Buy Your Way into America

America literally lets in thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants each and every year, to which on the one hand, government authorities claim that they are trying to secure our borders, but on the other hand, never seem to do a very good job doing so, making one come to the obvious conclusion, that America is implicitly allowing aliens to cross our border.  While there are indeed benefits for certain Americans and certain American industries for this activity to continue, you can easily say with very little exception, that the typical immigrant that crosses our border illegally is impoverished, and often poorly educated.

In 1990, Congress created the "EB-5" visa program, which essentially allows up to 10,000 immigrants yearly to come into America legally as long as they:  "create or preserve at least 10 full-time jobs…" and invest either 1 million dollars or instead $500,000 in a " Targeted Employment Area".   If accepted within the program, this allows the qualified immigrant to receive a "green card" which ultimately will allow said immigrant to apply for citizenship in America. 

The initial take from this program is that it is brilliant, I mean, sometimes the best plans are the ones that are most straightforward and easily comprehensible.  To begin with, millions upon millions of people want to immigrate to America, so why not create a program, which takes people that have either been successful in their country and want to come to America, or for whatever reason have the wherewithal financially to invest in our country, which allows America to receive in return: money for their residency, job creation, and monies invested in infrastructure. 

There are a couple things, though that I don't really understand about this program, such as, why have limits of a paltry 10,000 EB-5 immigrants per year?  Instead, the limit should immediately be pushed up to at least match the historic rate of illegal immigration to America, which probably lays around 1,000,000 a year.  Additionally, the EB-5 program should be structured with different tiers, so that those that have substantially more than $1 million to invest in America, can be "fast-passed" into receiving their residency and green card more quickly, for having doing so.

While I suppose some Americans might be appalled that green cards are, in essence, for sale, they should feel instead that these capital-rich immigrants are doing us a grand service by both investing into America, and by providing Americans employment; unlike many of the biggest multi-national companies based in America, that so often send jobs that could be performed here, overseas.  One can make a very strong argument, that the foreigner that invests in this land is far more patriotic and much more American, than the so-called native-born American businessman which would sell his soul just to cut his expenses by a few pennies, at the expense of American labor.

Should foreigners be allowed to buy their way into America?  Absolutely, they should, and I welcome them, because true Americans, are those that desire deeply to pursue their dreams and goals so as to achieve with vigor: their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

America: The Great Melting Pot

America is a grand experiment, asking the question as to whether people from different cultures, nationalities, creeds, and whatnot can live together and to eventually coalesce as one people.  While it is true, that America is a country that has not embraced all peoples historically as equal members, it has as a country and as a people made great strides in doing so.  In point of fact, upon its founding as a nation, virtually all of the people of power and influence in America, such as those that signed the Declaration of Independence, or its Constitution, were white, Protestant, male, and either quite wealthy or quite influential.  That was the way it was back then, but the country as a whole, has made enormous strides in treating all those that are American citizens by virtue of birth, or by adoption, as equally entitled to its benefits, and its rule of law.  While America, has fallen short of meeting these ideals, again and again, it has also, inexorably, relentlessly, made progress, step by step, so that we have come ever closer to dealing with others based upon their merit, their character, and their achievements, rather than by making snap judgments on them simply based on the color of their skin, or other superficial items.

It is well said, that often two heads are better than one, because each person can work off the skill-set and wisdom of the other, to ultimately achieve an end result that will be far richer than one person, rowing alone.  America made the choice, years ago, that it would help to build the foundations and roadways necessary so that all Americans would be afforded the opportunity to get ahead.  In America, it is acknowledged that we are all created equally by God, and while that does not mean that we all have equal abilities, or equal opportunities, it does mean that we all are equally entitled to reap the benefits of what we have sowed.

The Christian religion teaches us that we are to "love thy neighbor as thy self", and further that our neighbor is any and all peoples such as: the poor, the downtrodden, the abused, and the oppressed, because God is no respecter of persons as He loves all as his own.  In this world, there are so many sorts of cultures, along with all sorts of people of different sizes, shapes, beliefs, and colors, but those differences which seem so rich in variety, are in actuality merely different forms on display of how God has created a rainbow coalition of humanity on this planet. 

God loves to test us, as is seen so vividly in this great American experiment, testing this very nation, as to whether it will indeed live up to its creed, that "all men are created equal", and further whether it indeed believes in its Statue of Liberty proclamation as to being that safe harbor for refugees "yearning to be free".   America is that great melting pot, because Americans have made it so, this struggle has cost mankind much in blood, sweat, and tears, but there is nothing in this world that is really worth anything of value, if we are not willing to sacrifice ourselves to it.

The New Racism: the Poor

In Mark 14:7 we read: "For ye have the poor with you always…", and this statement made two thousand years, certainly, but unfortunately, still rings very true today.  While the United States is still a racist nation in whole, it has begun to turn the corner into a partial acceptance of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior's speech that: "…my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  It does appear that as time goes on, that America will become and has become more and more accepting of people of color, but, however, instead of accepting the worth and dignity of all human beings, they have merely replace those born of color as the "boogeyman" of society to those that are simply poor and powerless.  There is a two-fold reason for having done so, one is that the sheer numbers of poor people in America are staggering, to which nearly forty-seven million Americans are considered to be living under the poverty line, in addition to the fact that a blanket policy of oppressing the poor is much more saleable to the America public as a whole, since this doesn't discriminate against race, color, or national origin, making it overall quite palatable to the American taste in general; especially considering the historic American Puritan work ethic, that believes all people should be able to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Within our capitalistic society the labor cost is a component that most businesses want to keep down or under control so as to stay both competitive as well as to make money for the beneficiaries of the business, itself.  There are some very basic ways to keep labor costs down, such as to make the applicants themselves compete against each other in a "race to the bottom" and for the business to do its upmost not to see its employees or future employees join together into unions or other labor-type organizational units.  Additionally, by keeping labor costs unfairly suppressed and/or by expending money on capital equipment and/or outsourcing jobs to foreign countries in lieu of hiring domestic people in the first place, the burden of taking care of the poor and the untrained can be passed from private enterprise onto government or government agencies, itself. 

By effectively making poor people, wards of the State, this means that implicitly or explicitly that these poor people in one way or another will sacrifice their Constitutional rights and freedoms in order to just survive and in order to receive their "benefits" from the State.  This massive amount of peoples, will now be obedient to the State, or will suffer the indignity of being locked up, or banished in a way, for failing to adhere to the rules and regulations that are specifically set aside to applied to them, or suffer the consequences for their failure to do so.   The poor in America have become entrapped into an unending cycle of poverty, one of which there is almost no positive outcome available to them, because they have received in aggregate from the State the worst housing, the worst schooling, the worst living conditions, and the worst opportunities. 

The poor have effectively been left behind, left for the State to exploit as they best see fit, as they are considered to be children of a lesser god.

The Middle East: War and Oil

The United States seems to constantly be involved in wars or interventions in the Middle East year after year after year.  While the United States attempts to sell the same canard that we are involved in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons, for democracy, to counter terrorism, to neutralize weapons of mass destruction, the fact of the matter is, the United States is primarily involved in the Middle East for two basic reasons: oil and to keep the Middle Eastern trade routes free and clear of danger.  The bottom line is that despite all of our interventions, all of our war materials and personnel, America never seems to resolve anything within the Middle East, ever.  This would strongly imply that America needs to make a fundamental change in its Middle Eastern policy and its strategic planning.

The best way to address the changes that America needs to make in its Middle Eastern policy is to simply recognized the facts that are staring the United States in the face, which is the Middle East has oil, we, and our allies, and the international oil companies want it, or at least to have ready access to it, so consequently that should be the focus of our country and others that have the same vested interest.  The United States does not need to pretend to be something that we are not, as we are the imperial power, unstoppable, unconquerable, and invincible.  This means if our purpose is oil, we should be about our purpose, simple as that.

In any given country in the Middle East, the United States does not need to conquer that nation, to place a puppet in command, or to attack that country, none of that is even necessary.  What is necessary is for the United States, either directly or through a "negotiation" to simply take over certain territorial parts of a particular Middle Eastern country so as to control the oil fields within certain regions of that country, and to leave the balance of the nation, as is.  Of course, the foregoing implies strongly that America would be violating the sovereignty of these nations, but, in point of fact, the United States already does that; this suggestion simply makes it much more purposeful.

There is such a thing as the art of negotiation, and America has the best and most creative legal minds in the world, there isn't any doubt, therefore, that legal documents couldn't be drawn up in such a way, that certain parts and resources of certain countries would be leased or ceded to America for certain specific amounts of time and money, to which the treaty could not be broken, unless both sides of the equation agreed to do so. 

You might argue that there would be howling about these somewhat "coerced" treaties all over the world, but in actuality, there wouldn't be.  Those that would even consider howling would rather make a deal with the United States, than stand opposed against it as that is just plain pragmatism.  America has all of the muscle, but apparently lacks the subtlety to carry out the most basic of objectives, because that oil is ours, already, it just happens to be located in the Middle East.

The Elimination of the Male Gender

Artificial insemination is a fact of life when it comes to our most common barnyard animals, as artificial insemination allows the owner of the livestock much better control of that offspring in the sense of quality, and in the actual results meeting with desired expectations.  Of course, barnyard animals are not human beings, but in recent years, more and more human beings have been born through the steps of artificial insemination, which means, by definition, that the creation of that child was accomplished without sexual intercourse by the woman with someone of the male gender.  Additionally, it is the male sperm itself that determines whether a given child will be either male or female, to which through advanced scientific techniques the skill in sperm sorting so as to separate the "X" (female) chromosomes from the "Y" (male) chromosomes can be accomplished with impressively high success rates; as well as through other scientific tools the overall control of the gender desired by the recipient can readily be accomplished.  This means that in the order of things, instead of a very slight bias for male births in the human species, mankind now has within its means the ability to increase or to decrease those sex ratios enormously.

Since, in fact, for the most part this is a world that is dominated In power and wealth by men, one might come to the reasonable conclusion, that recent male births will have increased significantly, which it has, in countries such as China, that have been ruled by the mandate of a one child policy, to which many parents have been absolutely determined that that one child, must be male, for the basic reason that a male child will better afford those parents a more reasonable chance of being provided material aid than a female child.  This does not mean, however, that this bias for male births will always be the preference, as one could easily make the argument, that in countries to which the economic opportunities for females are nearly equal to those of males, that the pre-selection of a female would be a far better choice, since females are more inclined to be less violent, less criminally oriented, better educated, and better social creatures than males.

Additionally, in today's word, in order for a child to be birthed, one need only to have a viable sperm donation from a man, and no other direct contribution.  A woman, on the other hand, has the natural incubator for a child, her womb, and while it may be true, that in some future time, that artificial wombs might be viable for human births, it is hard to picture that as being the normal or preferred method of birthing throughout the entire world, for various reasons, amongst these being cost, moral and religious grounds, governmental or institutional control, and so on.  On the other hand, artificial insemination of a female is viable, effective, portable, and scalable worldwide.

In short, this means, that mankind has reached an intriguing tipping point, and there is not a little doubt, that the ratio of males to female births will change from its historic norms, and while most pundits might believe that the ratio will clearly be one of more males to females, one might easily argue, that in a world to which it is often said that there are not enough resources to go around, to which men have often been quick to take up the sword to take and to conquer, that a more feminine spin might make for a more benevolent and caring world.

Should Non-Profit Colleges Pay Property Taxes?

For fiscal year 2013, Harvard University had an operating revenue amount of a staggering $4.2 billion dollars to which, to the best of my knowledge, they paid no property taxes for their campus located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, because they are a non-profit Higher Educational Institution.  Yet, it goes without saying that the property that Harvard rests upon is worth millions upon millions of dollars, so while Harvard gets a free ride, the surrounding areas of Cambridge, have to pay more than their fair share of property taxes for the privilege of living or doing business in the greater Cambridge area.  It would be one thing, if Harvard or other non-profit Colleges did not avail themselves of any of the benefits provided by the paying of property taxes, but instead we can state for a certainty that Harvard does indeed utilize the typical municipal services that other businesses and property owners have to pay money for with their property taxes.

The foregoing does not mean that Harvard or other non-profit colleges are the "bad guys", it is merely meant to point out that property taxes as currently structured are inherently unfair to those that are compelled to pay them and the structure of who should or shouldn't and how much they should or shouldn't pay in property taxes should definitely be reviewed.  It is one thing to say that certain non-profits should not pay anything in property taxes because of the nature of the services that they provide to the community, or perhaps due to the small size of the institution, or perhaps their small endowment, or perhaps their lack of money because money is not their purpose; as opposed to institutions, such as Harvard, that have massive endowments, massive amounts of capital, and massive budgets, that easily could conceivably pay some amount of monies in property taxes.

Another point to be made when it comes to property taxes is that there isn't any real good reason, why any non-profit college, should get an endless pass in not paying property taxes, forever.  Further to this point, while not exactly ideal, there isn't any good reason why non-profits shouldn't, at a minimum, pay some sort of property tax, even if such a tax is at a lower rate than the surrounding homes and businesses pay at.  At least, having done so, that college, can state, that they too are contributing to the infrastructure that benefits them and helps to bring more fairness to all, across the board.

While it is a truism, that nobody really wants to pay taxes, there is also an assumption, when it comes to paying taxes, that all are paying their fair share.  This simply is not the case in regards to non-profit colleges and their lack of paying property taxes, as if they should be treated perpetually as a special non-paying property tax class within the community.   While in a general sense, most non-profit colleges are seen to be a "good neighbor", they can be even a better neighbor by contributing their fair share to the community in property taxes, as the community as a whole, deserves that consideration.

Religious Holy War

We are again living in an age of religious Holy wars, as contrasted to wars from the previous century that while definitely differentiating between the forces of "us" vs. the forces of "them", weren't fought for the sake of the satiation of their respective god, but typically for the aggrandizement of one nation in conjunction with the forceful oppression of another nation and its people. Most of the time within any war, there is almost always a call to demonize the opposition in order to fire up your troops. When this is combined with the color of religion, so as to act as some sort of moral justification for your declaration of war, the boundaries of decency are often crossed.  Often too, through the apparent sanction of your religion, this "holy war" will become a sort of divine retribution against infidels, or apostates, or "blue-eyed devils", or savages.  If you then add the supposed awards that will be bestowed upon your "freedom fighters", that if not in this world, but in the world to come, will soon be theirs, you have the makings of fanaticism.  Further to this point, if your call to arms, is based around the protection of your people and its beliefs, along with the communal sounding call being rung against those that you are led to believe are on the cusp of wresting those very things away from you and your family, you very well might felt obligated to stop at nothing and to contemplate doing just about anything to protect your own and to avenge your people.

While one nation fighting against another nation may become satiated and satisfied at some point, or even to willingly go to the negotiation table to come to terms, those that believe that their calling is both divine and pre-ordained are not likely to stop short of annihilation or physical death.  This means that those that claim to speak for God or for a prophet of God in such a manner, that their ultimate objective is that you either must surrender to their particular faith and its attendant ideology, or if not, be put to the sword is both fundamentally flawed but also, by definition, in ethical error.

There is no legitimate religion, nor any interpretation of a legitimate religion, that has as its core premise, that you must believe in its tenets to such an extent that your free will and your free choice must be suppressed to a manner that makes you an automaton or a mindless puppet.  A man, is not made to be trained as an animal or to yield his mind to others for nefarious purposes, because the purpose of a man is made to serve God and his fellow mankind as an equally created being, and not to destroy mankind or to corrupt the love of an immutable God.

Christ as well as other great prophets has made it clear, that their kingdom is not of this world.  Man fights for what?  So that one man can rule or take from another man, and all for what?  So that one man has more possessions than another?  So that one man can command that all others believe some certain dogma, willingly or not, but in the end this gets you what?  All of this killing, all of this strife, all of this misery and hatred, will not bring you peace, not in this world, and certainly not in the next.  Satan offered Christ dominion over all earthly kingdoms, yet He did not take it, He could not, because Christ knew that earth is a proving ground and nothing more. 

There is never a need or a good reason for a religious Holy war on this earth and there never will be.  Our Creator is sovereign of all and is never in danger whatsoever; His only wish is that we listen to that still small voice inside of us that tells us that we are all sons and daughters, created by the same Hand of God.

Religion and the Presidency

There are way too many pundits that try to impress upon the general public today, that in America, there is a wall of separation between State and religion, but this has never been the status of America, and would, in fact, be a bastardization of what America represents, what the Declaration of Independence represents, what the Constitution represents, and what historically the various Presidents of the United States have represented in both words as well as in actions.  America is not a secular State, it never has been, and, in fact, a careful reading of the First Amendment makes it quite clear, that the government was by law not allowed to establish a religion and thereby to force a compulsory religion upon the people, for the protection of the people, so that the people, themselves, were allowed the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs as they best saw fit.

The Presidency represents the Executive branch of our government and is often seen as the symbol of America to not only its own people but to the world itself.  This means that the words and beliefs of our President is of significant relevance especially to its citizens, so that a proper viewpoint of our Presidency must take into account the President's religious views and his beliefs as a de facto representation of the people themselves.  When we look back at the Presidents of the United States, we find that every President, without exception, has professed his belief in the beneficence and providence of our God.  President Washington stated in his First Inaugural Address, "…that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."  President Lincoln stated in his last public address of April 11, 1865, "The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression cannot be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He, from Whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten."  President Eisenhower upon accepting the Republican nomination in 1956 said: "Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith."

Each President of the United States has had a choice, to turn their back upon religion, and to impress upon the people themselves, that religion and religious belief have no part in America, yet none have done so.  I submit that they have not done so for many reasons, such as that they have all recognized that America has been a nation blessed by God Himself, that a nation that denies its God, will destroy the very edifice which enables America to be great, and that a people that has no God, has no moral compass whatsoever.

The cries that we hear so often from the secular media and its apologists are the cry that America needs no God because we are all gods unto ourselves; that a nation without god means a nation of total freedom and of no oppression, when in fact, it would be a nation of no freedom and total oppression.  The wise Founding Fathers and the Presidents of the United States recognized that in our belief in God, that we have wisely chosen the sole belief and surest foundation that will enable us to be set upon that hill and to become that beacon of light that not only will bring the light to our people, but will shine brightly throughout the entire world; whereas the denial or forsaking of our Creator, will bring abject misery, utter desolation, and total darkness to mankind

Islamic Sharia Law

Every nation, if it is to be considered not to be a rogue nation, is a nation filled with laws.  However, these laws must not be arbitrary or capricious in nature; they must be instead of a reasonable nature, equally applied to all and consistent with natural law as well as the reasoned revelation of God's law.  The invoking of God when it comes to law, is something that brings unease to certain peoples along with people and countries having different interpretations of what God's law is in the first place, but know this that God in His essence is always a force for the common good and no respecter of persons.  It is of vital importance to understand too, that law must have its foundation in a principle that is unchanging, immutable, and correct, for that law to be of truth.  This means that those that believe that mankind is the measure of all things, will never be able to bring true justice and law into the courts of life, because mankind devoid of any divine light, is unable to correctly and thoroughly comprehend just law because he reasons from error to error. 

Islamic Sharia law at its core uses both the Quran and the Sunnah to render legal judgments in accordance with the interpretations by Islamic judges of these writings, for familial as well as criminal proceedings.  The legality of Sharia Law varies from country to country, to which in some countries it is not considered law at all, to those countries that have a blended system or special circumstances that allow Sharia law, as well as to nations that Sharia law is indeed the law of the land.  As might be expected, many opinions and articles have been written about Sharia law, its dangers, its misinterpretation, its intolerance and so forth, of which there is much controversy and debate.

The thing is, though, that many nations have many laws that are considered to be offensive or inhumane or just plain wrong; on the other hand there are also many nations that have good laws and a valid rule of law that protects its citizens, and provides justice for all.  If the point of the criticism of Sharia law is to point out the inconsistencies and unfairness within the law, that has its merit; if on the other hand, the point is simply to demonize Islam, and Islamic Sharia law, in and of itself, without a thorough vetting of Sharia law, that is an unworthy attack upon another culture and belief.

There are many people that believe that where Islam goes, Sharia law soon follows right behind it, and they fear Sharia law and its effects, without taking the time to comprehend it. Further to this point, too many people believe that somehow Sharia law will crowd out constitutional law, and will become either the law of the land, or to somehow create dual laws within that land.  All of this speaks to one very large point, which is the necessity to understand what law is in the first place and how it works within your country, and subsequently to know that good law comes both from the consent of the governed as well as in accordance with eternal law which never will change.

Is the Holy Spirit - Feminine?

The Holy Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Right away, when taking a look at the Trinity, one can't help but notice that there is no feminine call-out whatsoever, while, no doubt, the history of the world, is usually seen via a male-centric standpoint, or as simply using words whose typically connotation is either male or defaults to words that are associated with the masculine gender, this does not mean, on the surface, that the feminine connotation or female gender has been marginalized, but it is definitely disconcerting.  The very first thing to do, therefore, is to take a careful look at the Trinity and to try to determine what was first meant by the Holy Spirit, as Genesis 1:27 tells us: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;  male and female he created them."

From the foregoing, it is fair to say that the Trinity has far more meaning and makes much more sense when the Holy Spirit is seen as representing the Divine Mother, as then within the immutable Godhead you now have the Father and the Mother with the God-child, which we see demonstrated here in the nuclear family on earth, as well as being represented in the higher dimension by our Creator.  This means that if we take our Bible and begin to translate into our minds that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Mother, a new and deeper interpretation of its passages can now enter into our heart.

While it is true that historically the Bible when translated into English, typically treats the Holy Spirit as either a male pronoun or interprets it as a noun without any specific gender designation, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is literally or symbolically correct and may be more in keeping within the conventions of those that translated ancient scripture from Hebrew or Greek in the first place.  The fact of the matter is that for some select scholars, the Holy Spirit has been translated as being in the feminine pronoun and they based that on their interpretations of ancient scripture which has taken into account the language and the time period of which the writings were originally made.

Rather though, than having a great debate about the Holy Spirit and its most appropriate connotation, it is of far greater merit and usage, to understand that the Holy Spirit is there ultimately for our benefit.  I do believe that if more people were to see the Holy Spirit as being more akin to the Divine Mother, that more people would therefore have a better appreciation of the Holy Trinity as a whole, and would find this to be quite comforting. 

Each one of us here on earth, has a mother, or we would not be here; therefore, it would not be any stretch of the imagination, to conceive that each one of us also has a Divine Mother, that cares for us, nurtures us, consoles us, and envelopes us, much like a Divine Spirit.

Fish Farming

About 71 percent of the planet is water and not land.  Additionally, although there is United Nations sanctioned Law of the Sea, to a large scale, and once away fromclearly demarcated coastal waters, the ocean is seen more as being held in common by all peoples, and subsequently suffers from the "tragedy of the commons", which simply means that when we all are perceived to have equal rights to something, that certain people and industries will have a strong tendency to take more, especially those that are bigger or have more sophisticated techniques and equipment, because their attitude can simply be broken down into one of "better that I get it, rather than someone else" , because ultimately the whole exercise is seen as a zero-sum game.  This means that in certain parts of our vast ocean that fishing stocks have become depleted, or have become negatively impacted for various reasons, to the long-term detriment of the fishing industry, the aqua-environment, and the balance of these in general.

Through the years, mankind has become master of his own food supply, to which, the days of hunting down food as a necessity or a way of life, has been replaced as merely something to do as sport.  For instance, today, if you want cattle or poultry products, you aren't going to go to the trouble of targeting those animals in the wild, instead you are going to raise them up under a typically very specific, master plan, which in the course of events, includes: growth hormones, supplements, antibiotics, cages, fences, tagging, artificial lighting, and overall efficiency which didn't exist even a couple of generations ago.  From a consumer standpoint, we are the beneficiaries of beef and poultry products that are mass produced because they cost us a lot less money in the pocketbook as well as being easier to procure because of these efficiencies.

Havinghad such great success in production of food products based on land-based animals, mankind has taken the next step to master the sea-based fish world as well, so that the harvesting principles previously created for animals are now being used to handle salmon, tilapia, shrimp, trout, cod, and other species of fish.   This means that, once again, the consumer is the beneficiary of this efficiency, and this is the basic reason why you are able to find easily within your grocery stores or restaurants a plentiful selection of fish and shrimp at very reasonable pricing.  Fish farming or aqua-farming is not meant to replace the fishing of lakes and oceans by commercial or indigenous people but as a necessary supplement to it, so that the oceans and lakes can begin to recover from having been over-fished for so long.

 While there has been justified criticism about fish farming in the sense that fish spawned from many of these farms are much more likely to have a higher concentration of antibiotics and pesticides as well as being typically of a lower nutritional value as a comparable wild-caught fish, this isn't unusual given the circumstances of spawning fish in such a manner as to maximize their growth and yield with all this to be accomplished within a given time frame.  This means, that the FDA must be about its "P's and Q's" in helping to assure that the American public consumes fish that is both safe and within the appropriate guidelines for its consumption.

America: A Constitutional Democracy?

History appears to be one of those subjects that often gets the short shrift and seems like a waste of time to many people, as too many of those that live in the present, fool themselves into believing that either "this time things are really different" or that the past has no real relevancy in regards to our current age.  Additionally, when it comes to the structure and the running of our government, in general, a lot of people don't really care too much, figuring that there is nothing that they can actually do to effect change, as well as recognizing that their one vote won't ever amount to much.  The thing is, despite the apathy of so many, as well as the devious desires of others, the purpose of our revolt in 1776 was clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence.  Later, when our successful and bloody revolution was victorious, our thirteen separate States united behind a Constitution to govern its people, as a Republic.  Our Constitution, clearly states in Article IV, Section 4, that: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."  Not only that, but our Founding Fathers, were enlightened and educated men, that knew the differences and the dangers of a Democracy as compared to a Republican form of government.  Yet today, it is common to hear from media as well as pundits that we as Americans live in a Democratic nation.

While it is one thing to give all adults that have reached the age of eighteen, suffrage voting, that, in of itself, does not make for a Democracy in this country, it is at best, the allowing of all citizens an equal vote within their Constitutional Republic.  At no time, should the equal access to the ballot box, mean anything more than an equal opportunity for people to vote for issues that are within the domain of its Constitution in the first place.

 The fundamental flaw within a Democracy is the fact that when it is that the majority always rules, this places the majority in such a position as to oppress and to exploit the minority as well as to impress its viewpoints, unless the rule of law is so strong and secure as to somehow stand against the majority, or unless the Constitution is obeyed as the law of the land, or unless the judiciary as an independent branch of the government is able to strike down as "unlawful" the proposed rules by the majority.   The main error that people make in believing that a Democracy is the fairest way to govern people, is ceding control of their unalienable rights granted to them by their Creator to governmental agencies and in essence, to mob rule. 

Our Constitution was not created for factions, was not created for political parties, and was not created for privileged elite, but instead was created for the people and by the people, as a limited government, so as to secure to the people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Constitution does not guarantee to anyone, prosperity, health, employment, or wealth, nor was it ever intended to do so.  Those that believe that the majority should rule will find in the end, no pot of gold, no freedom, and instead will have forged the chains of steel that will ultimately imprison them.

Wireless Emergency Alerts

While watching television all of us have been exposed from time-to-time to a test of the "Emergency Broadcast System" and the blah, blah, blah that comes behind it, which preempts whatever program, live or pre-recorded that you were watching, but this type of warning has been augmented to sync to our modern times with our "Wireless Emergency Alerts" which come straight to our cell phones, with messages alerting us of possibly imminent weather emergencies.  On the surface, this appears to be a great public service and to a certain degree it is, because the weather alert is both timely sent and of pertinence, but like many things, there is a much darker side.

For instance, according to the nws.noaa.gov/com website the: "WEA use radio technology to broadcast the alert from cell towers to mobile devices in the area of the threat."  This means that no matter what your phone area code is, whoever has a cell phone in that area that is capable of receiving such a message will receive it; although most phones do have an option buried deep inside of allowing the user to opt-out of this type of public service announcement.  However, there is something distinct implied behind this type of power and authority that although the government has the power and the authorization to co-opt cell towers in order to provide this type of emergency alert, who is to say that in situations of public unrest, that the government might not see fir to commandeered cell phone towers, internet service providers and the like to either control or to disrupt communications by mobile and other devices.

The bottom line is a government that is big enough, powerful enough, and invasive enough to provide you with all sorts of information under the guise that it is there to protect you, is the exact same governmental power that can be abused in such a way as to take your civil liberties and freedom away from you.    It would be no stretch of the imagination, to foresee a time when through the guise of an "emergency" that our government would implement its capability to herd certain designated segments of its population away from their homes, which are secured to the individual through our Fourth Amendment rights, to a designated area within a particular community, which would thereby place our citizenry into a very vulnerable position, rife with the possibilities of exploitation or worse.

As a matter of course, our government understands the value of having a fearful population, because a population that lives in a constant fear, is always easily susceptible to complying with rules and regulations that are in theory based around their safety, but in actuality effectively shackles their freedoms and liberties, as a trade-off for what they believe to be, security, but is instead built around an illusion of it.

While I have the utmost admiration for those people and government facilities that wisely and prudently provide us with true emergency aid, not everyone that speaks of having our best interests in mind, is, in fact, the earthly representation of the good shepherd.

The Majority Rules

At the most basic level, having a democracy means that the majority rules, or even at times when it comes to voting, that the plurality rules.  For instance, if only two people are running for office or if there is a proposition on the ballot to which it is either voting for or against, in both of these cases, the majority will be greater than 50%.  However, in those cases to which there are more than two politicians running for office, such as you will often get with political contests, and  to which one of the so-called "third parties" has a candidate with either a high name recognition or appeal, the candidate sometimes winning in those contests will not actually have the majority of votes (i.e. over 50%), but instead just a plurality of the votes, such as 48%, but since this percentage is greater than each of his individual opponents, and because of that plurality, that candidate will be declared the winner.  Under those particular circumstances, you could make the argument, that the majority has actually been thwarted since in aggregate more than 50% of the people have voted against the winning candidate, and that therefore the people might be better served, under a subsequent "run-off" election, with the top two finishers, so that the ultimate result will be that the elected winner will have at the end of the day the majority of actual votes cast.

Many people believe that it is fair, that the person or proposition that garners the most votes is declared victorious, but this too assumes that the people that cast the votes all have equal access to the ballot in the first place.  For instance, in America, the age at which you can first vote is eighteen, however, if you fail to register to vote, or fail to register to vote by the designated cut-off date to vote, you will not be eligible to vote, even though you may at the time the voting takes place, desire to do so.  Further to this point, if you are impoverished, or imprisoned, or a convicted felon, or crippled in some way, you may not legally be entitled to vote, or you may not have the wherewithal to get to the voting polls to vote.  Additionally, there are certain races, creeds, communities, income and age groups that are more inclined to vote in the first place, so that there is never an actually true representation of voters or the population at large at the polling booth.

Still, for the most part, most people believe that having the majority rule is fair and proper, but there is a very thin line between the majority ruling and mob rule because without constitutional principles, and without a rule of law which comes from natural law, the majority will in certain circumstances see fit to run roughshod over the minority.  This means that in any government which adheres to the principle that the majority rules, this should be tempered by the fact that the majority rules only within the constraints of constitutional government which is setup to protect and to secure the unalienable rights of individuals.

Another point to make, is at the time of Christ, we read, "… Pilate said unto them, whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? …. The governor answered and said unto them, whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas."   Incredibly, the people were given the opportunity to have Jesus the Christ released or Barabbas; as was the given custom by the Roman governor for the Jews at Passover, yet, given this opportunity, the people, whether goaded or not, whether corrupted or not, whether a true representation of the people or not, voted against Christ. 

For those that believe strongly that the majority should rule, that the majority is always right, simply because it is the majority, remember well, how the majority voted when it came to the Christ.

The East Coast, the Appalachians, and Population Density

At the time of America's revolution, there were a total of thirteen colonies, of which all of them were located on the east coast.  When we fast forward to the present time, we find that when we look at the population density of the States of our Union, the top seven States by population density are all founding colony States, with the eighth ranking State being Florida.  In fact, the lowest rated State of our original founding colonies is ranked #21 in population density (South Carolina).  As of 2010, the population of the States that have some portion of their border on the Eastern seaboard was over 112 million, whereas the population of all the States that have some portion of their border on the Western seaboard was not quite 48 million. 

These facts and statistics point to a couple of significant points such as at the inception of America, the Appalachian mountain range which originates in the southern part of Canada before ultimately terminating in central Alabama was a natural border that separated the colonists from other foreign empires such as France, as well as being separated from the Ohio and Mississippi valleys.  It also means that originally to go west in America, meant to travel beyond the Appalachian mountain range to the regions lying just west of there, that was at the time, considered to be the frontier of America and the beginnings of its expansion.   Another point to be made is although America is a country to which many people have traveled or moved from one destination to another, it is also a country that many people once coming here have subsequently established long and stable roots within a certain community and consequently that is why the States with the highest population density are and will continue to be those that were our original colonies.

There is, of course, another very important point to make about the United States of America, which makes it dynamically different than Europe, for instance, whereas Europe has many countries of different sizes and principalities, all on the same continent; North America,  on the other hand, is essentially a continent that consists of just three big countries which are Canada, the USA, and Mexico.  This means, in essence, that although we take it for granted that America runs from sea to shining sea, it could very easily have been a country surrounded by other nationalities and principalities, which, in fact, it once was.

We often wonder why it is that so much power and money seems to reside in certain locations such as the northeastern section of America.  The answer to that question is fundamentally found in the fact that money, power, education, and opportunity abound there because the roots of those institutions are of long standing and of long lasting value, that passes from one generation to the next, to which some of those peoples can trace their heritage all the way back to the founding of this great nation and are proud to be part of the bedrock which represents America at its best.

The American Aristocracy

America was founded by those coming to America in order to be able to freely express their religious views without the fear of oppression or interference by State authorities.  The origins of America do not contain any aristocratic titles for the people coming here nor did it have to deal with the long embedded hierarchy of a State-sponsored established church.  For the most part, this country was founded by men and women yearning to be free from the yoke ofboth religious intolerance as well as the escaping from the unnecessary interference of a State treating its subjects as its servants made for their pleasure as well as to help them to continue to augment their power.

Our Declaration of Independence in 1776, made it quite clear that our call for freedom, was a call based on the premise that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights, and that to secure those rights governments are instituted amongst men, under the consent of the governed.   Further to this point since tyranny had no place in America, the allegiance of its citizens were made to each other, for their safety and for their happiness.

Although America, today, still does not have noble titles as you so often see in countries that are located within Europe, the functioning of America clearly shows that there is an unfair and biased division within America that separates the privileged elite, typically of inherited power and wealth, from the body politic, in general.  For instance, when looking at the highest power in our land, the Presidency, we have several dynastic factions, which include the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Bushes.  John F. Kennedy, was elected to the Presidency in 1960, later was assassinated, to which his brother Robert had an excellent chance of becoming nominated/elected in 1968 before he too was assassinated, and then later his brother Ted Kennedy, ran for the Democratic nomination in 1980, and ended up serving in the US Senate for the fourth-longest period of time of any Senator ever.  The Kennedy family is numerous, wealthy, and with an excellent name recognition, so no doubt, some Kennedy will once again come to the fore, to run for the Presidency in the future.  Bill Clinton was a two-term President, to which, his wife, Hillary Clinton, became a US Senator in 2000, was re-elected, later ran for the Presidency in 2008, later yet was appointed by Obama as our Secretary of State, and is the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 2016.  George H.W. Bush was a one-term President, his son George W. Bush, became a two-term President and his brother Jeb Bush, is a two-term Governor of Florida, and is set to run for the Presidency in 2016.

Then there are those that created their wealth in America and have been able to pass on this wealth, power, and prestige from generation to generation, to which we have familiar names, such as the Astor family, the Du Pont family, the Roosevelt family, the Rockefellers, and the Forbes, to mention just a few of the most prominent families.  These dynasties have an undue influence upon America as a whole, to which their concern is far from being just ordinary citizens within America, but instead to be part and parcel of the privileged elite, having access to power and the benefits that most Americans would quiver in envy to even approach. 

America, most definitely has an aristocracy, considered in many ways to be untouchable, they live differently from you and I, they think and behave differently, they are treated differently, and their presence in America makes a big difference to the stability, fairness, liberty, and justice of America.  The American experience is different for having this aristocracy, an aristocracy that effectively is above the law, because it is a law unto itself.

The Abortion of Obama

President Obama has made his position on abortion quite clear and consistent over the years, believing strongly in a woman's right to protect their health and to have reproductive freedom, stating that: "… I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right…" Obama has also stated in regards to his daughters that:  “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”  Clearly, Obama's words and beliefs when it comes to a woman's right to choose are unequivocal and clear, additionally there are also in conformance with current federal law.

I wonder though about the birth of President Obama, himself, to which he was born in Hawaii in 1961.  At that time abortion was not legal in Hawaii, even though later Hawaii would be the first State in the Union to legalize abortion, but that would not occur until 1970.  Further to this point, his mother, an intelligent woman, became pregnant with Barack Obama, before she was even eighteen, and was at the time of Barack's conception, unmarried, involved with a man that was an intelligent exchange student, six years her senior, born in a different country, from a different religion, and already a married father with two children, of which there was a legitimate question as to whether Barack's father was indeed, even divorced.

Giving this aforementioned information, and imagining that the court decision and the consequences of Roe v. Wade had been made not in 1973, but in 1960, and that there was a Planned Parenthood facility or something similar in Honolulu, to which Senator Obama stated in 2007, "Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women…", of which Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in America, one must wonder using the logic and Obama's own words and viewpoint, what advice Planned Parenthood would have given Ms. Dunham at the time of her pregnancy should she had come into their facility for counseling.

Isn't this in short, President Obama, arguing for his own abortion, because could it not be easily construed that Ms. Dunham's pregnancy was indeed a youthful mistake,  an unfortunate indiscretion, and that a baby being born from that mistake would be a form of unfair punishment against Ms. Dunham?  This would appear to be the only reasonable and logical conclusion that one could draw when taking into account Obama's position in regards to abortion and a woman's right to choose.

The fact of the matter is we do not know how a given aborted child would have turned out, because in actuality that child's life has been terminated before the child has ever been born.  Perhaps a woman's right to choose should trump all, perhaps that right should be mitigated; it's a complicated subject, with moral and human consequences of immense importance; of no less importance than the White House, itself.

Smart-phones and Rip Van Winkle

The most sophisticated cell phones today are considered to be smart-phones which allows these phones to do far more than simply communicate via telephone or by text, but act more like a micro-computer with literally thousands and thousands of applications available for smart-phones, to which most smart-phones as a matter of course are configured with a fairly impressive camera, talk-to-text, mobile hotspot, Wi-Fi connectivity, hi-resolution screen, GPS, and expandable memory to name a few of their most important capabilities.  Of course, all this power contained within a handheld phone means that the customer has to come up with the money to pay for it, additionally to keep up with the "Joneses" to re-pay for it every two years or less, and unlike virtually all other hi-technology products that have been getting both more sophisticated as well as cheaper in "real" terms, smart-phones have been getting more sophisticated but without much price elasticity.

Imagine though, that Rip Van Winkle was to wake up after a very extended slumber and come across one of today's smart-phone to which a very patient and tech savvy person was able to walk Rip Van Winkle through all of its many and myriad capabilities.  There wouldn't be any doubt that Rip Van Winkle would be suitably impressed and wowed by all this power, convenience, and multitude of features contained within the smart-phone.  However, in Rip's re-acquaintance to the world at large he might come across some things that would intrigue him. 

For instance, when he walked into your living room and saw your smart-TV, with its impressive hi-resolution, its powerful surround sound system, its 3D capabilities, and the sheer quantity of media entertainment available on your 60" screen, he might look a little askance at your smart-phone and wonder why anyone would want to watch TV on that little phone w. substandard sound when he could partake in all that your TV offered.

Then later as you took a trip to the outdoors and took our your expensive DSLR camera, Rip would be stunned at its resolution, the power and perception of its telephoto lens, the slow motion capabilities of its movie mode, its awesome ability to focus up-close on a budding flower, or to capture a "flying squirrel" in mid-air, all would absolutely find Rip at a loss for words.

Still later, deep within the woods, your smart-phone would no longer have service as the lack of proximity to a cell tower would serve to put it out of service, but your satellite-based GPS device would continue to work, and would ease Rip's concerns about your capability of finding your way back out of the woods and back into civilization.

In fact, the more time that Rip spent with you the more that he couldn't help but notice that although your smart-phone seemed to do most everything that you wished to accomplish, most admirably, that these other stand-alone deviceson the other hand were even better, perhaps considerably better.  Rip not necessarily being the brightest person on the planet, and quite frankly just beginning to get up to speed, wondered though, perhaps a device that tries to be all things to all people, or to do all things that can be done, could be simplified, but he feared voicing that opinion as he didn't wish to be mistaken for a fool.

Noah's Ark Represents the New Eden

The Bible is filled with metaphors, aphorisms, parables, and other great symbols that aren't necessarily absorbed into our minds upon the first reading of it.  In the beginning was the Word, but within this beginning, mankind disobeyed to his own destruction God's instruction not to partake of the tree of knowledge. Having partaken of this forbidden fruit, mankind brought upon itself the awesome knowledge of whom he really was on this material plane, but without the attendant wisdom mandated to render correct and good judgments.  Man's eyes were now open to recognize that he was yet indeed a child of the great God, but somehow too, he was entrapped within a physical body which had physical sensations that were at odds to his spiritual nature and served to sever the direct ties to God himself.  Placed within this position, mankind soon found out that being a mini-god with the ability and the knowledge to take actions and to make decisions on this planet, made him somewhat of a master of himself and this world.    However, once encased within this world, mankind was destined to suffer the laws of physicality, of pleasure but also of pain, of joy but also of sadness, of life but also of physical death, and through it all he lost sight of whom he really was, and came to often to believe that this world was all that ever was.

However, Noah was a righteous man, blameless in the sight of God, unlike the vast majority of human beings which had become corrupt and degenerative, to which it was their evil and selfish actions that inevitably led to the destruction of their lands on earth, because a people that will not look for salvation from He who knows the number of the very hairs on your head, is a people that even God cannot save from its own demise.  The flood did come not because of God's divine punishment upon a wicked people, but to demonstrate that those that turn their back on their Lord, in fact, believe that they themselves are gods of a certain sort, that they know best, and that they can do anything without consequences, are in error, because man's conscious separation from its Creator, is a law that can only end in darkness.

Those that entered upon Noah's Ark were the true believers of God, tested and true to His word.  Noah's Ark would not have been necessary had mankind remained faithful and true to their Lord, but in absence of this, a baptismal cleansing of earth was mandated.  Noah and his descendants represent the great hope of mankind, the opportunity to be cognizant of who we really are, and thereby to live to that knowledge, ultimately becoming one once again with our Lord.

There was never going to be just one Eden, because when mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, so that he could have free will and thereby to challenge God's authority, a never-ending cycle commenced, to which no matter how long the process takes, in the end, it cannot be other than what it always was going to be, that is to say, the wayward child will return to the fold, because in the darkness of ignorance, there is no light.

Listening to Your Call

Joel Osteen, the pastor of Lakewood Church, has a weekly program that is broadcast over several different television stations all over America.  Most people that watch this program, watch the thirty minute version which is quite good and upbeat, however, on the station Daystar, the program instead of being just thirty minutes is one hour in length, with the first half-hour of the Joel Osteen broadcast being devoted to the music/worship team of devotional music, to which I believe most of the compositions are original constructions done by the artists on behalf of Lakewood Church.  While watching this program over the years you get use to hearing the same songs, seeing the same faces, as well as seeing the same musicians, although there may be guest artists from time-to-time.  While watching though, over a period of time I began to get fascinated by seeing just a glimpse of a tall African-American man, of impressive girth, that would only be on my television screen for literally just a fraction of a second, usually seen in the background, but over a considerable period of time, I discerned that he was now getting perhaps a couple of seconds of screen time which enabled me to note that he usually was in-between two female singers and typically wore a vested brown sweater.  During the time of my watching him, he has never become that break-out personality at Lakewood Church, but I don't feel that is his purpose, after all, he probably feels spiritual satisfaction in being on stage in front of thousands of people at the service, as well as being broadcast all over the nation, to which I believe that he feels his highest service is simply responding to the call of God and being of service to our Lord in whatever capacity that our Creator best sees fit.

While many of us perhaps have fantasized about being some great superstar, the fact of the matter is, superstars aren't really even necessary in life.  What life demands from each of us, is our devotion to a cause or to a concern that means something to us, as well as providing benefit to others that surround us.  The real heroes of our age are the people that provide kindness in their actions and their deeds to those that are both down on their luck as well as being down on their selves; that also provide service and aid to those that are hurting, as well as providing a sympathetic ear and touch, to those that are feeling hurt and unloved. 

While all of us can admire those that have accomplished great deeds and accomplishments, each of us has a calling that is specific for us.  For most people, that calling is as simple as just doing good to those that we come in contact with, to make the world a brighter and better place for having us participate in it, to refresh those that are thirsty, to feed those that are hungry, and to clothe those that are unclothed.  No life has been lived in vain, if it has brought a smile, a ray of sunshine, goodness, or a blessing to others in our day-to-day activities. 

It is wise to understand and to recognize that each day is an opportunity to be the best person that you can be, and each step forward that we take in our kindness, consideration, and devotion to others, is a stepping-stone to God, himself.