eaLIy24H0sGYsEjN2L5aT9AzMLmUjcH: 2012

Monday, December 3, 2012

What Is Often Wrongly Understood About Occult?

The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden". The terms esoteric and arcane can have a very similar meaning, and the three terms are often interchangeable. The word has many uses in the English language, popularly meaning "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science. By the eighteenth century unorthodox religious, scientific and philosophical concerns were well defined as 'occult', inasmuch as they lay on the outermost fringe of accepted forms of knowledge and discourse." This position holds good even today.

In accordance with literal meaning of the word 'occult', all knowledge that is not amenable to direct sensory perception is classifiable as 'occult'. But by this yardstick the word 'occult' has wide connotations. It embraces not only knowledge of the 'supernatural' or unreal but also knowledge of the 'natural' provided it is not amenable to direct sensory perception. Therefore it embraces not only direct or perceivable truth about natural phenomena but also indirect or non-perceivable truth about natural phenomena and truth about natural phenomena perceivable only with the help of instruments.

Each and every thing and event in nature has indirect truth or occult associated with it. Gross description of natural things and events is often insufficient. Almost nothing can be completely known by mere gross narration and description. Quite often, it is the hidden knowledge that carries much greater significance than the knowledge gained by direct sensory perception.

In information technology, back-end of each and every web page carries much more significance than the front end. So, undoubtedly front end is significant but it is the back-end that is vital. Similarly invisible Meta tags and Meta descriptions are vital to the purpose of a web page. But all this hidden knowledge that is vital to functioning of IT based products is nothing but 'occult'.

Likewise, in the domain of natural sciences, all the knowledge that can be perceived only with help of instruments and all the theoretical knowledge about scientific principles and scientific theories is nothing but 'occult' knowledge. Therefore it is not surprising that in the Middle Ages,magnetism was sometimes called an occult quality. Newton was even accused of introducing occult agencies into natural science when he postulated gravity as a force capable of acting over vast distances. Newton's contemporaries severely critiqued his theory that gravity was affected through "action at a distance" as occult. Likewise, in the contemporary world, scientific theories such as Big Bang theory, String Theory, M-Theory, Darwinism are nothing but examples of 'occult' scientific theories.

Keeping all above in view, it is clear that in pursuit of knowledge, dealing with 'occult' or hidden knowledge is inevitable.

The real cause of concern is the ease with which knowledge of 'supernatural' creeps into knowledge of 'natural' which leads us astray into a universe which is just not there. Such knowledge is of no use except for the purpose of writing science fiction, for example, time machine etc. Such knowledge only builds castles in air. Therefore scientific community must strictly guard against polluting of scientific knowledge by knowledge of supernatural.

Hence, over the past few centuries definition of Science has evolved from knowledge of measurable to the definition given below:-

"Science is comprehensive, consistent, coherent natural explanation of natural phenomena"

Therefore, in pursuit of scientific knowledge, conducting isolated experiments and drawing mathematically - logically perfect conclusions is not enough. These conclusions have to be comprehensive and consistent with rest of scientific knowledge. Therefore conclusions drawn have to meet tests of 'rationality' and 'plausibility' in order to be scientifically valid. This is the only way to prevent creeping of knowledge of supernatural into science so that in due course of time science does not develop a mythology of its own.

Summing up, it must be appreciated that 'occult' is unavoidable in scientific domain but it is valid only so long as it is consistent with natural phenomena, directly or collaterally.

Building Cultural Icons and Tearing Them Down - It's Wrong and Even Those Who Do, Know It China's Stealth Fighter-Bombers and the US Military's Political Sequestration Problems Pondered Getting Elected Is the Easy Part, Why Is It So Hard for the Obama Campaign to Win Reelection? Obama Says His Initiatives Would Help The Middle Class - Fact Check Please Do Lazy Americans Forgo Voting If The Weather Isn't Being Nice? Your Miracle Is On The Right Side

Yes, Mr Socialist Mayor and President, Thank You For Your Low Cost Housing?

As an economic advisor for a think tank which happens to operate online, I've always been an advocate for free-market capitalism. This is because I know it will solve all the challenges of human in our society and civilization. I cringe when I hear left-wing socialist concepts in our cities and towns as the way forward, or the progressive and intelligent way to do things. It simply isn't so. Take low income housing and rent control districts for instance.

When you put low income housing in a specific area, and allow people to move in without paying very much in rent, next thing you know the place is totally trashed as no one takes ownership type responsibility. Then they complain of slum landlords, and government agencies that don't care about them. Obviously, the government cared enough to put in rules, restrictions, and regulations as well as putting up housing for poor people. It's amazing so many folks that live there are the first to complain when anything goes wrong.

The New York times had an interesting piece on November 3, 2012 titled; "In New York's Public Housing, Fear Creeps in With the Dark" by Cara Buckley and Michael Wilson, which stated; "Perhaps more so than in any other place in the city, the loss of power for people living in public housing projects has forced a return to a basic existence."

Another article the same day in the NYTs was "Anger Grows at Response by Red Cross" by David M. Halbfinger which stated; "The American Red Cross struggled on Friday to reassure beleaguered New York City residents that its disaster-relief efforts were at last getting up to speed."

You see, all of these folks voted for government officials that promised them they could get free housing, low income housing, or that the government would step in with rent control. But still, when the government did all that it wasn't enough. Along comes a big hurricane, and everyone is complaining. They're upset as they are in the dark and the power isn't on yet, and because it's cold, and quite frankly they are sick and tired of being soggy.

After all, what good is a roof over your head if you can't recharge your free cell phone, iPad, or watch your large screen TV? No wonder those people are so upset, the power isn't on, and it's the government's fault. Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama promised that they would do everything in the power of the government to ensure that everyone was okay in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy.

Well, this is your big government at work, how do you like it now? Aren't you glad you voted for these big government, left-leaning, socialist policy politicians? Please consider all this and think on it.

The Result Of Disobedience Is An Ishmael

Disobedience to the word of God can bring harm to us or put us in His permissive will. It is never His best that He has desired for us; it would be an Ishmael.

In Genesis chapters fourteen through twenty one God promised Abraham an heir that would come from his loins but his wife Sarah was old so she told him to lay with her handmaiden to bear a child for him. He did and the handmaiden conceived and gave birth to a son, Ishmael. However, this was not Gods perfect will; His will was for him to have an heir with Sarah, his wife. God covenant was with Abraham to make him a father of many nations but that covenant was in his son Isaac who Sarah gave birth to; not Ishmael.

We can be in the permissive will of God because He loves us but it is not His best; His best is His perfect will for us, which is where the fullness of His blessings lies. Sometimes being disobedient to the Lord will bring harm to us but He will always have a way of escape for us. Nevertheless, we might have to endure for a while; this was certainly the case with Sarah for she said to Abram in Genesis 16:5 my wrong be upon you. I gave my maid into your embrace and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me. Sarah regretted what she had request Abraham to do and apparently there were discord in Abraham's household which made him uncomfortable.

When we disobey the will of God, things will not go right with us. We might try to justify it but deep in our heart we will know the truth. We will know that we are not in His perfect will. A friend told me some years ago that God gave her the name of her husband but she got tired of waiting for him so she married someone else. The marriage was a disaster and she finally got out of it but the time that she spent in it was wasted time. It could have been best spent waiting on the promise of the Lord but we all have turned from the perfect will of God and gone after an Ishmael; the reason why I know that is true because the word said, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, we have a Redeemer; His name is Jesus and He will restore us to the perfect will of the Father. In Him there is life and life more abundantly.

Twelve years ago I disobeyed the Lord and went through a very difficult time, it was the worst time of my life but prior to that, God had given me His word. I decided to do something different but I paid for it. However, His word still stands and is true so I am still waiting for the manifestation of it. If I had obeyed Him back then, I would be in my promise land today. Disobedience brings delay.

The perfect will of God might seem long in coming but it is definitely better to wait for it than to receive an Ishmael.

By Lizzie Ducking

Allowing the Obama Administration to Play Angry Birds With Our Economy for 4 More Years, Why?

Before, the Junior Senator from Illinois had promised us during the 2008 election that if he was elected he would usher in a new age of alternative energy, bring back American jobs, and save us from economic ruin. Obviously, he hasn't done any of those things, but he still wants four more years to continue to institute his version of socialism because somehow he believes that might be best for America. The reality is it would be a disaster for our economy, and America's future.

Why should anyone vote for President Obama and his administration if they are just going to play Angry Birds with our economy in a second term? Their alternative energy strategy fell flat on its face, it was laden with political kickbacks, deals, and crony capitalism from the get-go. It was part of an overall scheme to create a carbon tax credit trading in Chicago, a new financial sector which would easily be worth $25 billion per year, and with that kind of money the Democrats could enjoy unlimited campaign contributions going forward.

It is amazing that so many Democrats decry what happened during the Enron years, and yet they want to duplicate that sort of crony capitalism, insider trading, and allowing their friends to scrape the cream off the top of our economy for doing nothing - this at the same time that they claim to care about the working man, about jobs, about education and the future of our children. It's all a bunch of horse crap. Yes, I admit that young man can read a Teleprompter fairly well, but the reality is he has allowed our economy to go to hell.

He tells us he's done well, that he's created jobs, that the economy is fundamentally fine, and all sorts of other things. It isn't. Corporations are afraid to spend and they are sitting on 10s of billions of dollars, well over 2.5 trillion in total so far if you add it up; why aren't they investing in America? Because it doesn't make sense to, they can't testify to their shareholders, and they can't afford to take the risk when the socialists have the nation's treasury and purse strings - who knows what they might try next, or what industry they may attempt to harvest for their agenda.

Indeed, the gentleman gives a wicked speech, and he can read those carefully prepared words that someone else wrote and deliver them almost flawlessly, almost enough to convince himself. No, I'm not calling him a psychopath, but I'm sure it's going through your mind. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt and realize he just doesn't know what he's doing, and his handlers control him well. Still, if we continue on this path we will rape and destroy all the abundance we have created in this great nation. He's asked for four more years; Request Denied.

What's With All the Government Security Paranoia - Why Are They Worried?

With all the sound and fury out here in the public domain we have begun to destroy the American psyche. In doing so, we have created a very large number of paranoid people and citizens. In turn, many of the citizens have infiltrated the government, and they no longer trust the people. What we have today is a citizenry that doesn't trust the government, and I might add for good reason, while we have a government which no longer trusts the people in which it is entrusted to serve.

When the government stops protecting the people or serving the people, and moves into a defensive position protecting itself against the people we are in for a real problem. I fear that is happening right now in the United States. Have you ever noticed that the government is busy protecting government facilities, rather than protecting our borders? Why is the government so worried about incidental and ancillary bureaucratic agencies in nondescript buildings?

The reality is they fear they might be attacked by angry citizens. However, why might the citizens be angry? We are supposed to be a government made for and by the people, but as government becomes too large, too centralized, and to overbearing it no longer serves the people, rather it acts as if it is a giant prison system within the borders of our nation. That's not what we signed up for, and that's not what the United States of America is about, as it crushes the ideals brought forth in the formation of this great nation.

On Homeland Security News Wire, there was an interesting article recently titled; "Domestic terrorism by members of extremist groups a serious threat: FBI," published on August 10, 2012 which stated:

"The FBI and other government law-enforcement agencies have been convinced for a while that terrorism from extremist domestic organizations is just as dangerous as terrorism from foreign organizations, but efforts by authorities to detect and pre-empt violent extremists have faced serious legal and political hurdles, including free speech guarantees and push back from political lobbies suspicious of the government's motives."

Right, surely there are groups suspicious of government's motives, but that's not a bad thing, that is a good thing, further, it seems that the FBI, Janet Reno, and others are indeed suspicious of citizen's motives calling American Citizens a bigger threat than foreign terrorist organizations - amazing actually. So, one has to ask why the leadership is so sketchy and paranoid? Do they have something to hide? If so, what is it? You see, we can play this game all day long, the tit-for-tat accusations of threat assessment.

Paranoia is very dangerous - and it is often pervasive in the Machiavellian world of political rhetoric, where no one can trust anyone else. Yes, it's true that trust is difficult to achieve, and hard to obtain, but when that happens organizational capital is diminished, it's every person for themselves in government, and they are always assessing new threats from the outside. In this case those on the outside happen to be all of us citizens.

Perhaps the government needs to stop their insistence on controlling every single aspect of individual citizen's lives. Taking away freedom once it has been granted and guaranteed to our citizens is not a noble thing to do, and it will come with consequences. As merely an observer of the flow of society, having my finger on the pulse of America, I see more storm clouds on the horizon between big government and individual citizens. I don't like what I see, and the trend is very troubling. Perhaps it's time we had regime change here the United States, and got back to being on the same team, and doing what were good at.

Our great nation works better when we have freedom and liberty for all, and legitimate upward mobility for those that perform, or decide to pursue that as part of their inherent rights to chase their own happiness. As we get further and further away from that we will have more and more citizens, and perhaps radicalized ad hoc group who are angry at the government, wishing to take back which has been taken from them and promised to them at their birth - whether actual or merely perceived. Who is really at fault here?

Isn't this unfortunate all this rhetoric further incited by the media which has put unnecessary stress on the minds of the masses? Is it the government which hopes to lead by fear rather than legitimacy or leadership by example? Is it both the citizen's fault for demanding too much, and the government's fault for being too paranoid? Perhaps it's some of all of that, but it's time we get back on the same page, back on the same team, and take the United States to the next level.

Although we are the greatest nation ever created, we can still do better than this - there is a lot of upward potential and room for improvement. Rather than hoping for change, perhaps it's time that we set some goals, got back to our strong foundation and enjoyed another 200 years at the top of the food chain. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Why On Earth Would Hollywood, A Free-Market Business Industry, Settle For Socialism?

The other day, a friend of mine told me that a certain actor was supporting Barack Obama for his reelection as president. I thought that was interesting, but then again; who cares? Sure, endorsements from famous people are important in politics, but that's a silly reason to vote for anyone. One thing I find quite fascinating is that Hollywood keeps supporting socialists who seek office, and many of them lean towards a communist political displacement themselves.

How can an industry which survives in the free-market and relies on people to watch their movie so they can make millions of dollars support anything except for free-market capitalism? If an entire industry is that silly to support candidates which will ruin the chances of survival of their bread-and-butter mainstay, and even their jobs, then how can you trust anything that they might think relative to politics?

You see, as the middle-class becomes smaller and smaller due to socialism and the attack on free-market capitalism there will be fewer people that will have the money and wherewithal to go see these movies at $10 a pop. This means Hollywood cannot survive within the domestic market, and they will have to seek moviegoers overseas to make money. Indeed, they don't make as much overseas because there is so much piracy going on, and let me let you in on a little clue.

In the summer of 2012 box office receipts were terrible overall, and Hollywood cannot enjoy staying in its heyday without an American middle-class to buy tickets domestically. Sure they can make money abroad but if the US economy doesn't stay healthy, no overseas nation is going to be batting a 1000 either. Meaning, there won't be anyone who will pay the big bucks to see those movies in the first place.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on September 4, 2012 titled; "Summer Box Office Closing With a Record Dud," by Erica Orden which stated; "A sluggish summer for Hollywood came to a close with a movie that earned the dubious distinction of the worst opening of all time."

What I'm saying is this; first, why and Earth would the people who run Hollywood and the major stars support socialism over free-market capitalism; and two, why on earth would you listen to a Hollywood movie star or their endorsement based on such poor judgment.

How can a Hollywood movie star spout communist or socialist leaning politics on one hand, and willfully have their hand out to collect money from free-market capitalism? Anyone who is that schizophrenic, probably doesn't have a lot of political sense, that's my guess. Please consider all this and think on it.

Driefontein Mission - A Tribute In Memorium

Prof.S. Modesto Tichapondwa

I wish to share memories and information about the founding Catholic mission, which is the headquarters of the Gweru Diocese. This is none other than Driefontein Mission, which has been the embryo of several catholic mission stations.

Let me start from outside, before going deep inside in order to illustrate the point raised in the last sentence above. From Driefontein was born the following mission stations: Holy Cross, Chaka, St. Joseph's Hama, Serima, Mapiravana, and Chinyuni Missions (all in Chirumhanzu). Govo Mission, which relocated from near Mvuma in 1970 to Silobela, as people migrated from Hunyani Reserve, is one of them. We then have Loreto outside Gweru, and Regina Mundi in the City. Chikwingwizha, the Minor Seminary, is the spinoff of the ever-expanding Catholic missionary work. It is at the turnoff between Gweru and Shurugwi, shortly after Guinea Fowl. Lest we forget, the Mambo Press (a Catholic institution), which is well-known for publishing books and other Literary works, is at the heart of Gweru City.

The Bishop's House is in Gweru at 77 Kopje Road, having relocated from Regina Mundi, and the premises at the latter are now used for skills training by candidates who want to become missionaries as Brothers. Now back to Driefontein, which is situated off the main road between Harare and Masvingo, some fifteen kilometres at the turnoff from Fairfield (towards the Eastern direction). It is also commonly known as Guta, and until recently has been surrounded by commercial farms owned by whites. Today, it is reported that all those farms have now been indigenized. Have you ever wondered how Driefontein came to be called Guta?

In his book Dzinza Ravagovera vaChirumhanzu naMutasa, Rev. Fr. I. Zvarevashe traces how Goveranyika who died in Mutasa in 1795 was the first chief of vaGovera (name derived from Goveranyika). His brother, Mhepo then led the group of vaGovera, passing via present day Chivhu where he made a beautiful dress (hanzu) for one of the chiefs, hence the name Chirimuhanzu. Mhepo settled near present-day Zoma Mine, in the area called Guzuve, and died in 1820. Originally, this group was of totem Tembo (Duve), but as they were running away from some extended family feud, they then called themselves Shumba-Tembo yokwa Chirimuhanzu.

After the death of his father, Nherera went to build his new city called Guta raNherera, where present day Driefontein stands. Some of his lieutenants went to settle in different parts beyond Nyautonge, Mavhaire and Ngezi rivers. Ruminu and Muteyo are some of the forests where people settled which extend to Chamakanda (Shwawumakanda), Chimwavaenzi, and Shayamavhudzi (Mvuma) where plentiful game and fruit abounded. Chamakanda, just to the West of Fairfield Railway Station, can still be seen today. It is a pit/cavity of 10 metres diameter, where hunters used to make fire, and dry meat before going back home with their spoil. Tastier meat was that one roasted with its skin, hence the name Shwawumakanda (improperly known as Chamakanda today) The grandson of Chigara has a field around the pit, which he has kept sacred. When I visit, we roast green mealies over an open fire, not meat any more as the crop of hunters is now in the dustbin of history. This is a place worth visiting.

The other families moved further West to Chaka near Shashe River. The family of Madhibha lives near the River, close to Gonawapotera pool where thieves and witches were drowned. Just across the river is Chivavarira hill, well-known for its significance during raids by the Ndebeles. Tandi and Jaravaza settled near Makosho, and further South other families settled. As you turn at Chaka into the rural area, you will hear names like Chitunya, Hutire, Guramatunhu, Shinyira, Chigara, Matura, Munanzvi, Chipengo, Bangure, Mundure, Kamanda, Takawira, Chiweshe, Machekano, Masendeke, Chituto, Burutsa, Zvarevashe, Mucheka, Mawire, Chipope, Zinyoro, Chakabveyo, and many others. The settlement is interspersed with hills like Chivavarira, Banya and Dungugwi. Govo and Huchu relocated during colonial times, and are found in Silobela and Gokwe North today. At Guta raNherera the family that has remained closest to the original city is: Mhere. Other families such as Maotsa, Manjengwa and Bhidhi settled in Serima, which is part of Gutu. The Serima Church is worth visiting for its artistic images developed over the years by Fr. Groebber, and was well-known for its church music composition by the likes of Stephen Ponde, a lay teacher.

One of the gallant sons in the liberation struggle was Leopold Takawira, and hails from Chirumhanzu. Known as the Lion of Chilimanzi he died at the hands of the colonial master in 1970, and was buried at Holy Cross Mission beside Maoregwe Hill. After independence, his remains were reburied at the Heroes Acre, and in his honour, Chirumhanzu became known as Takawira District, and the high school in Mvuma is named after him. As Dr. Godfrey Mahachi has rightly observed, the Chimney of Mvuma is quite a spectacle, and the visitor who comes to Gweru will be rewarded for his effort to pass by this old mining town to see the Chimney and the interesting mine dumps. All these are linked to Driefontein in more ways than one, for it is in this background that the missionaries and the Chirumhanzu residents dramatized their existence as they contributed towards what Gweru is today.

The story is long, but the point being made is that when you hear someone telling you who the founder of Driefontein Mission is, you will have some idea. But to make the story even fuller, let us now look at history that takes us to the present day.

The name Driefontein is Afrikaans for Three Fountains. Just as you move from Hunguru Station towards Muwonde Hospital, there were three fountains, and when the first missionaries settled in the valley near the stream in 1898, long after Nherera and his clan had settled, they named the mission Driefontein. Today the ruins of the first mission settlement can still be seen. The first missionaries were of the Jesuits Order, but later Bethlehem Fathers, originating from Switzerland and nuns from Germany took over. Some of the pioneer Catholics were Chigwedere, Modesto (Tichapondwa), Minya, Mhere, Kumbirai, Egidio, Bhasopo Moyo, Musemburi, Chipere, Reu, Chimbindi, Muteyiwa, Placido, Sixto, Madzivazvido, Sebastian, Julio, Otto, Munyuki, Musemburi, Ivo, Jacob, Chibhovo, Kumbweya and several others who have escaped my weak memory. These were the ones closely associated with the new site, the present-day mission station, which was established in 1908. When you stand by the church building (still in its original state as shown below) and look at the Fathers' House to the North, you will see 1908 written in brickwork.

Driefontein, with its rich history, is remembered for six main things. Its primary school, which was built in 1934, attracted students from Zvinjanja, Gutu, Serima, Chihota, and many other places. Numerous prominent citizens of Zimbabwe are products of Driefontein Primary School. Secondly, many artisans have been trained in the field of plumbing, metalwork, tailoring, home economics, agriculture, motor mechanics, and carpentry. The Mission also boasts of two major hospitals, namely, Driefontein Sanatorium (which specializes in the treatment of Tuberculosis), and Muwonde General Hospital. The latter was a reformatory for young offenders, before converting into a hospital. Fourthly, Driefontein is where the Gweru Diocese Regional House is. When the Bethlehem Fathers came from Switzerland, they were first taken to the Regional House, to learn Shona before deployment to the mission stations listed above. Today the Regional House has become the retirement home of the Catholic priests and brothers. Fifthly, Driefontein is the place where Catholic nuns are trained firstly, as candidates then through Novitiate to full order. The Mother General, head of the Catholic nuns of the Gweru Diocese, is resident at the Mother House. Sixthly, there are fascinating Bushman paintings at Madzimunyuchi Cave near Shashe River.

At Driefontein lie most of our heroes whose contribution to the struggle for civilization cannot be adequately recounted in words. Prominent among them are the likes of Father Cornelius Dober, Paul Bruggisser, Nicholas Bilgerig (the great teacher), Herman Nhariwa, Bishop Tobias Chiginya, Bishop Alois Haene, Bishop Mugadzi, and many others who lie restfully under the pine trees. Prominent teachers such as Joseph Chigoga Takaendesa, Michael Mhere (Teacher Gwiri), Pelagia Mhere, members of the Bassopo Family, Tichapondwa Modesto family, Musemburi family, and many others who have escaped the limited memory repose in peaceful silence.

Thus, Driefontein is more than just a mission station. It is an historical showpiece closely linked with Gweru. When you visit Gweru, and as you drive to Masvingo, pass via Mvuma, then before crossing the railway line, at Fairfield, turn to your left, and drive on through the sacred Muteyo Forest, and after passing Hunguru Halt, you will be seeing history unfolding as you share these superlative memory makers. Spend a night if you will, and take a retreat beneath the pine trees, then you can rejoin the main road to Masvingo and the Great Zimbabwe via Nyombi Railway Station. Just to your left, after crossing the railway line you will see a stone memorial signifying the place where Rev. Fr. Dober was murdered on 14 January 1969. He was murdered by somebody he was carrying on the motorbike. This was on the way to administer the last sacrament to someone who was said to be dying.

You will then join the main road at Nyamatikiti River. After travelling a few kilometres, you will see a country hotel to your right. It was formerly owned by West, and near it was a weaving centre that provided employment to women in Chirumhanzu. It is sad to note that the farm has been indigenized, and the vibrant activity is no more. Notwithstanding this, the place is of historical significance. This was the homestead of Chigara, son of Tandi and father to Tichapondwa (christened Modesto at Driefontein), Gore, Mufari, Tagarira, Valentine and other children of his. The grave can be seen just a few metres from the hotel wall. The heap of stones has been protected by rusty barbed wire, though the protection could be better, but who cares! But you can't miss it.

These are memories indeed! From Govera and Mhepo, through the diaspora of their children after Nherera settled at Guta to different parts of Zimbabwe as far afield as Guruve, Gutu and Mozambique. The coming of Roman Catholics, on a civilizing mission! A tribute indeed to Driefontein! Does it remain forgotten as a vital part of Gweru? Most probably the many who were coerced into forced labour when the Mvuma Chimney was built came from the Mhazi people. What can we do for Driefontein for all that it did for the national good? Are those missionaries who devoted their lives for the good of the citizens a recognized presence, or a mere fading memory? What memories still linger of Driefontein?

Social Justice Is Really the Right to Irresponsibility These Days

Redistribution of wealth is unhealthy, and the use of the term "social justice" doesn't do justice to fairness at all. If you have a few moments I'd like to explain what I mean, and set the record straight when it comes to those who demand that people of wealth are taxed more than people with very little. Why can't we have a straight across the board percentage for taxes?

Some say the rich have too many loopholes, but I would ask; who created those loopholes? It was the government, because the political leaders and bureaucratic government agency heads wanted to redirect the flows of money and capital to things that they believed in, or thought might be better for the nation, and so the wealthy people in their businesses often took advantage of those loopholes.

Now that the wealthy folks have done that, and the government has spent like drunken sailors, "no offense to drunken sailors who are actually spending their own money to buy that alcohol," all of a sudden we're calling the 1% greedy. I would submit to you that those who wish to steal their money, and hire the government to do it are indeed the greediest of all because once that money is taken by the government they want it redistributed to themselves. In many ways this is called stealing, in a triangular trade sort of fashion. Is that really justice for all? Is that socially right; of course it's not.

What I find most interesting is those who speak of social justice wish to give someone else's money to a cause they believe in, and they are willing to hire the government to steal that money, rather than giving money directly themselves. Of course, they say they don't have the money, the wealthy people do therefore, they should do it. Well, I think that perhaps we need to go into everyone's home who is poor or votes for Democrats, and take their TV away. We can then sell their TV for pennies on the dollar, and give that money to the poor homeless people in their own city. I bet if we went and stole everyone's TV set through some new mandate of government, that they would complain.

Often those that complain about social justice should really be looking in their mirror, and realize they've made irresponsible choices in their life, and that they need to work harder, work smarter, and make better decisions. You see, social justice is not the right to irresponsibility, despite what populist in socialist leaning leaders in the United States would have you believe. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

The Addiction of Prepping - Some Go Overboard

Prepping and being ready for a disaster is definitely a noble cause and will be very beneficial to your family. Most preppers are just regular people that feel being able to have stability during tough times is important. For the majority of preppers, the art of prepping can actually be a fun, learning and possibly competitive experience. Then I see the television show called Doomsday Preppers and feel like the media is really great at showing extremes. I understand this makes good television, but really doesn't show the average joe prepper.

While prepping is great, letting it take over your life is not. Some of these doomsday preppers seem to have gotten so addicted to prepping and survival that in some instances they have lost touch with reality. One of the episodes I saw was a father who was teaching his kids some great skills in self defense and using certain tools like throwing a hatchet. I felt this was a great bonding and teaching experience, but then the next thing I know, he is pointing a fake gun at his daughter (approximately age 8 or 9) to see how she would react. This was not during any practice or teaching session, but rather just one of the many random drills he did with his children quite often. I felt this was over the top and to the point of addiction (although I could be wrong).

Moderation is the key to most things in our lives. Maybe I am different than most preppers, but I feel that making prepping the most important thing in our lives actually makes us forget the reason why we do it. Most of us are prepping to make sure our friends and family are happy and healthy during a disaster. If we lose track of the actual reasons we are prepping, we may lose the things we have right now due to our own negligence and addiction to prepping.

There can also be a few other problems with prepping addiction. The first of which is that your prepping can easily turn into hoarding. Make sure that you have enough room for your survival storage and that it is in a location that is not intruding into your personal and living space. As rotating your food is important to prepping, it is a good idea to have a system of organization of your supplies. One of the things you don't want to do is have to sort through your whole storage to find one thing as this really slows you down and makes it hard for you to be quickly mobile if you need to bug out. Oftentimes, we make impulse buys on sale items, but then forget we have them when we need them; sometimes we don't even need the item to begin with. Try to first get all of the necessities that you will really need, and then at this point, if you have room, get the luxury or less essential items.

The last problem from prepping addiction is that we may spend more money than we should on our storage supplies. This is usually not a huge problem in the prepping community as many preppers are quite frugal and against frivolous debt. When prepping we are usually looking to the future, but we must not forget about the present. If we are not prepared for the present how can we be prepared for a much more difficult future? I would recommend starting a budget and sticking to it. It is amazing how much money is wasted on things we really don't need. If after really planning your finances (don't forget to save money, or buy assets like gold and silver) there is some money left over, then start your prepping storage. Even $10 a week can go far in prepping. Be realistic and don't fall into the impulse buying or you will be achieving the exact opposite of your goals.

To Trust, or Not to Trust, That Is the Question

An article appeared recently in the newspaper I read, which indicated that, according to the author, we Americans have lost our trust in pretty much everything. My question is, if this is correct, is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

In my writings, I have been advocating the questioning of authority, as well as promoting the idea that what we believe--our Belief Systems--have been Programed and Indoctrinated into us from the earliest years. When advocating the questioning of authority, it has not been my intent to suggest that one should stop trusting everything; the intent has been to encourage the search for that which can be, at least tentatively, trusted.

The article writer begins his thesis discussing the phenomenon, citing political indicators, such as a part of one major group questioning the authenticity of President Obama's Birth Certificate Document, and the opposing political group demanding to have access to Presidential Candidate Romney's Tax Returns, as evidence of this lack of trust.

Much of the current political lack-of-trust, finger-pointing, and questioning, can be attributed to the desire of each side to gain power over the coming four years, no mater how low they have to stoop to obtain that power. It could be claimed that each group truly believes that they are better qualified to lead--if we did trust them, that is, we might believe that. Other factions, such as the Tea Party, the Catholic Church and Fundamentalist Religions, all have an oar in this murky sea which has been created by what has been named, political "mudslinging."

Over the last few days I have come into social contact with a number of people, I did not know. When the subject turned to the current political scene, these individuals were not reserved in expressing their distrust of the current holders of power, as well as little trust in what they are being told as we approach another election in November.

Various precursors, creating the current state-of-mind of the electorate building over relatively recent years are not hard to find: the fall-from-grace of prominent Religious leaders; the betrayal of trust by major Banking Institutions and Corporations; the placing into office, by the Supreme Court, of George W. Bush, for a second term in office, despite the fact that he lost the election--the list can go on, and on.

As indicated above, this is not what is intended by me by encouraging the, "questioning of authority." The above cited aspects of our modern life, and other, "players" are, in fact, a major part of the, "authority" which must be questioned. It is clear, due to this being standard-operating-procedures on the part of the political parties in election years, that the creation a lack-of-trust has been deliberately created. Each year the nastiness sinks to an every lower level.

The flip-side of this ploy. however, is that, once you have lost the trust of anyone, or any collective group, it is very difficult to regain trust. These individuals and collective groups do not, however, have any understanding of, not only the concept of Trust, but of integrity, and honor, let alone value them. They have been playing with proverbial fire, by putting so much emphasis on questioning the integrity of others on such a grand scale that it can no longer be controlled.

Another, and related, leading indicator of our collective state-of-being, is a seeming general lack of honesty currently manifesting in students, as well as students and their parents' inability to even recognize that they were cheating when evidence of it has been presented. Not only are honesty, personal excellence, integrity, and hard work, as well as other such virtues not valued by students, these concepts are not even understood by the general populous.

The Act of Plagiarism, over-the-years, has cropped up regularly, in politics, and on the part of well-known public figures. While generally known to be present, to some degree in the past, it can now be said to be the norm for students, due to their access to the Internet. In fact, it seems to be a growth education-mini-industry. Interestingly, it has been reported that, as an experiment, an educator submitted a subject to a number of these sources; the papers returned were so badly written that they, if submitted by a student, would have received a failing grade!

Another major blow, adding to our collective lack-of-trust has been the number of highly publicized Ponzi schemes, which have been exposed over the recent years. The underlying requirement of these schemes is the Trust of many people in, frequently, one or a few other individuals/friends to invest their money for them. The underlying factor in all of these schemes is the expectation of a, "higher-than-to-be-expected rate of return on money invested." In other words, all of those who lost a great deal of money, due to the exposure of these fraudulent Ponzi schemes, should have suspected that all was not quite right with the investment.

I remember an instance, which occurred a number-of-years-ago. A friend told me about an investment suggestion made to her by a, "church-going friend of hers" which would provide a large return on an investment. It seems this investment had to do with the pornography industry. When my friend said she was not interested, the calling friend couldn't understand; Why not, after-all, it was a great investment?

It all comes down to having a sense of what is moral/honorable behavior, and what is not. In times past, a person's integrity was a matter of pride. To be known as Honest, Trustworthy, Reliable, etc., etc., no longer has any value. Cheating is so commonplace, it is taken-for-granted. In education, this has resulted in Teachers' general lack-of-trust in their students not cheating, or even learning, or desire to learn, what is being taught.

When one's trust has been lost in an individual, frequently the best one can do is to forgive, but few are able to, "forget," (which means to erase the experience from ones memories). As a result, a relationship can continue, but, usually with some reservations. Unfortunately, when one's general ability to trust has been undermined, regaining an ability to trust is very difficult. When trust has been undermined on such a broad scale as it seems to have currently, the only solution would seem to be an entire restructuring of the entire system. Such restructuring has generally been called a, "Revolution."

A number of such revolutions, which have taken place in the past, were intended to bring about changes which would result in a system which could be trusted. Part of our current dilemma is that such previous revolutionary changes, either have resulted is something which turned out to be no better, or actually worse, than the previous system. This, of course, has resulted only in a greater loss of trust.

I cannot say whether I believe this current state of lack-of-trust is a good thing, or a bad thing, in the long run. It has been said that an ancient Chinese Curse was, "May your children live in interesting times." We are all now living in, "interesting times," are we not?

The Low IQ TV Commentators Of the Left - Aren't You Embarrassed Yet?

Well, I hate to pick on the left-leaning socialist cable news station, but I almost feel that if I don't I am playing into the politically correct card that they portray. The other day I was listening to one of the cable news networks which was attempting to pretend to cover the 2012 Summer Republican National Convention and it seems that a certain commentator started spouting off about this, that, and the other thing. His comments were so shallow, obscure, leading, and utterly ridiculous that I actually watched it, rather than giving him the proverbial channel check - I wanted to see what sort of nonsense he might come up with next - it was so bad it was getting to be comical.

Indeed, I was amazed as he was interviewing other folks, and other commentary reporters, something I find quite hilarious when the commentators start interviewing each other and asking what their opinion is on a topic, when they aren't even the ones making the news, they're just reporting on it, as if they would know, or as if their opinion mattered. The less than high IQ TV commentator was treated with dignity and respect by all the other news reporters, they too were pretending that his questions and comments had validity but they certainly didn't.

It seems as if the dialogue on the TV was taken down well below the eighth grade reading level of our local newspaper. I was mortified and embarrassed for the individual, but then I realized he was playing to his audience. I'd like to think that the American people are smarter than that, but this gentleman is still on almost every single night talking about political matters. Does he really have a following, are people really listening to this horse crap I wondered? Apparently so, but I must tell you as an outside observer not bound to absolute political correctness in our society, I'm not afraid to say it.

If the left-leaning socialist media really wants to be taken seriously by the American people, then it needs to ditch the low IQ commentators making ridiculous comments, and voicing their unjustified opinion onto the masses. In fact, with news coverage like that, I cannot understand why that TV network even exists. Are they hoping to harness the viewership from the lowest IQ people in our country? Still, I would submit to you that many of those people don't have any money, and it isn't helping their advertisers very much.

Oh, but maybe it is because during the political season the left-leaning politicians buy lots of TV ads, and they are trying to secure their base of voters, this is why they tried to brainwash that segment of our population which is so easily misled by such horse crap. Now then, before you call me an intellectual snob, which I am not, I suggest that you go watch the socialist left-leaning cable TV media news which is reporting on political topics and trashing the conservatives. It is the most disgusting, deplorable, and pathetic showing of any cable TV programming ever witnessed in the history of humanity. Seriously.

Paranormal Activities: Devils

What are devils? They are not ghost or spirits. They have many names; jinns genie's, demons, shadow people, gray people etc.

The Muslims believe that God created three beings; Angels, humans and jinns(In other religions and cultures these are known as devils).

The jinns were created with 'smokeless fire' and are invisible although they exist on Earth. They live on another plane of existence and humans very rarely see them.

Jinns, like humans, may be good or evil. Like us they too have their own traditions, customs, families, religions etc

The Quran vaguely mentions some gifts these creatures have. They seem to be the power of invisibility, teleportation, the ability to travel to other planes of existence (thus allowing them to catch glimpses of the future), great strength and they are also able to communicate with man.

Like the bible, which warns man of the devil, the Quran also warns that some jinns may be evil and that they may induce man to commit sins.

In fact surah 2:102 in the Quran states that the jinns taught man magic which causes harm.

The bible verses are somewhat similar to that of the Quran's verses on these jinns/devils.

Bible verses talks in detail about the powers devils have which includes all that is mentioned Quran plus some additional abilities such as levitation, pyschokeniss, possession etc

Both the bible and the Quran seem to be of the opinion that these devils/jinns induce man to deviate from God. In fact the bible expressively states that these devils all work for Satan and are evil.

This seems to be the greatest difference between the bible and the Quran in the matter of the jinns/devils.

Where the Quran states that some jinns are good, the bible says all are evil.

Judaism also believes in these devils. There are three classes of devils. They could be evil nature spirits like satyrs. They could be the children of Lilith the first wife of Adam according to the Talmud. Mention of Lilith doesn't take place in Islam or Christianity. The belief is that Lilith was either too willful to stay in Eden or was too evil and thrown out of Eden. She cohabited with spirits producing demon offspring.

Some demons could be also humans who were not given a physical form. The latter, since they were deprived of a human form, are sometimes jealous of us humans and can cause us harm.

Judaism seems to see these devils as a tempter much like Christianity but they seem to be an agent of God rather than God's adversaries.

Their duty is to test man and though they try their best to succeed, they secretly hope that they fail.

These devil like creatures in Judaism also have many supernatural abilities mainly they have the power of possession as well as the ability to have sexual relationships with humans. They also seem to like disturbing and upsetting humans.

Curiously, other than the monastic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, many other religions also belief in these devil/jinn creatures.

Hinduism calls these creatures' Asuras. Asuras are supernatural spirits that can be good or evil. Some are noble whereas some challenged God himself.

Buddhism also believes in demons. Notably that of Mara who came many times to tempt Buddha away from the path of enlightenment. In Buddhism, devils seem to act much like the devils in Judaism in the sense that they try to test man.

Some common beliefs of these jinns/devils/demons are that they occupy empty homes. This is one reason why some Muslims give the 'salaam'(peace) greeting even when they enter an empty house. This is also why some Muslims do not like to leave a home uninhabited for long.

Another common belief of some Muslims and Christians is that these creatures like to torment some people. These creatures can move things, imitate the voices of people they know, open and close doors etc. On a more serious level they can also possess or drive people insane.

Some Jews believe that besides insanity, devil are to be blamed for various illnesses including blindness.

There some conjectures that aliens, fairies, Doppelgangers as well as other supernatural entities in popular folklore are actually these jinns/devils/demons. I found the following websites rather interesting

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/past.html, http://www.thejinn.net/

These websites have some interesting explanations on how some of the greatest mysteries on earth such as the presence of aliens and UFOs can be explained using devils/jinns.

The Ramifications of Concentrated Media Ownership

All Australian citizens should be concerned about the way our country is governed. Many questions should be addressed, such as 'who controls the papers that we read, the radio that we listen to; the television stations that we watch and the news providers on the Internet?' Concentrated media ownership means that there can be no freedom of the press, if only a few powerful corporations are allowed to control it. Political parties and politicians are dependent upon the media to ensure their message is heard. It is common knowledge that media owners concentrate on getting their views favourably printed, and editors and journalists exert their influence in setting the public agenda.

The top ten daily Australian papers are controlled by either Murdoch or Fairfax interests. These newspapers are the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, Courier Mail, West Australian, The Advertiser, The Age, The Australian Financial Review and The Mercury. The extensive population that reads these newspapers are under the influence of a concentrated media ownership, which does not necessarily give a fair and equitable account or accurate information.

News Corp, which is owned by the Murdoch's, is a worldwide media conglomerate, which also owns around fifty percent of the Australian capital city daily papers as well as television media. John Fairfax Holdings (Rural Press Ltd.) owns twenty eight rural newspapers and a number of capital city daily papers. The Packers have a vast television and magazine empire. Murdoch owns three of Britain's largest national papers, including the recently demised News of the World as well as satellite broadcasting companies in more than a dozen countries, book publishing companies, Festival Records and 20th Century Fox.

It is alarming and disconcerting to realise that since the 1960's, around ninety percent of what Australians read in newspapers, hear on the radio and watch on television are the products of companies controlled by the Murdoch's, Packer's and Fairfax's. During the 1970's, Murdoch began buying properties in England, most notably BSkyB satellite system. In 1985, Murdoch became a U.S.citizen in order to meet regulatory requirements for the purchase of Federal Communication Commission controlled licences for the U.S. television industry.

Murdoch later expanded into Asia with Star TV, a satellite based system that broadcasts across many nations, particularly India and China, acquiring 64% of it in 1993. In 2002 Star TV posted a profit for the first time. Murdoch's youngest son, James, and Rupert's Chinese born wife Wendy Ding, ran Star TV jointly. Rupert's daughter Elisabeth, served as a general manager of BSkyB in the 1990s, but has since left the company. She continues to be involved in mass media by running her own production company. The eldest son, Lachlan, is senior executive at News Corp.

The result of concentrated media ownership enables the individual who controls a large proportion of media that the public rely on, to showcase their views and opinions by subtly influencing the coverage of news events and the way they are portrayed. Politicians are dependent upon the support of the media outlets, in order to gain traction in their electorates. As the interface between politicians and votes, the media is uniquely placed to influence the outcome of elections.

The relationship between the media and advertisers means that the media are dependent upon advertisers for their profitability, which opens doors for major advertisers to influence the integrity of media, when it comes to reporting controversial topics, for example, conservation, global warming etc. The power exercised by companies seeking favourable reporting of their interests is discreet, hidden and can ultimately be subversive. The threat of withdrawing support from a media concern which could adversely affect their profitability, is often enough to ensure that the company gets favourable news coverage, which it may or may not deserve.

To achieve a healthy democracy it is imperative that citizens be fully informed on the issues facing them. Therefore, it is essential that people have access to information which is devoid of bias, and personal prejudices. A diverse media reflecting at the very least, the diverging viewpoints that exist in society will enable citizens to make informed decisions. When information is filtered, controlled and slanted to reflect viewpoints of an interested, influential and often wealthy group, informed decisions are unlikely to be possible. People will be manipulated to make decisions according to the whims of those who control the media. In a healthy democracy it is essential that everybody has access to information presented in the media, devoid of bias and prejudice which will enable them to make up their own minds and vote accordingly. If the media is controlled by a select few, citizens are at risk of receiving biased, inaccurate information and being manipulated into making decisions that are not necessarily in their own best interests.

The Erosion of the Greatest Country Ever Known

My how the world has changed. Upon waking this morning, as I have every morning for the last 41 years, I couldn't help feeling more than a little dismayed after turning on the radio and hearing the latest news; I'm not referring to the entertainment that is passed off as news by the "mainstream media" on a daily basis, but to the real news of the day that will profoundly affect us all from this day forward. Regrettably, the outlets that make up the "mainstream media" are at the very least negligent and more accurately complicit to a significant degree in the decline of the greatest society on planet Earth. Where should we start?

I was born a few short years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the height of the Vietnam War. I vaguely remember the gas rationing lines of the seventies. With amazing clarity I remember the day the space shuttle exploded, claiming the lives of all those on board, of course. Crista McAuliffe and crew were patriotic and adventurous Americans who wore their love of country and sense of duty on their sleeves in advancing our previously unmatched space program. None of the crew of the space shuttle Challenger were compelled to undertake the mission that resulted in the loss of their lives. Every one of the astronauts aboard the shuttle that day went eagerly and excitedly at the prospects of expanding America's leading role in space exploration.

Sadly, we no longer have an active space program, and the concepts of love of country and sense of duty are disturbingly absent among the malcontents who are shamelessly, and in many instances blindly, besieging scattered cities all over this great country, along with all the radical leftist politicians and others who openly, and very foolishly support them.

The memory of the day that the greatest American president of my lifetime was shot is still fresh in my mind. The world waited with great angst to hear that the leader of the free world would survive, and in fact, profoundly change the world for the betterment of all mankind.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and communism in the old Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are only part of Reagan's broad legacy. The quintessential American president, Reagan not only firmly believed in and embraced the timeless concept of American exceptionalism, he embodied it. A champion of personal liberty and a staunch believer in the power of the individual, the man governed like no other American president, certainly over the last four decades. His policies of slashing both corporate and individual income tax rates for everyone across the board in the mid-eighties led to the most unprecedented and sustained period of economic growth the world has ever seen.

Standing in stark contrast to Reagan, the current president and his administration have pursued and enacted policies that have accelerated the decline of the "shining city on the hill," as Reagan proudly referred to America on many occasions. Barack Obama and his ilk continually espouse the valor and compassion of "the collective," at the expense of every last one of us as individuals. The greatest transfer of wealth in human history is currently being carried out under our noses. We all see it; many of us are attempting to call the administration on it. Unfortunately, what most of President Obama's supporters didn't realize when they elected him in 2008 on his hyper-generic platform of "hope and change," was that the transfer of wealth was not going to happen domestically, but globally. It is not as though I believe that the man's intentions are bad, per se, only that as an ultra-liberal idealist, he is incredibly misguided as are the minions surrounding him. I distinctly recall hearing this man say only days before the election of 2008, "we are days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America, and then the world." I also heard him say that he would kill the coal industry in this country and make it even more difficult for us as Americans to harvest the obscenely abundant natural resources that we were blessed with by our Creator.

In fact, I heard the candidate Obama say many things that most rationally thinking Americans instinctively know to be completely antithetical to who we are as Americans. We older folks who have grown up with a love of history know that the prophetic words of Reagan, "Freedom is not inherited. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, preserved, and handed on to them so that they may do the same," are significantly more profound in the light of current world events. Just within the last twelve months, the following have occurred:

The brutal suicide attempt of a Tunisian produce vendor who amazingly set himself on fire after being harassed by local Tunisian authorities because he didn't have a permit to sell his wares. The uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and in fact the entire Middle East, as well as large parts of Europe, are indeed beginning to manifest themselves here. What is possibly more important here is to remember that President Obama roundly praised the "glorious democracy movement," that is the Arab Spring. The open dialogue of self-declared communists and other Marxist factions within our own current presidential administration and those occupying Wall Street, calling ceaselessly for the dismantling of our largely free-market capitalist economy, by violent means if necessary. As we have been and continue to down-size our nation's military and its capability to operate effectively, Red China has continued to bolster hers over the course of the last couple of decades particularly, culminating recently with the announcement of the arrival of the communist power's first super-carrier. Is China under some sort of imminent threat? Israel has once again been squarely placed in the cross-hairs of radical Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood (not a friend of any freedom-loving American, or Israeli, for that matter) is taking control in Egypt with a sworn stated mission to "wipe out the state of Israel." The news of the emergence of the new Nazi Party now operating in Egypt conjures memories of WWII and the Holocaust, when the Muslim Brotherhood was working closely with Hitler and the Third Reich to eliminate the Jews. It would seem as though those two historic allies have once again joined forces in their calls to eradicate the Jews. A particular fundamental Islamist group, banned almost everywhere in the world for their extreme fundamental and Jihadist practices and beliefs, recently conducted a conference in Chicago, Illinois (not to be confused with Chicago, Pakistan), on the imminence of the new Islamic Caliphate (for those not aware, the term caliphate literally means Islamic dominance over the world, or large parts of it). We see it beginning with a widely displayed aggressiveness in openly and adamantly proclaiming their wishes to destroy Israel. The Peoples Republic of Iran recently admitted to their leaders' intentions to launch warships to "shadow" the American coast. Ask yourself, for what purpose, exactly? These paragons of tolerance and peace are dangerously close to having functional nuclear weapons, and most of the rational world knows that they will in fact use them. Of course, our ally in the Middle East, Israel, also knows this all too well. The president of the United States is currently granting back-door amnesty to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with the dual intent of further crippling the US economy (and that of the world, by extension), while also clearly trying to "buy" votes. All the while, our southern border is a warzone ran by vicious drug cartels, who, by the way are working with militant Islamists who know that they can infiltrate this country with relative ease. Because the administration has turned a blind eye to the absolutely frightening activities taking place on the border, sovereign states along the border have been forced to either enforce existing laws, or to draft new legislation to give them the power to defend the citizens of those states. Strangely, all of these border states currently being overrun by the conditions along the border are being strongly criticized, and in fact sued by the federal government for taking actions that are, in essence, the primary responsibility of the United States government. We have sitting governors of American states suggesting quite candidly and openly that maybe we should "suspend the elections, just for a couple of years." Governor Bev Perdue went on to say that we shouldn't hold these lawmakers responsible for their actions while they do what is needed to right the ship.

Yes, there were a few primary news outlets broadcasting the significant events of the day when I was young, but it is impossible to deny that the news of our current day is exponentially more prevalent and telling of a world seemingly teetering on the brink of cataclysmic demise of sorts. So bleak are the implications, seemingly compounded almost daily, and certainly on a regular weekly basis, that it is increasingly difficult to be optimistic of much. As dark as the last few pages of this article are, there are indeed things to be optimistic about, and I will mention some of those at the conclusion of this piece in an attempt to illuminate the hopeful vibe that seems to be catching among my conservative friends and neighbors.

Before I begin passing out the sunshine and lollypops though, I need to take a minute to address the horribly oppressed and grossly under-privileged souls that are continuing to cost the taxpayers of the state of New York, as well as the business owners in the areas of these various occupations obscene amounts of money at a time when so many of this nation's states are in extreme financial distress. Of course we know that the intent of those who have indeed orchestrated this "grass-roots" movement is to "overwhelm the system," theoretically inducing the fall of capitalism and the American economic system as we know it. One may be inclined to laugh at these fools then quickly dismiss them. I would humbly suggest that one should not dismiss these people. They are incredibly dangerous; moreover, the more tragic reality may well be the blissful ignorance of the young college twenty-something who has no real idea why he or she is there.

These idealistic young fools (of whom I once was) in their call for Marxism, communism, or simply something other than what has fueled this country for in excess of 230 years, have no real conception of what they ask for. Statism in all its forms is characterized by out-of-control tyrants dictating (indeed engineering) public policy. Private property rights as you and I know them simply do not exist in statist societies. Political dissent and opposition are mere fantasy in Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venezuela, Ahmadinejad's Iran, Kim Jung Il's North Korea, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and etc.

Another staple and common element of these regimes (one and all) is crushing tax burdens to finance a massive central government. This is true without exception. Bloated bureaucratic expansion and fiscal suicide inevitably ensue. The prophetic words of Rousseau ring true in the end: (paraphrasing) "the welfare state will ultimately and invariably collapse under its own massive weight." How such an astute claim could be controversial or ambiguous is beyond my meager intelligence. With a firm understanding of the dangers of statism, how could anyone in clear conscience, or better yet, in one's own interest, support such a flawed ideology?

The good news my friends (conservative and liberal alike) is that there are a great many of us who grasp the obvious implications of an erosion of the greatest country the world has ever seen. Those of us who are aware will continue to fight the good fight with resolve and courage. We do not have to be overtaken by communist China in terms of our economy or our standing in the world; furthermore, we will not cow-tow to anyone suggesting that Sharia Law has any place in the American justice system. We will not assume a submissive position in terms of safeguarding our borders. We refuse to allow the Marxist and openly communist factions of this country to tax our babies into economic servitude. There is indeed an unexpected miracle of sorts in the midst of all this mess: people are becoming increasingly more engaged. The collective overreach of our nation's capital has thankfully awakened a sleeping giant.

It is time to decide which side of the fence one is on. There is a monumental battle about to unfold in this country. This will in all honesty be the fight of our generation. As the man once said: "Freedom is only one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in our bloodstream. It must be protected, preserved, and fought for so that we may pass it on to them to do the same." As he was on so many occasions, Reagan could not have been more correct, and somewhat prophetic given today's political climate. This is what things have come to. I would encourage my freedom-loving friends to work on our endurance. The fight is on. It is likely to be brutal, but in the end my friends, we win.

The Death Penalty - Ineffective, Irrational and Fiscally Irresponsible

Revenge is not sweet when it comes too late. Neither is justice. Whether the death penalty provides revenge or justice, it is ineffective and expensive.

Capital punishment, popularly know as the "death penalty", is built on two premises. The first premise is societal. The death penalty is supposed to protect society by deterring potential criminals from committing heinous crimes. The second premise is justice-mostly for the aggrieved family and friends of the victim(s). In death penalty case, the victim is usually dead.

Reality fails theory on both counts! On the face of it, the premise of deterrence seems to make sense; the more severe the potential punishment, the more likely that a potential offender will be deterred. However, that logic only applies if the crime is premeditated and the punishment is certain.

In third grade I knew the consequences of stealing gum at Wunrow's General Store in Potter, Wisconsin, a tiny village just a mile from our farm. The consequences would be corporeal punishment--a spanking from my father. If Mr. Wunrow caught me, he would have told my parents and I would have taken "a trip to the woodshed" with my father. Actually, my father didn't bother with the trip to the woodshed. He used his belt-a culturally acceptable alternative to a willow whip.

The consequences of actually getting caught at home by my mother were even worse than the probable consequence of getting caught in the store by the grocer. My mother noticed that I was chewing a lot of gum and got me to admit that I had stolen it. She was the hardest person on earth to lie to. She didn't use the woodshed, she took me back to Wunrow's General Store. I had to walk into the store during business hours and tell Mr. Wunrow what I had done, apologize and ask what I could do to atone for my sins.

Had the potential punishment been more severe-like chopping off one of my hands, I would probably not have taken the chance for a couple of packs of gum. In some societies, the consequences of even minor crimes are that severe. If the punishment does not fit the crime, deterrence works. Western societies place a high value on the individual and are generally not willing to inflict so severe a punishment on some individuals to teach the rest of the population a lesson about consequences..

Consider political protest in the United States. Over the years protestors have often stretched the limits of peaceful gatherings and free speech. They understood that they might be arrested, spend a few hours in jail, and motivate the FBI start a file on them. The consequences of their actions, a few hours in jail and a FBI file, had limited deterrence value.

I participated in the biggest peace rally in the history of the country-the anti-Vietnam War March on the Pentagon in Washington D.C in 1967. At the end of the rally, some protesters proceeded all the way to the building where the Vietnam war was being planned. I chose not to help break down the wire fence around the Pentagon because I saw no need to spend a night in jail. The other four guys, who I traveled with from Nashville, Tennessee, intended to make a statement against the War by getting arrested. They helped tear down the fence and rushed into the Pentagon grounds. They were arrested, charged with a minor crime and released before dawn the next day.

If I had been a potential protestor in Tibet I would not have made the trip to Lhasa--the Provincial Capital of Tibet, or Beijing, National Capital city of China.-I would have been deterred because I know that the Chinese army might execute me. The first time I traveled to China my friends were worried about my safety. When I got home I told them China was the safest place I had visited. Because the punishment for crime was so severe, deterrence worked. (Corruption is a different matter in China and many countries-it is socially sanctioned.)

As the crime gets more serious, deterrence loses its power for two reasons. First, society runs out of punishments with consequences that are well know to potential criminals because of their severity. Wunrow's General Store would not have lost any more gum to young thieves, if just one kid was walking around Potter with a hand, or even a finger, missing. Drunk driving would much less of an issue if drivers with more than 0.80 blood alcohol involved in a car or boating accident were drown in a sealed casket of beer. Fewer CEOs would "cook the books" if the punishment was a lifetime of working the midnight shift as a janitor in the office building where he had previously had an office in the top floor. Deterrence only works if the punishment is well know, strictly enforced and disproportionately high compared to the crime.

Second, the most heinous crimes are not committed by rational people, thoughtfully considering the possible consequences of their acts. Deterrence depends on reason outrunning emotion-not the case for most potential death penalty offenses. The expectation of long prison sentences for armed robbery, assault and rape probably have some deterrence value. However by the time crimes get serious enough in our society to merit consideration of the death penalty, the perpetrators are so far beyond rational judgment that deterrence is unlikely.

Some societies are willing to be pre-emptive. To incarcerate for life or put an individual in front of firing squads, based simply on the suspicion that they will commit crimes-especially treason or other political "crimes". Since our democracy puts great value on individual freedom, we maintain that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Surely, we believe, no one can be guilty of a crime they have not yet committed. In other societies (past and present), the legal system is frequently used to get rid of the criminally inclined and the political active.

So if the death penalty has little if any deterrence value, doesn't it serve a justice function? Do the public in general, and friends and relatives of victims in particular, feel better if the monster is put to death? Perhaps. However, that feeling would be no less salient and satisfying if the death penalty was not an option. If some other form of punishment, rather than putting the criminal to death, was the expected and most severe form of justice available, trials and publicity would revolve around those options available to the judge.

Is capital punishment more severe punishment than life in prison? At least in terms of deterrence, potential criminals might view life behind bars as worse than death. A good number of inmates commit suicide. Perhaps both criminals and law-abiding citizens view life behind bars as delivering more justice than the electric chair or lethal injection.

Then, there is the money argument. It is extremely costly to sentence someone to death, put them on death row, proceed through the appeals and court injunctions to eventually (years later) execute them. While life sentences are also very expensive, capital punishment cases are much more so. Those states that allow capital punishment pay dearly for every criminal they execute. Maryland taxpayers dish out dish out about $3M for each execution while "life in prison" costs them $1.1m per inmate. California with ~ 700 inmates on death row spends $184M more per year than it would if those prisoners life sentences. Kansa does capital punishment on the cheap:$1.26m per execution and $740,000 for lifetime guests. Texas splurges with 300 people on death ultimately costing $2.3M a pop. In contrast, Michigan and Wisconsin outlawed capital punishment soon after gaining statehood (160 years ago). In every year since 1990, murder rates have been substantially higher in states with the death penalty than in states without capital punishment.

Finally, there is the stark reality that the wrong person might have been convicted of the heinous crime.

The death penalty is usually debated as a moral issue. Ministers, politicians and high school debate teams have argued the morality of society committing legalized murder. There is no need for debate. The morality question does not need to be raised.

Even if capital punishment were considered morally acceptable, as it is in most western and southern states, it is impossible to defend the death penalty on any rational grounds. The death penalty has not been shown to effectively deter the heinous crimes to which it might be applied. In a democratic society, it takes years for death sentences to wind their way through the appeals process. Holding someone on death row for years and finally executing him is very expensive. In the end, justice delayed Is justice denied. Most families and friends of victims would prefer closure with a life prison sentence to years of public reminders of the crime and yet another traumatic date set for execution of the perpetrator.

The death penalty is ineffective, irrational and fiscally irresponsible. A relic of the Dark Ages and dark minds.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Sponsor Links