best interests of the people. If we don’t, they will take away our ownership.”  This was said in the context of a foreign investment by an American corporation, with the fear, and thus the concern, that failing to act responsibly in that foreign land could lead to the nationalization of that investment and thus the loss of control over ownership of that investment. These words, while directed to foreign investment, could also be reasonably seen as applying to domestic corporate investment, as well, because corporations, as artificial constructs of the state, should always have a responsibility to serve the good interests of the people, or else they are on some level exploiting those people, and should thereby be sanctioned.  As for the personage who stated this viewpoint, it was none other than Nelson Rockefeller, the grandson of the oil baron John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and thus it should be seen as the opinion of someone who knew business, knew what power and influence mega-corporations have, and how they use it.

Regrettably, we seem to live in a day and age in which corporate power has never been stronger, and that far too many corporations seem hell-bent on making as much profit as possible while also paying as little in taxes, which is not the type of combination that makes for a good corporate citizen, which is why this government, which appears to have been captured for the benefit of corporate interests, needs to realign itself to its Constitutional mission to promote the general welfare of the people, as contrasted to promoting and favoring the general welfare of corporations, instead.

Each of us as a citizen is responsible to the laws of the land, and when we violate the law, we are subject to penalties, including the lost of our freedom.  It seems that when it comes to corporate malfeasance, be that in the sense of contracts which have been set aside to favored corporations, to environmental damage and pollution, as well as to how labor is mistreated and underpaid, that corporations seem to be in far too many cases above the law, as if the law as exercised when it comes specifically to corporations, favors those corporations, and thus makes the general public to have to carry more of the burden regarding the welfare of the people, even though corporations are well positioned to readily do more to be of benefit to the people, but instead concentrate overly upon corporate profit and bonuses, which are typically structured to favor those in the highest positions within those corporations and thus is not fairly distributed to all those that have done their part to contribute to that corporation.

This nation therefore needs to comprehend that robust guardrails need to be put into place on these mega-corporations to make sure and to verify that the people are receiving something of tangible benefit from the privileges so bestowed upon corporations, or else things must change to protect the people, for as it stands, corporations could do and ought to do a lot more to serve the people, rather than lording it over them, and unfairly not doing their part to be a responsible corporate citizen

Repairer of the breach

We read in Holy Scripture: "… You will be called Repairer of the Breach, Restorer of Paths with Dwellings." (Isaiah 58:12) Indeed, to be the repairer of the breach is arguably the highest calling that anyone could strive to make good on, because when we look at all the warfare and arguments that occur in societies and the nations that societies are made of, it is the dissension, the ugliness, and the incivility so displayed by so many that makes for a construct which is not just, and not peaceful, which is why we need those with influence and people of good faith, to make it their point to be repairers of the breach.

In actuality, each of us should do our fair part to help make society a better place for our participation in it, which means that we ought to think less of our own selfish needs and desires, while considering instead that everyone has the same unalienable rights, which signifies that to be true to those rights, means being responsible one to another which should be prominent in our thinking, because the wrong thoughts are going to produce the wrong actions, and the way that we overcome that, is to get our mind set on those activities that will help bring harmony and civility where there currently is disharmony and incivility.

No doubt, to repair what needs to be repaired is not an easy task, which is why no one person, or one institution, can do so, because it requires the "buy-in" from scores and scores of people, because we are all in this together, and together we are the ones that need to make good on what has to be made good on.  All the problems present-day societies face are consistent with the same sorts of problems we saw in yesteryear's societies, such as violence, injustice, poverty, unfairness, untruthfulness, and selfishness.  Sure, we of the Western world may have accouterments unknown to societies from generations ago, but we have not been able, though, to relieve ourselves from the injustice so displayed far too often in how we conduct our business, which needs to be changed, for the change that we desire must first come forth from our own consistent efforts, along with those that we join together with, in pursuit of this the most worthy of goals.

To bring hate and strife, especially when we are frustrated and upset, is easy to do and fall into, but those that can control their temperament and bend their will to doing the right thing, even when it's easier to cheat and do something wrong, are the same that are mature in their character, and should be seen as people to be emulated.  To give in to behavior which we know for a certainty isn't becoming of what we were meant to be signifies that we have not grown where growth has been required, and until we do so, we will continue to stumble.

Here then is the dividing line between those that will not learn, and therefore must continue to cycle through the same exercises and issues again and again, whereas there are those others who make the effort to repair the breach with the sure knowledge that joining together in a good common overarching purpose is the only way to achieve what we were born to do and to have the will to accomplish, thus creating the society that we were meant to live in.

Spend time with the common people

The United States of America has all sorts of issues with adhering to the spirit of its Declaration of Independence as well as its Constitution, which is quite obvious when we see the difference between how those who have it all are treated, as contrasted with those who are struggling with life and doing no better than just keeping their collective heads above water, if that.  It is one thing to want to uplift the common man and to rail that the government needs to do more, and it's a very different thing to actually spend time with the common people so you can really live and feel their life.

To best understand where the common person is coming from necessitates not just spending time in conversation with them, but really being amongst them, in one's everyday interactions and transactions, because unless we can experience their vulnerabilities and better appreciate their difficulties and challenges by personally being there with them, then we really have not fully understood or empathized with their situation.  That is to say, we need to meet the common people where they are, not where we want them to be, and, more importantly, we need to listen more thoughtfully throughout our conversations with them, as well as to do activities with them.  Indeed, if we really care, we need to do more to walk in the shoes of those who are the common folk, so that we can fairly experience what they are having to deal with, and thus understand their situation better, which will make it more readily apparent where improvements can be made so that they can have more opportunity to experience America at its finest.

It has to be admitted that it's easy to dismiss the concerns of others when our own life consists of the benefits of mostly having things go our way, which makes us believe that if those others who are not so fortunate simply pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, they too could enjoy the same sort of life that we have.  What is lost in this equation is that capitalism as practiced appears to be a zero-sum game, made quite evident by the fact that this nation does not believe that those that labor and put forth an honest day's work are thereby entitled to an honest day's wage, because the minimum wage as structured by the Federal government is not a living wage, and those that lack material wealth are susceptible to the type of struggle which far too many people in and out of government turn a blind eye to.

In society, we ought to hear the voice of the voiceless, and we ought to see and feel the plight that so many good people must deal with on an everyday basis, so that we can better understand the challenges that they face, and the best way to comprehend that better is to spend time with the common people and then, from those interactions and experiences, do something constructive to bring change for the better, brick by brick.

The brilliant credo of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

We find that wisdom can come from all sorts of places and people, and the most important thing is to receive it and then act on it righteously. The credo of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., displayed in the main lobby of the Rockefeller library, is something every good American should take to heart, and, if done and lived, would truly make America a far better place to live and enjoy.  Regrettably, though, far too many Americans don't live by this credo and have no interest in adhering to it.

 This credo states that "… every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty."  Indeed, each of us does have a responsibility to our rights, and especially to our unalienable rights, for it is the wrong thinking regarding these rights, and our abuse, so of, that gets so many people into the kind of trouble that would be best to avoid.  That is to say, while we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, this needs to be circumscribed by the fact that we do not have the right to go about achieving such happiness at the expense of other people's unalienable rights being violated, for we must first be responsible for having that right and none else.  So too, when good opportunities are presented to us, it is our responsibility to do what we must to make good on that opportunity, for there is no world in which there are endless opportunities, which signifies that when such comes, we need to seize it and thus claim it as our own, by thereby making good on it.  Finally, there are far too many people who believe that what they possess is by all rights their very own, which is a selfish outlook, and should be tempered by the fact that those that are gifted with great material things have an obligation to be not just prudent with their possessions, but dutiful in seeing that those possessions do not corrupt their mind and their ethics.

 This credo also states that "I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order."  Indeed, those that would have a good life must make it to be their point to live up to truth, and to not submit to lies and deceptions in their everyday activities, because those that permit lies to triumph over truth, have done so typically because they will benefit in some way from that lie, which means that they have made a serious error which can only be overcome by dedicating their lives to living by and for truth.  Additionally, there needs to be justice in this world, especially in consideration that the next world is a domain of pure justice, which signifies that we have a duty to be just and fair to one another presently, and thereby no respecter of other persons, but rather a respecter only of the character of that person.

 Finally, this credo states that: "…right can and will triumph over might."  Indeed, we live in a domain in which history tells us that might seems to be the go-to way that countries deal with one another and also how they conduct their domestic affairs.  That is to say, firepower and intimidation seem to trump sensibility and fairness, which is a construct, lived by that does no favors to humankind.  Rather, we are obligated to do the right thing, and by doing so, this will be the moral power that will overcome might; for that which is right cannot ever, in the skeins of time, be vanquished by might, but instead might must be the servant to right.

 In sum, we must collectively live by this credo and by doing so we will make society a better place through our good contribution to it.

The coming return of feudalism

When it comes to neo-feudalism, they say it can't happen here, in this the land of freedom and opportunity, but they are wrong, because capitalism is inexorably devolving into feudalism with no effective guardrails to stop it; for as long as the people have their bread and circuses, they seemingly don't care and won't band together with enough energy to do anything of substance about it.  Indeed, the first step toward achieving feudalism is ensuring people's safety: getting them to voluntarily, and without too much complaint, sacrifice their freedom, liberty, and privacy to thus be protected from nebulous dark enemies that would take away their safety. The second thing that must be done is to eliminate all privacy of what a person does or does not do on a given day, by tracking them through their activities via their phone, internet activity, and travel, along with eliminating all paper currency so that all monetary expenditures and transactions are known.  These two things combined permit the government to know everything about its people, and through that knowledge to control them for the benefit of the elites, which will encourage the people to acquiesce and thus to exchange their freedom for food, employment, and housing, along with receiving mindless entertainment structured for them, in addition to being inundated with constant propaganda as well as grooming to convince the people that this is the way that life should be lived.

The problem that the elites have with, especially the middle class, is that there are way too many people who have agency to create trouble for them, especially in a construct in which they and the lower class also have the democratic vote, because there are therefore far more people with voting power that make up those classes, as contrasted to the elites of society, even when taking into account all those others that serve those elites and obviously would vote in conformance with them.  The way around this proximate problem really comes down to obtaining as much knowledge as possible on all the middle and lower class citizens so that this knowledge in the hands of the elites can be used against them so as to tighten their control of these classes and thus get them to be more readily compliant and obedient to the desires of the power brokers of this nation.

Additionally, the middle class needs to be hollowed out so that more power and more wealth can continue to be accumulated into the hands of the elites; for only when the middle class is absolutely dependent upon their employment conditions being in control of the capitalistic elites will they have lost their monetary power, completely. This, though, can only be successfully accomplished by providing those formerly of the middle class with robust creature comforts and drugs of their choosing, in exchange for having lost their agency. All this combined will signify that the middle class, having lost their private ownership of assets, land, and housing, will be the modern day equivalent of serfs, though well protected and with a decent place to lay their heads down to rest, for having sacrificed their freedom for safety.

When cocaine was legal

In modern society, cocaine use and distribution so of, for the general public, are illegal in the United States, and those who are involved in the cocaine business, whether they are users or sellers, are subject to laws that could incarcerate them for many years, depending upon the circumstances.  In other words, the usage of cocaine in America is illegal and has been that way for over one hundred years, except for some specific usage of the cocaine derivative in the medical profession, typically as an anesthetic.

The strange thing is that cocaine was once utilized in patent medicines, as well as an anesthetic, in addition to being an ingredient in soft drinks such as Coca-Cola.  Cocaine was seen as a vital stimulant, and thus as an energy boost for those that drank Coca-Cola, while also being available for public health usage as in nasal sprays and lozenges.  In other words, cocaine was part and parcel of products that could be bought at pharmacies, in addition to it being available to the consumer as a beverage.  This then was the way that it was, and it needs to be acknowledged that it is coca leaves that cocaine is derived from, of which the chewing of coca leaves is still a common practice in those societies that grow such, because those leaves are a stimulant, thus warding off fatigue, as well as being an appetite suppressor.

While today's America makes it seem that cocaine is a scourge on humankind, it is the abuse of cocaine along with the fact that it can become addictive that creates potential problems,  for the cocoa leaf has been part of specific societies for millenniums, and those that ingest that leaf, do not suffer from the same sorts of ill effects that cocaine produces, mainly because as a derivative, cocaine as produced will have a significantly much higher potency than the coca leaf, which therein invites dangers, which is the proximate reason why it eventually got banned from all substances and products that the consumer could purchase off the shelf.

So then, back in the day, before chemists made cocaine ever more powerfully concentrated, there was, to a very large extent, no real issues with cocaine and its products, but in America it needs to be recognized that competition and the desire to dominate a market will make for the type of decisions in which a product prudently utilized can be transformed and thus transfixed into something far more potent, which is great for profits in the sense that a person who is addicted or becomes habitually attached to a product so being sold, is going to be very good for business.

All of this would seem to imply two basic things, the first being that properly regulated, off-the-shelf products in patent medicines could use a derivative of cocaine again, and in an era in which high-energy drinks are consumed by millions of Americans, it would seem that there would be a place for a derivative of the coca leaf in energy drinks, also having its place.  That said the bottom line is that nothing will change, mainly because those who could have and should have been more responsible with cocaine were not, and thus have damaged its image, seemingly forever.

"…The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened"

The full quotation of the above, as spoken by President John F. Kennedy on June 11, 1963, is:

"This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."  Regrettably, more than 60 years later, we find that the present administration of 2026 has determined, implicitly if not explicitly, that this nation was founded by white men, essentially for the benefit of white men, as well as selected others of different races as determined by white men, while accepting only those of specific orthodox creeds, and in particular, treating certain creeds such as those of the Muslim faith as undesirable and therefore making them intolerable people, and hence not deserving of equal rights.

 Indeed, either Kennedy was wrong back then, or he was right, and our founding documents make it loud and very clear that Kennedy was right, which thereby means that those that do not believe that all men are created equal, and that therefore it so follows that all persons are entitled to the same rights as any other person, are clearly wrong in their perception, and should be considered to be in enmity to what this country nobly stands for, which thereby makes them to be the most unpatriotic of citizens.

 Look, it has to be said, either we are all in this together, or we will surely fail as a nation and as a people from artificial and wrong-minded divisions, which serve to disunite us, and to weaken us as a people and as a nation.  While each of us is entitled to our opinion and our own viewpoint, it needs to be acknowledged that the most appropriate way to teach good civic virtues for our citizenry is to have leaders that are true to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, for without such, we will be susceptible to being misdirected into beliefs that are not consistent with our founding, and not becoming of a nation which claims to be a bright beacon upon that hill, representing truth, liberty, freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity, for all.

 To believe that God blessed America is to believe that America is in harmony with what God represents, but whenever that is not the case, then those blessings will not continue to come our way, for those that turn their back on God's good virtues are the same that will reap what they have sown, for it must be acknowledged that God will not be mocked.  So then, it is incumbent upon those that are our representatives, our justices, as well as the executive office, to be true to what this nation represents through its founding documents, and if not, if they have any integrity, to resign from that office.

 In short, America is at that crossroads, which gives America a chance to reset and to determine thereby to do the right thing by its people, by the sure recognition that equality of justice means that all are treated the same way, and that no one person and no one entity has special rights that should ever make them to be treated in a highly privileged way, for all have equal rights, and those that believe differently have clearly lost their way.

When will war end?

Societies seemingly can't get themselves away from war, which is distressing, especially when considering how "civilized" some of the leading societies and nations consider themselves to be.  Indeed, despite knowing better, and of being quite knowledgeable, we find that when there are disputes and disagreements or perhaps out of sheer greed, the go-to option especially for those countries that have a robust military, is to war upon the other.  No doubt, wars can bring some benefits to some parties, but at what cost? 

 We find that many years before John F. Kennedy became President, he wrote "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."  How true those words are and how few in the highest positions of power actually care to listen and to learn from such sage words but that is regrettably the construct that we live by, which is quite simply that "might makes right," which seems to be the way of the world for many societies and nations, and is the proximate reason why we continue to suffer from the hell of these endless wars and all of the ensuing tragedies thus imposed upon humankind.

 It is a fact that the one thing that societies get wrong over and over again is the belief that from war this will make for lasting peace, but that isn't the case, whatsoever.  Rather, to overcome warfare, one needs to not take up more and more weapons, but instead one needs to put down their weapons, with the sure recognition that what does not ever work in the long run, is not going to ever be the solution, either.  Regrettably, those that ought to know better and therefore ought to be able to see that our efforts and concentration should be directed to a higher purpose other than warfare are not doing what they are supposed to do, because without proper leadership and an ethical core which is conscientious of dong right, and will not therefore give in to doing wrong, no matter what would appear to be the immediate consequences, nothing of substance will change.

 So then, one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, if humankind will not determine to do better and thereby to actually be good and humane to one another, we will be in this same boat of damnation, repeatedly heading for tragedy that need not occur but will continue to occur until such a time as societies make it their point to do the right thing as contrasted with doing the wrong thing.

 Indeed, war in this world will not ever end, until as it has been said, the warrior takes a backseat to those that have the conscience that moral courage trumps physicality, and that which represents the eternally good should not be treated as if its attributes are temporal, when they are not.  This then is the point, we are here for a purpose and that purpose is not to make war upon one another, but rather it is to find common ground with one another, based upon the sound principle that all have been equally created, thereby signifying that all are entitled to the same unalienable rights, and it is our highest duty to live faithfully to those rights, so done by willing and doing good to the other, forever and ever.

The negative consequences of losing your job

When we are young, we are subject to losing our job, because of irresponsibility, or the fact that it was temporary or a way-stop, or from other factors, of which, the upshot in a lot of cases is that losing that job is no real big deal, because the bills and responsibilities that we have at a young age are not that daunting.  Eventually, though, we become an adult, and adults will have responsibilities and bills that must be maturely responded to, which signifies that whatever job that we are doing is important to us, especially when the job would appear to represent our career choice, of which, we are happy or satisfied with its overall pay package and benefits.

 As we age, we take on more responsibilities, not just to ourselves but to our family, as in our spouse and our children.  Further to the point, when we believe that we are settled in our employment, we are going to desire to take on a home mortgage with all its incumbent expenses, and in many places in America, we are going to obviously need a vehicle to get us to where we need to go from a job perspective as well as to take care of other interests during our free time off. All of this signifies that a steady income makes for the type of life that we can control which thereby gives us the earmark of what makes for a happy life.

 The fly in the ointment though, is that should we lose our job, everything can quickly fall apart, especially when we are unable to find suitable employment that offers us the same sort of pay and benefits as we had before. This then becomes the proximate problem that will bother us morning, noon, and night because when we are unable to meet our financial obligations, this creates not just stress, but can readily take down the whole and complete edifice, from housing, to our vehicle, and finally to our personal relationships.

 Indeed, those that discount how vital and important a good paying job is to the individual don’t seem to comprehend that in Western nations, responsibilities have got to be adhered to, or else our life becomes something akin, to solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In other words, the center cannot hold and it all falls apart. This indicates that whatever governmental programs that there are to support those who become unemployed should be as vigorous and as helpful as possible. Additionally, a single employee is never a match in power as compared to their employer which is why a conscientious and caring country makes it to be its point to be pro-union which thus helps greatly in seeing that those that labor are able to make a living wage as well as to have protections and guarantees within the work that they do, subject to their own behavior and work ethics.

 Many a story can be told of those that lost a good paying job and never recovered, thus essentially destroying their life, which would be one thing if America was a poor developing country, but in fact, America is the richest country in aggregate in the world, and for this government not to do more to help the common man, demonstrates that we don’t have a fair deal for the people, at all.

Is America currently fascist?

On April 29, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in this message to Congress, stated what he believed was a great danger to this nation: “Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power,” thus signifying that “... the liberty of a democracy is not safe…” because of this private power becoming stronger than the actual democratic state.  Again, these words were spoken by that President all the way back in 1938 and when we look at corporate as well as individual power as demonstrated by the incredible amount of business conducted by certain behemoth corporations, as well as the sheer amount of assets held by these corporations, in conjunction with individuals that themselves are worth billions upon billions of dollars, it has to be admitted that never has there been so much material wealth and temporal power held in the hands of those that do not need answer to their government, but in actuality, are the ones that are controlling that government for their personal and continual pleasure at the expense of the people, in whole, thereby suggesting that America really is not actually a functioning democracy, but rather is fascist at its core.  This then is the proximate problem of our time, because whenever the people do not have agency, and therefore whenever we have a government which is not of, for, and by the people, then we do not have a democracy, but instead we have fascist despotism.

 The country that America is supposed to have is mandated by its Constitution, and to cede such control to private interests and in particular to artificial constructs of the state, demonstrated by corporations, which currently are structured to be perpetual in their nature is anathema to the people being able to exert any direction or general purpose through that governance, because those with unelected private power are themselves in effective control of the decisions so being made by that government, because governmental positions have been captured far too often by private enterprise, and those that are in the most powerful governmental offices are consistently the same that are representatives not of the people, but are instead of that capitalistic industry.

 That said, the two things that people have at their disposal are, first of all, that there are far more people than there are those that are in the privileged positions, of which those people are becoming more knowledgeable about how the lion’s share of the industrial and labor effort so made by those working people has been unjustly taken from them, which signifies that the number of those people, joined together, may yet have their valued say.  The other thing in the people’s favor is that the founding of this nation was meant to demonstrate that the people had the fundamental right to throw off despotism, so as to pursue their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which presently is being denied to a very wide swath of Americans, that do not receive a living wage, that do not have access to a strong labor union, and aren’t secure in their own persons, all because this has been co-opted by unelected powers that see the people not as citizens of this nation, and thereby entitled to equal rights, but rather as nothing much more than subjects, meant to be exploited, and manipulated for the benefit of those elites, and none else -- unless the mass of people, rise up against these elites as is their unalienable right.

The military-industrial-technology complex runs this country, not the president

We're taught to think that America is a de facto democracy in which American citizens vote on the most important propositions, legislative representatives, and, every four years, who will or will not be the president of this nation.  This is the theory, but in practicality, we need to take into account that the military-industrial-technology complex appears to be the institution that is actually running the show, demonstrated by the fact that in this land, we see the unfathomable amounts of money earmarked for this complex, even though the United States is not at war with any country contiguous to its landmass and has no real reason to expend such a huge amount of its budget upon the military-industrial-technology complex: yet, it does.

 As they say, follow the money, and when we look at where the money is expended, this complex receives a gargantuan amount of money each fiscal year, even though this nation is not in the midst of World War III, and was founded upon the sensible belief that, as stated in its Constitution, when it came to its Army that “…no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Instead, we have not only a standing Army that no other nation can match in the terms of expenditure devoted to such, but this Army exists and persists year after year after year.

 So too, one might think, that the Executive office in conjunction with Congress would do something of merit to reduce our monies devoted to the military-industrial-complex.  Indeed, one needs to recognize that the Executive office term is no longer than two terms of four years, and that congressional representatives are up for election every two years for Congressional representatives and every six years for Senators, signifying that these representatives are going to need funding from some entity, and those that receive money directly or indirectly from the military-industrial-technology complex are going to do their bidding.

 On the other hand, the military-industrial-technology complex does not have any of its personnel and important personages up for any democratic election.  That is to say, those in the military that rise to the top are often “lifers”, and those that are part of the industrial and technology institutions are those that perform at a satisfactory high level that is in conformance with what the board of directors and stockholders approve of, and are themselves typically long-serving executives who are strongly supported when perceived as being quite effective at securing additional revenue and profits for their respective institutions.

 Additionally, the military-industrial-technology complex makes it their point that they do not appreciate any surprises from the Executive office; therefore, they are very good at grooming only those candidates that will adhere to their desires and, for certain, these approved candidates will not ever consider standing against that complex.

 Indeed, while there are plenty of citizens who support as much as it takes for a strong “defense”, perhaps because they aren’t thinkers or have been indoctrinated, we do find that the billions upon billions of dollars directed to the military-industrial complex are the same dollars correspondingly taken away from American citizens that could have been utilized for the necessary improvement of this nation’s infrastructure, and of its education, and of its opportunity and fairness for all, as well as in support of the general welfare and well-being of this nation, but that hasn’t occurred and will not ever occur, because the military-industrial-technology complex comes first and foremost, and the devil takes the hindmost.

This will end the war with Iran within 24 hours

In a world in which a certain President bragged that they could end the Ukrainian-Russian war within 24 hours when elected, we find that this did not occur; yet, the idea that the United States has the capacity to end wars within 24 hours most definitely has its appeal and quite obviously is far better than the “endless” wars that America can’t seem to resolve sensibly.  This leads us to believe that anybody who comes up with an idea or concept that could end the current American war with Iran might be worth paying attention to, and indeed, a bold idea has come forth.

 When we consider that those who are in the highest positions of power and influence in this nation have made it abundantly clear that our Judeo-Christian heritage has no real accommodation to those of the Muslim faith, and further to the point, believes that the Muslim religion is not one of peace but rather of conflict and war, then it would seem that there needs to be done something of substance that would resolve this proximate problem.

 Fortunately, our Secretary of War has made it quite clear that America is a nation of testosterone-driven warriors, who are second to none to any other country or unchristian man in this world.  Secretary Hegseth is a fine specimen of a man’s man, and though he has perhaps reached that age in which his physical prowess has already peaked, we need to consider that Hegseth is quite obviously, as a conservative, faith-filled Christian man, by his definition, far superior to anyone representing the Muslim faith.  So too, the best way to prove that an American military man is more of a man than somebody else is not just in the field of warfare with mechanical armaments and such, but rather really comes down to what it was, back at the beginning, hand-to-hand combat, and not some unmanly affair in which one’s opponent could tap out when subject to intense pain or in an untenable, vulnerable position, and also not from some limp-wristed referee deciding that enough is enough, but rather such fights need to be what a real man’s fight represents, to the death.

 Indeed, the suggestion comes to the forefront that Iran itself also does not desire an endless war with America, so that there would seem to be a reasonable solution to such a problem that serves well both nations.  Let therefore the best of Iranian men, who quite frankly can’t be very good, manly, or strong, take on our warrior secretary Hegseth in a fight to be globally livestreamed to the death.  The winner, should it be improbably or impossibly an Iranian man, would be for the United States to cease all military involvement, directly or indirectly, with Iran, and should the winner be Hegseth’s America, which it surely would be, then America would take over all the Iranian oilfields and destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions as their spoils of this fight.

 This fight to the death would be the culmination and proof positive of America’s strength and determination, for there isn’t a doubt in the world that Hegseth would succeed in the killing of that non-Christian heretical Iranian man, and thus bring peace on earth to all humankind, with the sure blessing and approval of Hegseth’s God, who is our true ultimate warrior benefactor.

When your child predeceases you

It used to be that American families were far larger in the number of children they had.  This had a lot to do with the fact that, back in the days of farmers and an agricultural workplace, children represented “free labor,” and the more hands on deck, the more of that necessary work could be accomplished.  So too, in an era in which there was no electricity, when dusk became night, there really wasn’t a lot for a family to do, and without any form of birth control, more children were created.

 In today’s world, while not every child is an expected or planned child, couples do have the capacity to control those things, and in consideration that most potential parents understand well that children are no longer free labor but represent a financial burden, that is, an expense, there is more consideration made before having a child.  Further to the point, women are much more career-oriented in their lives, and therefore don’t have the time or energy to birth a lot of children, and when they do so, it’s typically at a far later age for those mothers than was the case back in the 18th century.

 In consideration that one of the main reasons why child mortality was relatively high back in the 18th century had a lot to do with communicable infectious diseases which could not be prevented, because vaccines to deal with such didn’t exist, and also considering that poor sanitation and susceptibility to infectious diseases were part and parcel of the living conditions for a significant swath of Americans, childhood mortality therefore was a fairly common occurrence, signifying that the burying of one’s child was not infrequent in many a case.

 In today’s world, we have community sanitation that is quite good, and not only vaccines that will eradicate communicable diseases, but we also have a modern healthcare system that is structured to be quite competent in dealing with children and their potential illnesses. This would seem to strongly suggest that children of today would seldom predecease their parents; yet, we find that this is not such an uncommon occurrence, because things such as auto fatalities and other deadly accidents occur far more frequently than we might imagine.  So too, suicides of adolescents are far higher than what they were back in the 18th century, along with the fact that gun violence is endemic in certain areas of our communities, as well as we also have the deadly scourge of drug overdoses, killing our children way before their time.

 So then, it is really not uncommon for parents of today to have to bury their own child, which seems to be the very opposite of what those parents believed would occur when their child was first born and therefore makes it hard for those parents to deal with such, because it is so unexpected and unwanted.  Yet, it happens, and when it does, it provides those parents with the sure knowledge that our great expectations for those that we love did not ever occur, and this leaves us barren, especially because we know that what has been lost cannot be replaced.

Does America have the right to invade any country for regime change?

The short, concise answer to the above question is no.  After all, nations are sovereign in and of themselves, and any justification for invading and bringing war upon another country must follow rules; nations that do not adhere to those laws have violated the law and are thus subject to sanctions.

 Since it is a known fact that the United States in recent times has brought war upon many countries, though it prefers to use alternative words to war, during which it has not suffered from any international or United Nations sanctions, this would seem to suggest that this warfare is absolutely justified and therefore America is right in its actions.  The real reason why the United States has seemingly become immune to being sanctioned really comes down to the fact that the United States is the sole empire of the world, and practical nations are not wont to get on its bad side.  Additionally, there are those nations of importance that prefer the United States to take action and thus to suffer from any potential opprobrium should the perception be that America is conducting itself unjustly towards other nations, via that warfare.

 So too, it needs to be understood that since American warfare operates whether it be the Republicans or the Democrats that are in charge of either the legislature or the executive office, the reality is quite obviously that there are hidden powers that are themselves deciding as to who, what, and when warfare is initiated by America.  That hidden power in America is its military-industrial-technology complex, which is driven not just by empire-building and augmentation, so of, in pursuit of power and profit, but also because it has no choice but to see that America is bringing war against some enemy or enemies, because it is necessary for their business enterprise foundation.

 Indeed, it just seems like a real shame that institutions such as the United Nations are, when it matters most, of no influence upon what does or does not occur in international affairs regarding warfare, in particular, when it comes to the United States. Additionally, even though the Constitution of the United States makes it quite clear that it is Congress that must authorize war, this has consistently been circumvented in the modern age.  So then, those nations that get on the wrong side of America’s desires and interests have placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to suffer from America's vengeance and ire, without any real recourse, as the rule of law and heralded international institutions will do nothing of substance on their behalf.

 All of the above signifies that America, while not having the right to invade any country of its choice for regime change, can still do exactly that, because there isn’t any one country or group of countries that will stand in its way, and some of the time, those other nations of import are quite satisfied to see such regime change, mainly in the hopes that there is profit in there, for them, as well.

Global military yearly spending is nearly $3 trillion

We read at sipri.org that “World military expenditure reached $2887 billion in 2025.”  Perhaps that is a good thing, because countries all over the globe need to expend money to protect and to defend themselves from enemies both domestic and foreign.  Then again, perhaps this is a very troubling thing, for we have institutions such as the United Nations, specifically structured to promote international peace, defend human rights, and to thereby reduce the need and desire to wage war upon one another.

 Clearly, when we look at the sheer amount of money devoted to military expenditures, we need to recognize that these monies not only are not being spent to promote the general welfare of the people, but are specifically for armaments which, when used, are meant to kill people and damage infrastructure.  So too, monies spent on armaments have a strong tendency to keep on rising, because those that are in that business, whether it be the selling or the buying, have a strong incentive to justify such expenditures by the usage of those armaments on trouble, or perceived trouble, whether that be domestic or foreign.

 Look, it has to be acknowledged, that the world has been completely discovered, and never has there been more information available to the general public as we see today, which signifies that the people pretty much know what is going on, and understand that the unjust taking of resources from certain countries, isn’t right, and that the purpose of treaties and the general understanding of one country to another, should always be about coming up with diplomatic solutions that thus do not necessitate the involvement of military affairs, as contrasted to the belief that it is somehow right for one country with far greater firepower to demand “tribute” from another country, or simply to take it over, for its own greed and exploitation, so of.

 What any country generates from its GDP comes from the labor of its people, in conjunction with the infrastructure and machines so utilized to make that labor in the manufacture of items more efficient.  This signifies that those who control the levers of governance are provided with a choice as to how to direct the monies being allocated to that labor, and while it is true that the defense of any homeland has its place, it is also true that the object of the exercise should be to have peaceful relations with all people and nations, which thus provides a far better construct for those people in achieving desired aims of a good life, as well as a reasonable opportunity to pursue happiness.

 We live in a modern age, in which it has to be acknowledged that justice does not ever come from the barrel of a gun, which signifies that all these armaments aren’t going to provide a working solution and bring peace and justice in our time, because threats and usage of armaments do not bring peace, but rather they bring violence.  So then, humankind has a decision to make as to whether they will make it their principal point to forego expenditures on military armaments with the intent to get along, or keep on bringing on more war, and thus more hell on earth, ad nauseam.

Is it patriotic to condemn imperialism?

In recent times, America seems to be on an imperialist drive, indicating its desire to control countries such as Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba, and even Canada.  It's unclear how serious America is about these sovereign nations, but it should be taken seriously, especially when the executive office expresses a desire to control more nations in what appears to be a deliberate imperialistic drive.  Perhaps some Americans embrace it, desiring for America to be the boss of countries such as they were with the Philippines, or to essentially transfer territories such as was done with the Hawaiian Islands and subsequently make them a State.

 America has been around for a long time, and the 1912 Democratic Party platform stated: “We reaffirm the position thrice announced by the Democracy in national convention assembled against a policy of imperialism and colonial exploitation in the Philippines or elsewhere.”  This indicates that imperialism and colonial exploitation had been up for debate and discussion before, and that one political party was dead set against such, because that party believed that what this nation should concentrate its efforts upon was to take care of its own and not to unnecessarily involve America in disputes outside its domain and border, which thus meant American taxpayers having to suffer from those incumbent expenditures. In other words, the job of this government should be to focus first and foremost on keeping its own house in order, and not getting thereby involved in international affairs that were not necessary for domestic contentment.  Rather, America, as a great nation, should lead by example and not fall into becoming a military might, imposing its will on foreign people, for exploitation or other reasons that were unbecoming of a great republic.

 So then, when it comes to imperialism and the understanding of our Constitution, it should be recognized that the primary objective of this government should be to promote the general welfare of its people, and thereby to forsake its involvement in military foreign affairs and in particular, to not exhibit imperialism, which would thus keep this country strong and in control of its own domestic affairs, as contrasted to concentrating an undue amount of monies, personnel, and armaments in the defense of that imperialism, for empire building, which is anathema to our Constitutional principles.

 The pressing problem that America has at present, is the unseemly amount of funding earmarked for its military affairs, of which this governance doesn’t seem to comprehend that monies devoted to the military which aren’t really for any defensive purpose, reflects thereby America’s desire to be an empire and through its implicit imperialistic desires this creates not only trouble with other nation-states, who would themselves prefer to remain sovereign and thus in charge of their own lot, but also that the expenditures so allocated, take away from the housing, infrastructure, and domestic tranquility that this nation owes to its own people.  In other words, monies spent on imperialistic affairs are monies taken away from the people of America, and thus weaken its people, who are therefore prone to take out their frustration through civil unrest, because those that lack the accouterments so necessary to live a decent life, because that money has been allocated to imperialistic ambitions, have been cheated and they know it.

America’s physical health is abysmal

The very first thing to recognize about a nation that is insistent that it is the greatest nation in the world is that, in the sure recognition that America is without a doubt the wealthiest nation in the world, to be truly great signifies that the people that make up this land ought to be the healthiest, beyond question, of any other nation, without exception, whatsoever.  That is to say, those who are unhealthy, or even worse, those who have died before their time, are the same ones who are not experiencing how great and how rich this nation is; so, a fair review of this nation would be to ascertain how healthy Americans really are.

 In truth, America’s physical health is abysmal when compared to other Western and developed nations, in which we find, as reported by anh-usa.org, that it had the worst chronic illness score out of 50 countries so analyzed, despite America spending more money on health care than any of these other 50 countries on a per capita basis.  Look, the bottom line is that Americans, in aggregate, aren’t healthy, and the money so being devoted to health care is quite obviously structured in a way that it isn’t accomplishing what it should be accomplishing, which reflects that unless there are fundamental changes in how our health care is addressed, that America’s health isn’t going to change for the better, and may, as per its trendline, get even worse.

 While it is true that good health necessitates many factors, the two most prominent ones come down to nutrition, that is, the food that we ingest, and the exercise that we do or do not accomplish.  Indeed, those that eat food which has no nutritional value, and/or eat food that have additives that are known to be damaging to the body, are going to eventually suffer for the eating of those food items, which is why this nation needs to do a whole lot more to first make sure, that its most vulnerable people, which are our children, are eating a healthy diet, which can readily be augmented by this nation, through the provision of good nutritional food at school, and by providing guardrails for those that receive “food stamps” that the food choices that are available for them, are good nutritional choices.

 So too, our health care institutions need to do a better job of forgoing the belief that a given pill is going to resolve issues, and concentrate more on the whole person, which means that patients need to comprehend better that they have agency in their own person, and part of achieving good health is the decisions that they make, day by day, and that while a pill may well have its place, the object of the exercise is less pharmaceuticals, and more of making the right decisions in the eating and exercising, which thus signifies that this nation needs to hold accountable all those that provide ultra processed foods that they are thereby required to expend more money and research in the development of modified processed foods which are better for the body, and not as harmful.

 Where America goes from here really comes down to the urgency of the matter, which functionally means a top-down approach to these issues, and in fact, to acknowledge that the health of Americans should be a very great and critical national concern, which, if done right, will make Americans healthier and happier, and if not, won’t.

Remember how they lived, not how they died

There are plenty of people who don’t concentrate much on the living or the dying and pretty much take each day as it comes without further thought.  Still, for most of these people, sooner or later, they will subsequently reflect that everybody who is born into this world will, at some point, also die.  This means that, for all of us, we need to consider how we should react when someone we know or admire is no longer amongst the living.

 Indeed, while death can come suddenly upon any of us, through some form of accident or tragic event, it also can be drawn out over an exceedingly long period of time, such as through an extended illness.  The thing about seeing someone dying or that has recently died, is many of us become fixated only upon the death event, which leaves us suitably sad and in remorse, thus consequently having some difficulty in remembering the best of that person, as they were, which is really what we should concentrate our thoughts upon, because it is in the doing that we are defined, thus fairly remembered not just by the people who knew that person, but also by all those that were beneficiaries of their actions, which is why we need to recall all the good that those that have departed this world, accomplished, so that we can provide a better tribute to them, in our mind’s eye and expression, so of.

 In life, there are those times which call for reflection, and when someone that we knew has died, this is one of those times in which we need to reflect upon how that person positively affected us and then to express that to others, so that they will have the opportunity to hear our stories, and thus, by our doing this, to demonstrate our homage and our consideration to the dearly departed.

 In this world, we will be challenged, and how we address those challenges reflects who and what we really are. When someone who has meant something of significance to us has left this world, we have an inherent obligation not just to remember who they were, but to impart that information to others, so that they will know not just how much that person meant to us, but also learn more of the goodness that our friend represented so that their tale can be heard and remembered.

 For each of us, how we live is reflected in our influence on others and the deeds that we have done, which are our fair contribution to the society that we are members of, and since the dead cannot speak for themselves, it is up to each of us to remember them as they were, and to express that to others, so that they will know what they meant to us, and to tell some stories of the good that they have done, thus providing our fair input and honor to those that have fallen in this world, but have risen in the world beyond.

The Mexican-American War

Our present-day States of California, Utah, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were once part of Mexico but are now part of the United States of America, largely because President Polk believed manifest destiny meant these former Mexican territories were destined to be part of America.  Future President Ulysses S. Grant stated when he was an officer of the American armed forces that the Mexican-American War was “…one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”

 One of the questions that typically is not asked is why didn’t the United States simply annex the whole of Mexico since, during this war, the United States effectively captured Mexico’s capital, Mexico City, and thus was in prime position not just to dictate the terms of surrender between these two nations, but also placed itself in position to control and to take over the whole of Mexico.  The answer to that question really comes down to the fact that Mexicans are not white Protestant Anglo-Saxons, and because of this, the United States government believed that the better part of valor was to take from Mexico its far less populated northern territory, and mesh that into the United States of America, by making sure to soon populate what would become future created States of America, with a makeup consisting of the appropriate complexion of white Anglo-Saxons, which it subsequently did.

 Indeed, whenever we look at the territorial expansion of America, first and foremost in their thinking, it has always been to maintain the power structure and power look of America, which is the whiteness of America, and in those situations in which there is a lack of whiteness, such as in Hawaii or the Philippines, not only is there a significant reluctance to consider these as being part and parcel of the United States, it is also a belief that power should not be shared with those that lack whiteness, and while this philosophy has been modified over the ensuing years, it certainly was not the case when it came to the Mexican-American war, which was a war in which the purpose was to annex those portions of Mexico which had few Mexicans, thus making it a relatively easy case of populating these future States with whiteness and enforcing the rules of the road on those that remained who were Mexican, that they would now understand their new reduced place and status in this racial hierarchy.

 While the United States is known for its soaring Declaration of Independence words, such as the equality of all men as well as our unalienable rights, it needs to be remembered that this has historically really meant that only those of the favored race were entitled to those true unalienable rights, and that equality came down to how the judicial branch of governance so defined it, which typically meant that the white man had no equal, and everybody else would only get what the white man was willing to sacrifice or bestow upon them, which was at their discretion, and today has only been modified, to mean that those that are rich, well-positioned and privileged are entitled, and everyone else, is subject to law and order, as defined by those elites.

Wars and serious civil unrest have created the refugee crisis

Many people in various countries, including the United States of America and Western European nations, currently face some serious pushback from their citizens over illicit immigration and refugees entering their countries.  These refugees are a contributing factor to these nations having a strong tendency to reduce much of their previous liberal beliefs and governance by replacing them with more right-wing politicians as their legislative representatives, primarily because too many of their citizens aren’t succeeding all that well themselves, thus making refugees and illicit immigration easy targets to attack as the reason why the native-born or naturalized citizens are suffering from their own lack of opportunity and social benefits, which seem to have been wrongly structured to be siphoned off by these refugees.

 There are a couple of notable things to recognize about refugees, which is that most people do not have a strong desire to leave their country, because for better or for worse, it is the country of their birth. They are used to it, but whenever there are wars or rumors of war, and civilians are being harmed or are subject to a high likelihood of being harmed, they are going to look for alternatives because they are no longer safe and secure within their nation.  In other words, there are refugees because war causes the normal course of events to substantially change for the worse, and thus people are going to be susceptible to leaving where they currently are to seek refuge in another country, not just for its safety but also in the hopes that it will provide opportunity.

 So too, those who are illicit immigrants are typically people who are suffering from a significant degree of civil unrest, or are living within a construct in which it appears unlikely or pretty much hopeless that they will ever get beyond mere subsistence, so they are going to have a strong inclination to look at other opportunities because when there appears to be no hope within their homeland, thinking and motivated people are going to not just look elsewhere, but are going to pursue such, especially when they are listening to a “siren song” for a set monetary price to be paid to those that promise them that across the border is the land of milk and honey.

 All told, refugees and illicit immigration are part and parcel of a world that has the type of unrest that leads to people desiring to improve their situation, or at a minimum to get out of being in a place that is unsafe and has little opportunity, with no real hope that this will change for the better.  That is to say, refugees do not just come out of nowhere; they come out of wars and regime change that upset the normal course of events, with the sure recognition that people the world over just basically want to live their lives in a manner in which they have employment and security of their person and household goods, and in consideration that this is what the best of America and Western Europe represents, they thus come this way.