So What's So Great About Freedom Anyway?

   Freedom is hard.  You have to get up every day and decide what it is you are going to do.  You can choose to do nothing.  You can choose to do something to entertain yourself.  You can choose to go and work at something.  You can choose to save your money, fix your car, paint your house, smoke a joint or a cigarette.  In short, you can either choose to build yourself up or tear yourself down.  The problem with tearing yourself down is that, sooner or later, you will become dependent upon other people for your livelihood and then they will tell you what to do and you won't be free any more.
   The only definition of freedom that has any meaning is simply that wherever you are is where you want to be (or at least is heading in that direction).  So you have to decide on your own to do things now that you might not like so that in the future you can get to where you want to be. 
   So what was there about such a simple process that motivated our founding fathers and subsequent generations to sacrifice everything they had (including their lives) to secure freedoms for themselves and their children?
   The answer lies in the true nature of man.  From the dawn of history, men have been subjugated and enslaved by powerful men who  were not accountable to anyone.  These men simply took other men's property including their time and spent in upon themselves.  Whole populations were enslaved to build monuments to rulers.  The men who built the great pyramids had no ownership stake in the finished tomb. We stand in awe today at the things that were accomplished by the pharoahs of Egypt, the Mayan rulers, the Chinese, Alexander the Great, and many others.
   These accomplishments pale, however, when compared to the great juggernaut of history known as the United States Of America.  For the very first time in human history, a nation was founded upon the freedoms of indivuals to build and keep the works of their own hands.  Never in human history has so much wealth been created with so much benefit to so many people throughout the world.
   The United States is standing at a crossroads.  One way will take us on into a more glorious and secure future as the power of our people is unleashed.  The other way will lead our country into the tyranny of dependence upon some powerful men who will strip us of our freedoms and plunder our wealth for their own pleasures.
   A large segment of our population has been convinced that they should give permission to these men to do just that.  For a few dollars, a free cell phone, wages without work, and promises that these men will seize the wealth of the "rich" and give it to them, they have enthusiastically supported the very  people who will clamp them in chains and get them started building a pyramid to show to history.  These are the old worn-out ideas from our primitive past now advocated by "progressive" politicians.
   It seems easy now because the plundering has only now just begun.  There is still untold wealth that is in the hands of the free people in the country.  Efforts are now well underway to coerce people to give up that wealth to a rogue and perverse federal government.
   How about it, seekers?  Do we have the guts to shut these people down and re-establish our God-given rights to freedom?

The Politics of Anger

   For years I have wrestled with the ideas of political liberalism to understand the root philosophical ideas upon which the whole hierarchy is constructed.  For some time I looked at atheism as the rational base, but I discovered a number of theological skeptics who were not political liberals.  In fact, one fellow who has become a long time friend, said that he was willing to give the founding fathers a lot of credit for basing the constitution upon God-given freedoms because individual freedoms would "not be safe" in the hands of liberal politicians.
   I looked at a number of utopian ideas like Plato's Republic, Thomas Moore's Utopia , Marx's Das Kapital and others, but, while these schemes all sacrificed individual freedoms to an all-powerful state, the vocabulary of our current political "progressive" movement does not specifically go back to these sources.
   It came to me a few months ago as I watched the "Occupy Wall Street" people demonstrate against "the rich."  These people are ANGRY.  They are not simply expressing a political idea based upon some set of rational premises.  They are simply angry.  They are angry enough to kill.  They are angry enough to destroy the property of other people.  They are angry enough to collectively vote to tear down our constitution and replace it with something else.
   Where does this anger come from?
   Once I saw liberalism through this lens, many things fell into place.  For three generations now, we have watched a revolution take place in our schools and our churches:  Our children have been taught that the American Constitution is an old out-of-date document that permits corporations to amass wealth at the expense of everyday working people.  As a result, our schools began turning out children who know nothing of our founding principles and who have been taught how to be poor.  Yes, we are teaching our children to be poor by teaching them to be angry!
   Modern liberal political operatives are now harvesting the results of this process theough "community organizing."  They go into poor neighborhoods created by their relentless war on the family, their war on corporations, their war on "poverty" and convince these destitute people that they have a "right" to what others have created.  Under the guise of crusading for the "rights of the poor", they bus these people to the polls during elections thus polluting the political system and propelling angry politicians into public office who rob our treasury and destroy our freedoms.
   The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are built upon a foundation of a civil society where wealth creation is celebrated.  Wealth creation comes from the quiet contemplation of ideas in our homes.
   How about it seekers?  On November 6th we are going to have chance to shut this diabolical process down and create a society where our angry children can become quiet once again and set about to build themselves a future secured by our liberties.
  We may not get another chance of liberalism prevails.
  

Love Is The Word

   Love!   A word that is in such wide use that it defies the imagination to encompass all of its meanings.  We use the word to describe a whole array of emotions.  We use the word to describe our political agendas (as in "I love the environment.").  We use the word to describe how we feel toward other people (as in "I fell in love with her...").  We use the word to describe how we feel toward inanimate objects (as in "I love chocolate.").
   Yet when one looks closely at the word, it is used to describe something of ourselves that we think other people might understand.  We assume that all people have similar thoughts and feelings and we can connect with people on this subliminal level.  Where would the music and entertainment business be without this?  It is a universal longing of mankind to love and be loved.
   There is a more solid and potent meaning to the word, however, when it describes a principle rather than an emotion.  This takes the form of syllogism which generally states:  If I love this person, then I will...   The action I take in any instance, then, is determined by what I think would truly benefit the person who is the object of my love.  In this case, it becomes my personal responsibility to tailor my actions whether they be words or deeds in a way that benefits the person to whom I am directing this action.
   When we say we love our fellow man, based on this principle, we want certain things for him:  we want him to be free, prosperous, healthy, productive, tall, smart, and good-looking.  In short, when we discipline ourselves to make this principle our own guiding principle, we become like a stove:  the closer people get to us the warmer they get.  Applied to our family, our friends, our community, our nation, what we get is a free, prosperous, just society.
   The framers of our constitution apparently had this in mind when they wrote this historic document.
   How about it, seekers?  Do we have the courage to stand up and take charge of ourselves and take care of the people around us?  Do we have the guts to say the word and mean it?
  

A Little About "Tinkering"

   Several weeks ago an educator speaking to graduates from a middle school made this astounding statement:  "You kids are not exceptional."
   What a statement to come from an educator whose job it was to make these kids exceptional!
   But he may have been right to the extent that our kids are being betrayed by the very educational system which has been provided "free" by the American public.I wrote a poem several years ago entitled "The Teacher" which puts the finger on what has happened to our educational system:

      The Teacher       

                 

There she was, already old,

Standing there

At the crossroads

Stopping me with her

Cold blue eyes.

She terrified me

In those days

With her constant demands

Always turning my eyes

Outward on the world

Away from the abyss inside

Now I understand her fear.

Late some nights

You will find me there

At that same crossroads

On the chance that

One of mine

Should happen by.

   The world is an exciting and wonderful place for children.  There are all sorts of gadgets that invite "tinkering" to see how they work.  But the teacher and the parent must join in the process of turning their young eyes "outward on the world away from the abyss inside."  Modern educational philosophy has set about to validate the "abyss."

   Our children are now taught that their "feelings" are good indicators of who they are and what their role in the world is.  Children are taught to view themselves through the lens of the "synthetic" environment.  They are taught that perceptions of appearance, popularity, sexuality, gender, and many other parameters which are defined by pop culture instruments such as facebook, TV shows, school textbooks, are in fact real. 

   But when a child is taught how to build a kite, catch a fish, build scooter, roller skate, fix a flat tire on his bike, cook a meal, and a host of other small projects, his eyes turn outward on the world and away from the hopelessness and depression of the social environment promoted by the poverty brokers who now dominate our educational system.

   "Tinkering" has produced our most productive people.  Not only the famous ones like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban and many others, but the millions of others who raise much of their own food, make their cars last 15 years, build all of the furniture in their homes (and others as well), keep their homes in tip-top condition, repair porch swings, keep a nice lawn, accumulate wealth through wise frugality, raise wonderful kids who do great things.

    My point is, seekers, this may not be rocket science, but it produces rocket scientists instead of the poor lost kids who wind up at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations complaining because they have nothing.  One of the greatest gifts that you can give to your kids is the rock-solid understanding that they can be successful at whatever they do by thoughtful tinkering.

It's About Time

   We use the word time in so many contexts that a whole glossary of meanings would fill a book.  In a scientific sense the word time is used to describe and define processes of all kinds.  In fact, it could be said that all of science can be reduced to the way we measure time (and its corrollary, dimension).
   Yet our minds cannot grasp an infinite progression of time(the future) or an infinite regression of time (the past) ..  Since we cannot contemplate the extent of the bubble of time in which we live, we simply pretend that time is finite and we create words to relieve us of the troublesome implications of a universe is which time does not exist.  We simply say that something is "zero" if it falls below our sense of importance.  Conversely we say that something is "infinite" if it goes on in the other direction.  Within these boundaries, we have created a whole structure of certainty.  We have assured ourselves with a strong feeling of confidence that we understand the universe in which we live.  We have invented a mathematics system which is internally consistent.  This system gives us a strong feeling of certainty: we have taken a vote and we all agree that what we think we know is, in fact, the truth about our world.
   Stephen Hawkings in his book A Brief History of Time observes that the only thing we know about time is that it generally seems to move in one direction, from the past into the future.  Yet as common sense as this seems, discovering what is the exact present time is elusive because when we try to determine what time it really is, in the cosmic sense, it is already gone.  All of our measurements of the cosmos are hopelessly flawed because the phenomena which we observe now happened millions if not billions of years ago and the objects may have disappeared completely.
   What does all of this mean?
   The Judeo-Christian scriptures are filled with tantalizing references to how time interacts with mankind.  For example, the highly allegorical acount of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden makes a reference to the "tree of life."  The "fruit" of this tree would have taken Adam out of the time domain and would have "lived forever."  Consequently, when Adam ate of the "fruit" of the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil,"  he was told that he would "surely die."  The implication here is that Adam crossed over into the bubble of time and the process of his eventual death was set in motion.
   God, in the Judeo-Christian scriptures is described  "I am."  Other references describe God as "the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end."  Jesus referred to himself as "I am."
   Clearly, these characterizations of God have him outside the time domain, as he would have to be if he is, in fact, the great engineer in the sky who invented all of this.
   As a clear-eyed seeker of widom and truth, there is one absolute truth that cannot be denied:  faith is not an option, in order to build any foundation for a reasonable life, we must first decide what we believe.  The meaning of our lives is totally determined by what we choose to believe.
   It's about time we sat down and wrote down for ourselves what we belive.  It is an eye-opening experience.    

More counterfeits: Free From vs Free To

   A very important word in our political discourse is the word "free."  We take for granted that our constitution guarantees us certain freedoms like religion, speech, press, etc., but a new meaning of "free" has been introduced and threatens to completely undo what our Constitution was originally drafted to secure.
   If one carefully examines our constitution, the preamble and the subsequent bill of rights are all intended to secure freedoms for Americans to do certain things.  For example, we are guaranteed the right to speak freely, to worship without government interference, to protect ourselves and our property with firearms, to have a free and unfettered press to demand government accountability, to be protected from illegal search of our persons or our property, to assemble whenever and wherever we choose. 
   The word "free," however, has been inserted to mean freedom from certain things:  We are now told that our "freedoms" now include freedom from hunger, poverty, poor health, obesity, unwanted pregnancies, religious expression, poor education, air pollution, poor housing, and a whole host of other things. 
   There is a certain symmetry to the real freedoms and the counterfeit freedoms:  In order to secure the "freedoms" from all of these things, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to do things must be compromised.  For example, If one is to be free from poverty without doing anything on his own to increase his personal income, then it follows that the money he receives must come from somone who has used his freedoms to create wealth of his own.  It follows with all of these "freedoms."
   The argument for all of these "freedoms" comes from the concept of "social justice" and "fairness."  It is a fairly naked scheme to get voters to vote for the seizure of other peoples' property and "redistribute" it to them.  Of course, the perpetrators of this counterfeit never intend to give the money to anyone but themselves and secure their own political power.  To secure this end, our educational system has been perverted so that it produces illiterate people incapable of utilizing their own constitutional freedoms to create wealth for themselves. 
   We must remember, seekers, that our children must be taught to see the world filled with wonder and opportunity.  The bleak darkness of ignorance  cannot be dispelled by anyone but ourselves.  If we continue to let the government feed this tainted idea of freedom to our children, they will wind up in poverty on the trash heap.

Thoughts vs feelings - The synthetic environment

   I wrote earlier about a number of counterfeit words used in our political discourse.  The use of the words "thoughts" and "feelings" are used to mean the same thing.  Yet thoughts can be analyzed and modified easily by individuals through reading, activities like athletics, acquisition of new skills and self development in areas of interest.  Feelings, on the other hand, are largely framed in the context of a person's real or perceived environment.  We tend to value ourselves against the backdrop of a whole set of images that have been presented to us from what we are exposed to.  The view we have of ourselves is a collage of image comparisons introduced through what we see.  If I am short, for example, this conclusion is derived from a comparison of myself to other images of people who are taller than I am, but who seem to be more successful than I at things I value like physical attractiveness, athletic prowess, financial success, etc.  Yet these images are synthetically created and have absolutely no basis in reality.
   What does all of this mean?
   There are two views of every person:  the view of myself from inside  and the view other people have of me from the outside.  Which of the two views is the most reliable?  The view from the inside is twisted and distorted and is in a constant state of flux.  The view from the outside is relatively constant, but more importantly, can easily be modified by simply associating with different people.  If, as a child, I lived with people who were negligent, uncaring and angry, my view of myself was diminished so that I did not have personal self worth.  The future was dark and hopeless and I found myself totally unable to be enthusiastic about my life.  Learning was next impossible and I found I was unable to cope with the problems of taking care of myself.
   Enter now a person who enters my life who sees something of great worth in me.  This person brushes aside my own perception of myself and imposes his view of the world on me as a place of wonder and opportunity.  He enjoys the simple process of living in a way I never saw.  I find myself excited about learning, and, most of all, I want to do it for the approval of this person.  In the past these people were called mentors or fathers or mothers or teachers or friends. 
   We now live in a culture where mentors like this are very hard to find.  The point is, however, we can choose to find these people and associate with them for our own personal success.  The synthetic environment created from television, movies, facebook, and a host of other fantasy-generated images has left us with no one to live up to.
   How about it, seekers?  Do we as adults have the courage to be the ones our kids look up to or are we wallowing around in our own self pity?
  

What about Economics?

   There is an economic system that is a natural consequence of our God-given rights described in our Declaration of Independence and defined in our Constitution:  It is, in the popular vernacular, called "capitalism."
   This economic view of the world of wealth and money derives directly from the view that man is a special creation of a Creator who intended for man to have the dignity of possessing his own "unalienable" rights that do not derive from the largess of a ruling class of people.  Among those rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
   If man, then has this dignity by his birthright, it follows that the wealth he creates belongs exclusively to him and to those he chooses to share it with.
   It is this view of man that is under relentless attack by those in our society who seek to get their hands on the wealth created by individuals and use the money to purchase the votes of people who are discouraged from creating wealth for themselves.
   While giving lip-service to the "private sector" as being the primary generator of wealth, the secular humanist (code word for those denying the divine rights of individuals) seeks to reach into the lives of individuals and extract an ever-growing portion of private wealth.
   It is not surprising that "capitalism" is not taught in our public schools or even in most of our colleges and universities.  If man is not a special creation of God, then he doesn't have the right to keep the wealth that he creates.
   Our children are being taught that "religion" cannot be mentioned in our public schools.  Yet our public schools are actively teaching the religion of humanism (the worship of man) and its natural consequence of the redstribution of individual wealth under the guise of "fairness" and "social justice."
   It is not surprising that many of our judges, our legislatures and even our president have released a spate of laws and regulations that are specifically designed to strip away the wealth that people create and pour it into the maw of a rogue, corrupt and perverse government.
   How about it, seekers?  We have a window of opportunity every time an election comes around.  If we don't step up to stop these people, there won't be anything left for our children.

Counterfeit: Wealth and Money

  The word "wealth" is used so widely that it has largely lost most of its meaning.  But the process of creating wealth is at the very core of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.  We have all of these images of the "wealthy" cruising around in expensive cars, eating in fancy restaurants, jetting around the world on expensive vacations.  Yet these people do not necessarily have wealth: they just have money.  Where they got it, in many cases, is not easily discovered.
   I had the opportunity to fly into Israel some time ago and when making the approach into the Tel Aviv airport, the border between Israel and the bordering Arab land was starkly visible.  On the Israeli side, the land was green, fish ponds dotted the countryside, orderly homes were built and every inch of land was carefully cultivated.  On the Arab side, the land was barren desert with very few signs of cultivation.  The same land, same weather, same resources.
   Money, then comes from the creation of wealth, but it is not wealth.  Wealth is created when a person takes the raw material of his own life and turns it into something of value to everyone.  Wealth never has finite value: it only becomes finite when it is converted to money.
   Consider the young man who decides to take his small parcel of land and see what he can turn it into.  He takes a shovel and turns the soil, removing rocks brush and weeds.  He finds some manure and spades it into the soil.  He plants squash, turnips, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, corn and whatever other vegetables he can find.  He waters it and waits.  Like a miracle the plants sprout and, in a few weeks, he harvests a bounty of vegetables.  These vegetables have universal value and could quickly be turned into money.  Stored for the winter, however, they sustain his family in good health.  He has created true wealth. 
   Wealth cannot be "re-distributed."  Only money can be re-distributed.  When wealth is converted to money and taken from the person who created it, the whole creative process envisioned by our founding fathers is perverted and both the creator of the wealth and the recipient of the money suffer.  The creator is discouraged from the creation of further wealth and the recipient is relieved of the necessity of creating anything of value for himself.
   How about it, seekers.  Are we going to be bamboozled into agreeing to this whole perversion of our language and the theft of what we create?

Counterfeits: What does it mean to be "educated?"

   As I have pointed out earlier, the word "education" is used to sell a whole mixed soup of government programs designed to usurp your decisions about teaching and raising your kids.  These run the gamut of "teaching" children all about relationships with other children, their parents, their community and the world.  The problem with all of this is that no education takes place at all but rather a carefully constructed world view that effectively robs many of our children of the necessary intellectual tools to be financially successful when they become adults.
   The process starts out with the teacher.  Teacher "qualifications" are carefully designed to require "certifications" by various groups who have, as their main purpose, the promotion of certain philosophical positions.  The teacher must prove that he or she has received a thorough training in areas of "sensitivity."  These run the range of sexual orientation, race, body weight, bullying, dietary issues, outcome based competition exercises. and a host of other sub-corollaries to these areas.  A teacher who can show that he has received all of this training is then said to be "certified" to teach our children.  Proficiency in subject material such as math, reading, history,  writing, geography, etc., etc. is secondary to "sensitivity" training.
   Consider now  the 5 year old child who come to class from a home where there is no father, where English is not spoken, where no home environment exists for the quiet contemplation of ideas, and where he is exposed to neglect and anger.  Can the teacher, with all of her "sensitivity" training do anything for this child?  Probably not.
   There are teachers who mentor their students and make some attempt to give the child the nuturing that he does not get at home.  These teachers are heroes, but they will not be able to overcome the influence of the home in most cases.
   The definition of education as some level of certifiable training, then, falls short of the true meaning of education which has as its core the aquisition of usable skills and knowledge about the world which equips the student to find a useful niche and to grow up with a constructive attitude about his own life.
   Seeker, you must give these things to your children.  If you don't they will never become "educated" and may well wind up on the trash heap of life as adults with no hope and no building blocks to become happy and independent. "Life, liberty, and happiness" are our God-given rights, but they must be carefully taught to our children.  There are no "certificates" for this process.

Counterfeits: Obesity

   Moving along on this series of notes about counterfeit words used in our national discourse, I focus now on the use of the word "obesity."  Now people use this word as if it has the same meaning for everyone.  For example, the dictionary defines obesity as " In humans, an unhealthy condition caused by gross overweight.  Generally any condition where unbridled consumption takes place."
   The counterfeit slides in here when "obese" is used to describe "overweight."  Arbitrary guidlines have been created by interested groups such s life insurance and health insurance groups to define what a person's "normal weight" is.  The fact is, none of these data are statistically connected to whether a person is "healthy."  The counterfeit use of "obese" is used by politicians as reason to intrude into people's lives and attempt to dictate what is a "healthy" condition.  All sorts of tinkering in this area are being attempted by our current spate of political operatives including Michelle Obama.  Some states (like North Carolina) have actually empowered food inspectors in public schools to open children's lunch boxes under the guise of "protecting" them.
   Consider the real meaning of obesity and take a closer look at the practices of our federal government.  If there ever was an example of "unbridled consumption" it is the use of our money by our Federal Governement.  All the while these people rail against obesity in the American population, they pull there swollen bodies up to the public trough day after day and gorge themselves on the lavish luxury afforded to them by our public trust.  They travel on the most expensive airplane in the world, stay in the most expensive facilities, feast on gourmet (and unhealthy) food, hobnob with the most decadent and notorious world figures, steal billions of our dollars to give to favorite causes (like "green" companies.
   How about it, seekers?  Can we put these cows on a diet and put our people back to work?  Incidentally, work is the only real cure for obesity.

What about "Rights?"

   The word "rights" is used everywhere as if everybody knows exactly what it means.  Yet this a very important counterfeit that is used to sell all sorts of programs to an unsuspecting public.
   The founding fathers intended certain entitlements to be intrinsically attached to individuals.  These rights are generally described in the Declaration of Independence as "...life, liberty amd the pursuit of happiness."  They are more specifically defined in the U.S.  Constitution in the Bill or Rights and subsequently expanded or clarified in amendments to the Constitution.
   The counterfeit of this word creeps in when it is applied to groups.  It sounds so reasonable to identify the "rights" of statistical groups based on some common characteristics such as race, ethnic orientation, legal status, sexual orientation, gender, etc., etc.  So we are told, for example, that we are violating the "rights" of a black man if we object to his ideas, or prefer a definition of marriage that does not include members of the same sex.
   "Groups" are said to be "scientific" because researchers identified certain common features of people and gave them a name so that their specific "rights" could be legislated.  What has resulted is a bewildering soup of laws and regulations that, in many cases, violate the true constitutional rights of individuals as defined in the U.S. Constitution.  We are told that 25% of prison inmates are black while black people represent only 12% of the U.S. population.  This large disparity can only be explained by racial discrimination.  Yet if the individual cases are reviewed, there is virtually no evidence to support this conclusion.
   The point is that to attain "equal justice before the law" only the individual may be considered.  Attaching the person to a group pollutes the legal process and either wrongfully exonerates the individual and/or violates the rights of the innocent members of the civil society who have been the victim of some crime.
   How about it, seekers?  Do we have the guts to call this by its real name: a gratuitous counterfeit of what our founding fathers intended for us?

Counterfeits: Competition

   Exploring this area of how we use words, there is a very important counterfeit which equates competition with fighting.  The proponents of this counterfeit, sadly, are in responsible positions in our government and educational institutions.  At some universities, for example, the grading process for assessing academic success has been replaced by a simple pass-fail judgment.  In many of our public schools, athletic activites for children like soccer are no longer scored so that there are no winners or losers.
   But a little closer look at these two words yields a huge disconnect between the two.  Competition is a rational exercise which strives to improve a person's abilities in the desired area.  This could be physical as in swimming, baseball, football, track, volleyball, etc. or it could be mental as in business, math, writing, medicine, and a whole host of intellectual activities.  In any case, contests between individuals or teams that are competitive have no losers.  The team which wins has demonstrated that their preparedness was superior to the other teams.  The team which did not win has learned something very imortant about their own preparedness, and when these teams meet again, the outcome might be different.
   But the salient point here is that none of the people involved in this competition were angry!  They might have been disappointed, but the driving force behind their actions was not anger but a determination to be better.
   Conversely, fighting is encouraged by a futile attempt to short-circuit the process of attainment and violently take the things that the person was not prepared to compete for. 
   Consider the rhetoric of the fighting proponents who rail at the "rich," and talk about taking their money to give to the "poor."  These politicians do "community organizing" to fan this anger and focus it upon forging political power.  Our children, who have been taught by our public shools that they cannot compete for financial success, are fair game for this anger as they grow into adulthood with no marketable skills and find themselves poor and dependent.
   If one wants to find the well-spring of the epidemic of violence that has swept our country, look no further than the three generations of children who have been taught that they cannot compete for jobs and that people who have jobs are somehow to blame for their poverty.  It is therfore justified to rob them. 
   Enter the politician who offers to rob the "rich" on behalf of these "poor" people and you have discovered recipe used by the political left to attain power.
   How about it, seekers?  Can we teach our kids to hone their skills for future success or do we continue to trust the poverty brokers with our kids' - and, ultimately our nations' - future?

Counterfeits

   It seems that many of us have difficulty discerning the truth from the counterfeit.  Our political discourse preys upon this lack of discernment to sell all sorts of "programs" which purport to solve real or imaginary "problems."  What has resulted is the huge mess that our country has fallen into both morally and financially.
   I have identified several words which are the most-abused:
   Faith - This word is used to mean "religion" in popular vernacular.  While most religions exercise faith, their are some who contrast faith with "science," implying that science relies on facts, not faith.  Therefore science is a superior arbiter of truth and should always be given higher priority in our decison-making process.  Consider how the "theory of evolution" and "global warning" is touted as scientific and is taught as fact in our schools. 
   But a little closer look at the popular theory of evolution, which claims to account for all of what we see around us, reveals a set of faith-based statements that are supposed to be "scientific."
   The evolution proponent believes:
   "There is no God"
   "Everything we see can be explained by "scientific" principles"
   "Man is just another animal"
   "There is no objective moral standard for man's behavior"
  
   There are a number of other corollaries to these statements, but, in case you haven't noticed, there is absolutely no evidence to support any of these statements.  Rather these premises are supported by a number of "scientists" in a voting process and are being forced upon our unsuspecting children by a perverse educational establishment.  They rail against "religious" treaching in our schools, all the while flagrantly teaching these religious ideas as "scientific."
   The consequences of this "religious" teaching has given us the mess we are in with our education and with our federal financial indebtedness.

   In subsequent essays I will talk more about a number of other words like "rich,"  "poor,"  "prosperous."  "intelligent,"  and some others.

   What about it, seekers?  Can we parse the words and find out what agenda is being promoted?

What does it mean to be "rich?"

   The word "rich" gets tossed around as if everybody has a good understanding of what it means.  To some it means having a lot of money.  To some it refers to a nebulous group of people who have stolen money from the poor.  To others it is another word for "blessed."
   I had the great good fortune to work for one of America's great captains of industry.  He had built a relatively small division of a very large company into a major player in the aerospace industry.  He told this story to a group of managers in our company:
   "We had a large missile contract which was behind schedule, and I decided to go to the facility that was causing the delay and find out what was going on.  In the meeting with several of the people in the plant, the machine shop foreman told me the missile guidance module could not be made the way it was designed.  In true CEO fashion, I told him if he couldn't do it, I would find somebody that could.  He quietly got up from the meeting, left the room got his lunch box and went home.  The plant manager sat in stunned silence.  I looked around and saw the same look on the rest of the faces at the table."
  "I asked around to see where we went from here.  Nobody spoke.  I started to get an uneasy feeling about George leaving.  The plant manager told me that George probably knew more about the machining of exotic metals and close tolerances than anybody in the industry and was constantly pursued by their competitors."
   "I decided it was crow-eating time so I got his address from our files, got into my car and drove to his home.  His house was very neat and his lawn was impeccable.  I was met at the door by a very pleasant lady who told me George had called and said he was on his way home.  She was concerned because she thought he might be ill.  She brought me a glass of iced tea and I waited for George to come home.  I looked around the room.  There were pictures of children everywhere, some with football uniforms, and several trophies on the fireplace mantle."
   "As I looked around I had a sudden realization that this man was more successful  than I and regarded me as something that had crawled from under a rock.  I have two sons, but I went to very few of their school activities.  They hardly know me.  I am treated like a house guest when I come home.  All of the millions of dollars that I accumulated meant nothing to them - and they meant nothing to George."
   "By the time George returned, I realized that he in many ways my superior.  I apologized for my bad behavior in the meeting and asked him if he would consider coming back and show us what we had to do to fix the problems with the missile."
   "He came back.  We had a lengthy meeting with the engineers and hammered out a solution that George thought would work."
   "I came back to my office a changed man.  I had discovered that successful companies are built by building around successful people, and that it means different things to people. success is like beauty:  it is in the eye of the beholder."
   "I set about to completely restructure our internal mobility process to build around these successful people and to abandon the traditional promotion scheme based on MBO (Management By Objective), a system designed to convince people that they are not particularly valuable to the company."
   My question is, seekers:  What about this?  Do we have the intelligence to be "rich" like George, or should we spend our energies resenting people like this CEO?