Christ: To Be or Not to Be

However that you view Jesus the Christ, rather as a charlatan or fake, as a mythical figure, the incarnate Son of the living God, a great prophet, the Messiah, or perhaps He who had Oneness with the Christ spirit, there can be little or no doubt that the Christ was at a minimum, a special man of immense importance not only for His time in history, but clearly with historical and present day implications unequaled by any other man.  If your life on earth, was set aside for nothing more than the intensive studying and for the edification of who, what, and how Jesus was the Christ, your life would definitely not have been lived in vain, because the value and the Truth that Christ brought to us, is unparalleled.

Yet, there is something troubling about this King of Kings, and the most troubling aspect for most people, is the physical and the ignominious death of the Christ.  The crucifixion of Christ seems to be wrong in all of its aspects, yet, we are taught that this is not so.  At the time of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, we read in Luke 22:44: "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."  This Biblical passage is disturbing, because it implies that within the Christ there is conflict, as if even the Christ is unsure or not welcoming the completion of his mission to become the sacrificial lamb for mankind.  We know through many other passages that Christ could foresee the future, so it is understandable that our Christ would be disturbed to know that he must suffer from the desertion of his closest adherents, as well as the duplicity of Judas Iscariot, the scourging and beating of his body, the deep disappointment that the public wished to see Barabbas freed rather than Himself, the Sadducees and the Pharisees actively wishing for His harm and death, and the judgment of the Roman authorities that He would be put to death by the ignoble means of crucifixion, and later at the point of his physical death, Christ would believe for at least a moment that God had unjustly abandoned Him.  Within all of these future events, however, Christ had the power, Christ had the authority, Christ had the strength, to overcome them all, yet He did not. 

Jesus the Christ was given a mission here on earth, a mission that scripture had already recorded before His birth, a mission that He was already aware of, knew of, was part of, and was prepared for.  Yet within that all, like any human, there was an honest questioning, as to whether this path had to be the path, the only path, the right path, and it was.  While the message of Christ was manifold, encompassing so very many mysteries, His physical death on Good Friday, was necessary to send the message to all of mankind that the justice that you seek cannot be found here, and never will be.  Further, that if all we ever are is the physical, than crucifixion of the Christ, is the end of the story, and will be the end of the story for all physical beings.  However, the true message of our Christ, the everlasting message that He sent to all of us, is that He has overcome the world, as you can too can overcome the world, because His resurrection on Easter Sunday, demonstrated once and for all, that the Spirit is the master of the physical, that we are both eternal as well as spiritual, and that the death on the physical plane rebirths us on the spiritual plane.  Further to this, that within each of us is the Kingdom of God that will not be denied to us, if we earnestly pray for it and surrenders ourselves to our loving God.

American Demagogue

American is fortunate, that unlike other countries it isn't ruled by a monarchy that is hereditary and therefore cannot be voted out of power, or by a dictator, or by a military junta, or by a demagogue, or by any other form of government that subverts the rights of the people.  However, just because this historically has been the way in America, and just because we live under Constitution government, doesn't mean that America can't suffer the same fates of so many other countries throughout history.

America is blessed, that it's greatest military leader, George Washington, who was unanimously elected twice by the electoral college, was so gracious and so wise as to leave the Presidential office, voluntarily, after two terms, so as to set the example that no one man was greater than the nation that so many had sacrificed so much to create.  Unfortunately, in the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did not follow this precedent, and probably used the excuse of the pressing concerns of World War II to justify his running for both a third and a fourth term in office.  Had, FDR, not died in office, at age 63, one must wonder as to how many terms, or how long in the oval office he would have stayed, as for instance, President Reagan completed his second term in office at the age of 77.

Although since the passing of FDR, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution has been ratified, stipulating that the President is limited to two terms in office; in a nation to which there are so many lawyers, and so many legal interpretations, it would not be a stretch of the imagination that someone acting in the capacity of Executive Counselin conjunction with the standing President might look upon the 22nd Amendment as something that could be circumvented by the nature of the words:  "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…" and simply interpret that to mean that as long as there are no further elections, because perhaps of a wartime emergency, or perhaps the declaration of martial law to suppress civil uprising or unrest, or perhaps some other such crisis, that national elections could simply become suspended.

Of course, most people, would state that this could never happen in the United States, but for the most part, most of America is pretty much content with the status quo as long as they get their proper "bread and circuses", to which no President would be fool enough not to provide this so as to maintain their power.  Additionally, the American public has been mainly deaf and mute as the Presidency has again and again throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, passed Executive Order after Executive Order, aggregating to the Executive Office certain immunities and privileges which has effectively neutralized and trivialized our Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The truth of the matter is, if the Presidency is supported by the military-industrial complex of this country, and further that if the President is gifted in charisma, oratory, and has found something that represents that "devil" or evil that must be destroyed or fought against, than that President, representing the avenging angel, will be able to lure the public into his siren's song.  Sure, there will be some hue and cry from the public, but that will be drowned out by the sheep of this nation, willing to sacrifice a little freedom, for safety and their American Demagogue.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

In Exodus 20:3 we read: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  One could interpret this to mean, that within the society that you reside, the highest power in authority should be God, who shalt rule over his people.  That is to say, if one wishes to truly adhere to this Commandment, a valid argument can be made, that God's law trumps all.  This, in fact, encompasses the very basis of natural law, which is right reason, revealed, and applicable to all, which is the foundation of Western Civilization.

This would thereby imply to a significant degree, that the best form of Government is some form of a Theocracy or something similar that recognizes that God's law is the best form of law because, by definition, it is morally correct, immutable, applicable to all beings, and for the common good.  On the other hand, while man's law can be equally good and well applied, it is also subject to being corrupted, incorrect, wrongly applied, and a form of injustice under the guise of justice.

In today's word there are only a few countries that are Theocratic, to which, with the exception of the small city-state of Vatican City, which is Roman Catholic, the balance of all others such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, are all Islamic.  Unfortunately, Theocracies of today are, for the most part, oppressors of their subjects, arbitrary, capricious, autocratic, and suppressive.  To make matters worse, because they are Theocracies, there is little in their mindset to satiate their lusts in submitting their people to the sword of their wrongly applied Divine Justice.   This then makes a strong case that in unprincipled Theocracies, the people are in the most abject position, because when having to deal with the consequences of injustice, their appeal to the Highest Court, which is God himself, is subverted by the State.

Generally, the best Government for the people is a government that allows its citizens their freedom of conscience as to how they wish to submit themselves or to profess themselves to their faith.  This basically means, that the conception of the United States and similar countries, to which the people are afforded the free exercise of their religious persuasion without State interference or intervention is the ideal condition to which all may be afforded the opportunity to follow the Biblical command to have no other god.

Having said this, many modern western civilizations are increasingly becoming closer and closer to essentially secular states that actively oppose God and His commandments, by allowing the State, alone, to rule all as it sees fit.  The problem as seen by too many countries, today, is that they do not want their subjects to even conceive that there could possibly be a Higher Authority that they should consider answering a call to.  The State, in many nations today, wants to, in principle, to be the god to their people, and therefore it follows that they want their people to have no other gods but the State.  This is the reason why the State is so insistent, in so many cases, to stridently state that it's only fair and right that there should be a wall of separation between Church and State.   

If, in fact, God is eliminated from the public square, that God Himself is eliminated from governmental principles, there will be nothing, absolutely nothing that the State will not be permitted to do against its own subjects in its tyrannical possession of them for their own nefarious means.

They Would Kill John the Baptist, Today

There are plenty of people that profess their religious faith, be it Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, or whatever, and in all those faiths there are a special few that end up becoming great heroes and prophets, who are rightly admired by the adherents of that faith. Yet, in many instances, many of those prophets have met with ignoble ends, such as John the Baptist, who was beheaded, not only because of his powerful influence over the common people, but also as a vengeful act for the inconvenience and embarrassment that John the Baptist had caused in regards to the relationship of Herodias to her husband, Herod Antipas, who was not only her uncle but also because she had been already married, that she was in an adulterous relationship with the tetrarch of Galilee.

John the Baptist lived in the wilderness, and we learn that he: "… had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey," (Matthew 3:4). We also learn that John the Baptist was: "…preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," (Luke 3:3).  So John the Baptist was a man that lived off of the land, with the simplest of clothing that commanded that his adherents repent so as to receive the forgiveness of their sins. 

The problem, therefore, for so many of today's Christians, is that they fail to understand that this repentance that John preached, was not something that was only applicable to people at the time of Christ's ministry, but applicable for all times, without end.  That is to say, when John the Baptist said: "… Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight," (Matthew 3:3), this was not meant to be interpreted as being of just that one certain time period, of when Christ was physically incarnated here on earth, but for all time periods, for all time, because Christ's reign is forever. 

The point is, that there are few people, that are willing to walk the way of the Cross, and to suffer, if need be, or to sacrifice, as they must, for their faith.  Far too many people today, are fair-weather Christians that merely want to hear things or to accomplish things that really don't inconvenience them and find it somewhat offensive to be preached to in such a manner, as to convict them of any wrongs or any sins, whatsoever.  But that wasn't the message of the Baptist, nor was this the message of the Christ, who upon being questioned as to what law should apply to the woman taken in adultery, told her, after the stones that had been taken up to slay her, had been cast away, that: "… neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," (John 8:11). 

So you must therefore picture this, there is a man in the wilderness, probably not a real educated man, poorly clothed, living off of the land, and preaching this "madness" that you need to repent of your sins, so that you can thereby be baptized into repentance, and further to prepare yourself to straighten up your act so as to be worthy to receive the real baptism of the Holy Spirit.  How many of you, would really participate, and how many, on the other hand, would simply want this rather "annoying" man to just to shut-up, once and for all.

Today's world wants so badly to believe that they are so much more civilized, but beneath that surface, is a savage, a savage that is easily unleashed against those that have the audacity to make us question ourselves, and when we duly find out that indeed we are truly lacking, that in fact, we are the Pharisees of old, hypocrites, who merely look the part of being a Christian, but beneath are "…  full of greed and self-indulgence," there wouldn't be any doubt, that they would surely want to silence the Baptist, today.

The Capital Loss Limit is Way too Low

In America, virtually every financial media outlet encourages the average investor to invest in equities as his best opportunity for him to increase his net worth over time.  When the stock markets are going up, this appears to be a safe and sound strategy, but when they collapse, such as in 2008, the investor becomes well aware, that markets are far more volatile, and far less secure, than he previously imagined.  Additionally, even when markets move up, investors may have picked investments that did poorly and therefore loss money, as well as the fact, that investors can bet on either side of the market, whether it goes up or goes down, so while in general, when markets move up investors make money, your results may vary considerably.

While there aren't many people that enjoy paying taxes, all individuals would rather pay some percentage tax on a gain, rather than to have simply lost money on their investment in the first place, to which they will not owe any tax because they have instead lost money.  Fortunately, for those losers, of which at some point, every investor has experienced this, the taxpayer is allowed to write off to the maximum of $3,000 of capital losses over and above any gains that he may or may not have recognized in that fiscal year.  So if you made $10,000 on some of your investments but also loss $10,000 on some other investments, you don't have any tax liability on those investments at all.  If, you made $10,000 on your investments, but loss $13,000 on some other investments, you have a $3,000 capital loss deduction.  If, you made $10,000 on your investments, but loss $25,000 on some other investments, you are allowed to write off $3,000 in capital loss deductions, and carry-over the balance of the $12,000 loss for future years, to which you are limited to no more than recognizing a $3,000 loss in any given fiscal year.

The truth of the matter is when investors are encouraged to put their money into the stock market, year after year, in order to attain the funds necessary to retire and to thereupon live upon, is that some years are going to be bad years for investors, to which a paltry loss limit of $3,000, which has not been raised since 1976, is substantially too low.  Now in situations whereupon the market moves up, there isn't a lot of hue and cry about raising the loss limits because these  times, for most investors, are good, but those times do not ever last, and when the crash or the correction comes, $3,000, will appear to be ridiculously low.

The fact is that all the income that you make in a given year is typically treated as taxable income for that year, but because the capital loss limit is $3,000 in a given fiscal year, this means that all capital losses that you have in a fiscal year, will not be counted in that year, if those net losses are above $3,000.  While our tax code allows an unlimited capital loss carry-over, this isn't going to do a whole lot of good for a taxpayer that dies in some future year without having availed himself of all of his capital losses, nor does it do that taxpayer any good in a year in which he lost a substantial amount of money, yet is limited to only writing off $3,000 of it. 

The current tax loss limit of $3,000 is way too low, it should either be raised substantially to something like $100,000, or eliminated in its entirety, thereby allowing that taxpayer to more quickly write off a bad year in that year and not to suffer the indignity of paying more than what he really must to the tax authorities in a year to which his investments performed very poorly.

The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obama-care was implemented with full effect in 2014.  Even without reading a word of the law, because of the fact that it is estimated to be some 11,000 pages in length and possibly many thousands more, makes this Act, by the length of the Act itself, inherently unfair and unequally applied to all.   Any law, to be a law, must be specific and understandable by the average citizen, to whom, by definition, a law with 11,000 pages could not possibly be understood by the average citizen, or I submit, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Why the Affordable Care Act is so many pages is something that only those that authored it could possibly explained, but the basic reason would always be so as to obfuscate the issues and ultimately for the Act for be whatever, the powers-to-be wants the Act to represent. 

While, one might applaud or appreciate the desire of having Universal HealthCare for all in the United States, this Act, is in actuality, not really a HealthCare Act, in and of itself, but a new federal tax mandated upon most citizens of America under the guise of HealthCare.  The reason that we now know that this is a tax, is because, in the filing of one's Federal Taxes, there is now a column that is seen onyour Tax Software (such as TurboTax) dedicated to answering the questions in regards to your HealthCare service.  Additionally, for those that used the HealthCare.gov marketplace in order to procure their required HealthCare insurance, a Form 1095-A was issued to you for your Tax obligations for Fiscal Year 2014.

The Affordable Care Act, gets just about everything wrong, if, it is in fact suppose to be both: affordable and for the healthcare for the people, in general.  First, in regards to those people that have been paying for their HealthCare insurance either through their company employment or through their own pockets, their premiums for the same policy that they had been utilizing before the HealthCare act was implemented, for the most part, saw significant increases in their premium amounts after the HealthCare act was put into place.  Additionally, for many people, 2015, will be the last year, that they will be able to utilize the same HealthCare plan that they had been historically using with their selected HealthCare provider, before it is phased out, and subsequently they will be placed into another plan that, is in accordance with the HealthCare Act provisions, in 2016, for a higher premium.  In these cases, the HealthCare Act has done these people no good at all.  For those people that were previously without insurance, because they believed that they could not affordor didn't desired health insurance, unless they earned income that fell under the Medicaid threshold, are now instead required, by law, to have HealthCare insurance, whether they desired it or not, or to pay a monetary taxation fine for not having done so.  

There are myriad ways to provide HealthCare services to people in America, to which the Affordable Care Act is one such way, but a poorly and fatally structured one, suffering from governmental overreach, waste, lobbyist favoritism, and the like.  In point of fact, the Affordable Care Act has resolved nothing in regards to the fairness or the betterment of Health Care; it has merely made certain industries and connected people richer at the expense of most Americans, and ceded more sovereign power from the people to the Government.

Stop Complaining about Immigration, Outsourcing Is the Issue

There are plenty of Americans that complain about immigration, in particular illegal immigration, usually because they claim that immigrants take away jobs from native-born Americans and further that illegal aliens are able to avail themselves of the generosity of our welfare state.  While there is some merit in their argument, especially in regards to the welfare state, their general complaint suffers from an inability to understand that we do not live within a stagnant economic pie, that is permanently fixed in both size and benefits, to which if we did, their complaints about immigration would be valid.  The fact of the matter is that we do not live in a zero-sum society, that our prosperity is only limited by our imagination, our work ethics, our efficiency, and yes, somewhat unfortunately, the availability of ready capital.  Still, I am sympathetic to those that are struggling in their employment, and typically slash out at the most readily accessible target, immigrants, but I do believe that their anger is misplaced.

The thing is that America is the biggest economic force that the world has ever seen, to which there is no continent, and probably no country, that is not impacted or affected by some degree by what America does.   For those that are so fortunate as to have been born in this great nation, you are in the fortuitous situation of being right where the real money is at.  However, unfortunately, in today's modern society, something tragic has happened to the core of America, specifically its middle class, and subsequently their wages, along with their opportunities have often stagnated over recent years.  Additionally, America's "war on poverty" looks to be in a permanent standstill, unable to improve millions upon millions of American's lives, despite billions upon billions of dollars being set aside to do this very thing.

The highest percentage of the largest multi-national corporations in the world, are based right here in America, but the priorities of this behemoths has changed to such an extent, thatit truly can be stated, that they are "American" only in the sense to which that is their legal home of residence for financial purposes.  Somewhat disturbingly, wHowqeHowwwhen it comes to the employment of the people needed to service, sell, and make their products and wares, a significant portion of companies that we consider to be American, have done their country wrong, by deliberately outsourcing millions of jobs overseas.  This means that jobs that could easily and readily be performed right here in America, have been exported overseas, primarily because of the savings in wages, tax benefits, labor and factory concessions, or similar.  So, in short, while many complain vociferously about illegal immigrants in America, at least those immigrants are providing services to Americans on American soil, while also spending their monies earned here, primarily in America.  Whereas, for jobs that are outsourced, that money is leaving America to provide foreign employment in foreign countries, and any monies being repatriated to America, are for the most part, going into the pockets of the 1% of the 1%, and not you and me.

The outsourcing of American jobs, such as all aspects of customer service, manufacturing, data entry, and pretty much anything that you might possible imagine, is done primarily to increase profits for said Multi-national Corporation at primarily the expense of the American worker.  This means that the multi-national corporations are able to make extra money hand over fist, while sticking the government of America with the responsibility of taking care of the American public that has been left behind.

Shay's Rebellion

The American revolutionary war ended in September of 1783, but the Constitution of the United States of America was not formulated until 1787, and later signed in September of 1787.  In the meanwhile, the thirteen original colonies had signed and ratified the Articles of Confederation which in essence, served as the first Constitution of the United States of America, before becoming superseded by the Constitution that rules our land today.  At the time of our revolution, there were soldiers that having served in our armed forces found upon returning to their rural life as farmers, had suffered the inconveniences of a credit squeeze, or lack of monetary credit or currency, leading to seizures of their land itself, or found themselves in situations to which they were forced to declare bankruptcy to discharge debts.

Shay's rebellion was named after Daniel Shays who was alleged to have been the ring leader of four thousand men that in their protest of this perceived injustice took up arms in order to seize the Springfield Armory.  They were met there by a militia that defeated them at Springfield, and additional skirmishes amongst them ultimately ended in defeat and the dissolution of Daniel Shays and his rebellious men.  While to a certain degree Shay's rebellion was somewhat successful in that it led to a moratorium of certain debts and a reduction in interest rates, it's lasting legacy is that this insurgent action led to the call for a more formal declaration of the powers of a united and forceful National Government, because it was feared as stated by General Washington that: "If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh maneuvers will be displayed by the insurgents – anarchy & confusion must prevail…"

The upshot of all this, is that Shay's rebellion set the tone within America, that in instances, even if apparently justified, that citizens, or bands of citizens, felt that they had been given short shrift that the taking up of arms against their State or State militia, or National Government, would not now, nor never, be permitted in this land.  After all, the very purpose of our Declaration of Independence was a solemn Declaration, that made it absolutely crystal clear and forthright that in any state of oppression, that the people first must petition for redress, that further that those that desire to dissolve their political bands must declare formerly and specifically the causes that bring them to this said action, and further to it all, they must then unite in their alliance by offering forth to the Supreme Judge of all their lives, their fortunes, and their honor.

While there is little doubt that those that were part of Shay's rebellion had their valid points, the taking up of arms or the application of force to assert those rights, is a circumvention of the rule of law, to which having done so, the State was justified in taking the needful steps to suppress it.     As it was said so wisely, a house divided against itself cannot stand, nor can a house be further broken down into many small pieces and principalities, because it will cease to be a house itself.   

Compulsory Religion

Within America there are many religious faiths, as well as factions of religious faiths, all keeping in accordance that per our Constitution, we are allowed the free exercise of religion according to our conscience.  This means for the individual, that for the most part, our government allows us to worship in our way and in our time, as per our desire, but that does not mean, however, that within the faith of your religion, that those same conditions would apply.  That is to say, for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, there are in most cases, obligations that the professed adherents must attend to or there will be consequences for having come short of those said obligations.  

For instance, in the Jewish religion, depending upon the sect, you will be required to wear a head covering and to dress appropriately for the service in the synagogue, as well as recognizing that the Sabbath commences on Friday evening at sunset and concludes upon nightfall of Saturday night.  During that time of Sabbath, certain activities such as conducting business or even driving your vehicle are prohibited, and during the Sabbath prayers are offered and encouraged, as well as the reading of the Torah. 

In the Christian religion, depending upon the faith, the Sabbath day is recognized on Sunday, to which, according to your sect, attendance at your place of worship may be compulsory, as well as that the day should be given to the Lord as a time of contemplation, respect, and servitude, with any work or work-related activities held to either an absolute minimum or prohibited.

The Muslim faith does not recognize a Sabbath day, instead, depending upon the sect, most recognize that prayers are obligatory within their faith for every day of the week, and are set aside at certain specific times throughout the day.  Further to this point, Muslims are literally called to prayer by the muezzin at those times of day, so as to make their way to either a mosque or a quiet place set aside for prayer wherever they may be at.

In each of these respective religions, depending upon the sect, there are specific rules and obligations that the faithful must adhere to, or else they will suffer some sort of banishment, punishment, admonishment, or be considered to be unclean, unworthy, or something similar in concept.  This means, that for the believer, whether he is a true and faithful follower or not, one's religion can be such that you have relinquished your sovereignty of yourself to a designated power.  While, it may be that the greatest service that you can do is to surrender to your faith, this does not necessarily mean that this is actually the right thing to do, because in actuality every religion at its core, is selling the story, that they, that their particular religion, knows God's word, for a certainty, and that your obligation is to follow those dictates, because they, the human representatives of God's word, know best.

The thing to remember, though, is that God has gifted each of us with our own mind, our own body, and our own soul.  If we are so fortunate as to live in a country to which we can freely worship our Lord, without governmental obligation or interference, we would be wise to recognize that ceding that freedom to some other authority, one that indeed often has the audacity to claim rights to our eternity, is something that should not be done lightly.  

Can you Make Money in After Hours Trading?

The stock market is open from 9:30AM to 4:00PM EST, Monday through Friday, market holidays excepted.  However, in looking at equities, one must remember, that overall it is news that moves markets, and specific news, that moves stocks.  For instance, study after study has shown, that unanticipated earnings surprises whether they are positive or negative immediately impacts a particular stock price, yet most of these earning releases are provided as a press report, after hours.  This, then, would imply that someone that is able to get a hold of that information and then to trade upon it, before virtually everyone else would have a material advantage over others, less informed.  This, therefore, is where after hour trading or pre-market trading could potentially be an avenue to make money for an investor.

While the foregoing is definitely true, that earnings surprises or other noteworthy news such as clinical trials approved or disapproved, significant lawsuits, merger and acquisition news, and whatnot, definitely will impact equity pricing, this doesn't mean that you, as an individual investor, have the skill, discipline, and knowhow on how to profit from this.  That is to say, when you are swimming with the sharks, you must determine as to whether you have true "shark-like" capabilities, or are instead, merely a pretender, and thereby thoroughly outclassed.

The value of news, and the comprehension of said news, before others are even aware of it, can be demonstrated by the Rothschild's who are said to have received news of the British victory over the French at Waterloo a day ahead of the government messengers, to which the Rothschild's rightly predicated that English bonds would become much more valuable, and subsequently made an enormous profit from it. 

The fact that others can and have profited by news does not mean that you as a trader can also do so, but it does indicate that the basic premise is sound, only awaiting someone with the appropriate skill level and boldness to actuate it, as the after-hours market, is inherently and substantially far less efficient in the equitability of market pricing, as compared to normal stock market hours pricing.

In today's world, without actual access to insider information, which would probably be considered illegal, a trader cannot hope to have access to marking moving information ahead of someone else for more than a few minutes, at most.  This means, for after hour traders, just being a few seconds ahead of the curve is the difference between making some money as opposed to getting played for some money, as the market is at this level,  is a zero-sum game, to which, for every winner there will be a corresponding loser. 

The ability to make money in after hour trading is both a skill as well as an art.  It is thus, because your interpretation of noteworthy news items may be diametrically opposed to the "smart money" because they are skilled at reading in-between the lines and you are not.  In short, after hour trading is not for the faint of heart, it also takes a mercenary mindset as well as a disciplined trading arm, to which most probably fall far short, while there are a few that can and will thrive.

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.