Russia's back at it again folks.
Putin continues to strengthen a his forces along the Ukrainian border while simultaneously cutting off imports of American and European food while also flexing and even increasing Russia's global military presence.
Military news:{Russia re-opens cold war era intelligence base}
Russia has reached an agreement with Cuba to re-open a cold-war era intelligence base located in Cuba, some 150 miles off the U.S. coast.
The base is, or rather listening and intelligence gathering complex, is used specifically to spy on U.S. communications. That alone is not alarming by any means, we do the same to them albeit at further distances. What is alarming is simply the fact they are doing it all. They had originally closed the base due to operating costs and after running some-sort of cost-benefit analysis they probably figured their time and resources could be put to better use elsewhere. The U.S. was not a threatening them and if anything, we were on fairly peaceful relations with them back in 2001 when the base had originally closed.
Additionally, this comes a year after the Snowden scandal. You remember him right? The third party intelligence analyst that made the mistake of betraying his country. Hence why this is a bigger deal than it would seem. Not even the U.S. government is entirely sure what information he has given the Russians. We can be assured by the actions Russia is taking, that the information Snowden leaked to the Russian government has encouraged them to act more boldly against the U.S. than they have since the days of the Soviet Union.
I don't believe this is a simple coincidence. I am fully convinced that Snowden handed them fairly sophisticated information regarding our defensive and intelligence capabilities as well as information regarding our less-known exploits around the globe. Oh, and one more: I believe Snowden had information pertaining to our relationships with several key nations around the globe. Information that is the result of both diplomatic-relations and for a lack of a better word, spying.
There are two more reasons that help reaffirm my belief that Russia has more knowledge of the inner-working of our intelligence gathering capabilities and defense than they ever have:
Russian incursions of US airspace
Russia, Iran oil deal, Russia seeking to bypass the dollar
On the issue of Russian incursions of US airspace:
The Russians are flying more aircraft more closely and more frequently around and sometimes even in U.S. airspace than ever before.
They have always enjoyed flying close to our borders or close to our aircraft, so in one respect it's nothing new. However, what is new is just how close they are flying our borders, to our military aircraft and ships operating in international waters, and how often they are doing. Most of the aircraft they're flying are extremely out-dated and don't pose much of a threat if any at all. Save for one: the TU-95 Russian Bear H bomber. This is an extremely out-dated monolith of a plane. It's not even a jet! It has four massive turbo-props!
Hearing that news, you might think "no big deal then, sounds like a cold-war relic." Well true, it is a cold-war relic and wouldn't normally be much of a threat if it was simply a bomber. But the TU-95 is no ordinary bomber, it's cargo isn't a simple 500lbs JDAM. It's actually a nuclear war-head. Whether or not they're carrying nuclear war-heads when they fly along U.S. borders and sometimes within U.S. borders is not known and frankly it's inconsequential because they're nuclear capable and were designed specifically to carry nuclear war-heads over a target and drop them. This makes it a serious threat and a geopolitical nightmare. It's basically the Russian way of giving us the finger. It's incredibly dangerous and hostile to us as Americans. Furthermore, it shows an incredibly naive and reckless Russian government.
On the issue of the Russia-Iran oil deal:
This is nothing new really. Russia has always supported any U.S. hater out there.
What is new, is how far-reaching their deals are becoming and how accommodating they've become to potential allies. For instance, they completely erased the debt owed to them by Cuba. They have consistently gone around U.S. and EU sanctions to create alliances and deals with several nations including Turkey, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Iran, knowing that these countries are unstable and even dangerous to the U.S. and EU.
Russia has fostered diplomatic relations with those previously mentioned countries as well as economic ties through brokered gas and oil deals, military munitions contracts, and most recently, they have begun a huge push to eliminate the dollar as a global currency that every other currency is pegged to.
Which leads to....
Russia seeking to bypass the dollar:
By partnering up with China, India, Turkey, and even south American countries like Brazil, is an incredibly smart economic move to make against the U.S. They're leading the push to de-dollar the world more than ever which will hurt the U.S. economy as we'll see a drop in the demand of our currency and an uptick in the demand for other nations currencies. In a way, this was inevitable. But the degree to which they're pushing is get rid of the dollar is stronger than it's ever been and is clearly aimed at hurting the U.S. economy.
All these actions put-together point to a Putin fear-mongering within the Russian government to help create an unstable world where confidence in U.S. power is weakened to such a state that we become the bad-guys.
My personal opinion of Putin is that he is a military-minded man, not a man capable of understanding economics or any sophisticated science. He is governed by his own cold-war era mindset and is becoming increasingly dangerous and unpredictable. This doesn't make him retarded or stupid by any means! No, he know's what he is doing and is going about it mostly through sophisticated means.
Arguably the more pressing concern here is what the U.S. and EU will do. So far, they have both failed miserably at deterring Russian aggression and showing any guts whatsoever. We have both become passive, patient, and almost too hopeful for world peace to acknowledge and take action against those who threaten it.
The U.S. is by no means a peace-seeking country. We have solidified our place in history as a war-mongering nation and today is no different than it was thirty years ago. However, what has changed is our fortitude and degree of ignorance of world affairs. Our foreign policy is worse now than it quite possibly has ever been in the history of our proud nation. Thanks to the Snowden revelations, two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a poor campaign against terrorism that stretches across the entire globe, and a failure to secure our allies both militarily and economically.
Putin can clearly see our weaknesses and is doing everything he can to capitulate. Brokering deals with our former allies, forging relationships with anti-U.S. governments, and pushing forward a new world that doesn't depend so much on U.S. economic activity.
Before, we had Bush jr. Though not a "good" president by any definition of the word, he did have the balls to stand up to Russian aggression. He essentially kept Russia "in-check" by always playing offense. Obama has taken more of a defensive stance with Russia and combined with his many other mistakes has helped to create a more emboldened Russia.
Before we had Clinton, Bush sr. Reagan, etc. All these former presidents who were far from perfect had one thing in common: the same policy of dealing with Russia/Soviet Union aggression. They understood how to deal with the Russians and how to keep them from endangering the world. Reagan helped to create a path by which many of the later presidents could and did follow up until the current administration.
If we want to put-Russia in check again we have got to improve our foreign-relations, solidify stronger alliances, clamp-down on "super" or "hyper-capitalism", adjust our campaign against terrorism in such a way that civilian deaths are significantly decreased, and push-forward a policy of non-violent muscle-flexing.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Edward Snowden
By now everyone has heard of Edward Snowden and the documents he has been leaking via The Guardian newspaper.
I just wanted to make a quick statement on him here.
First, it is important to highlight what we may consider to be "good" or of "importance" to both the U.S. and the world. He brought to the attention of the world, the vast depth and breadth of U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities within the U.S. and abroad.
And it came as a shock. Previous to Snowdens revelations, few people had any understanding of the complex reach that U.S. intelligence agencies were capable of. Certainly no mass population knew that their every digital footprint was being recording, analyzed, and filed away.
Americans weren't necessarily shocked at being spied upon, rather they were shocked at how much they were spied upon. Every e-mail, instant message, video call, and key stroke were being recorded. Some of us weren't surprised by such spying, but were certainly surprised to hear about phone conversations being recorded, webcams that were manually activated and recorded by government agents, and basically every facet of our lives scrutinized by a dishonest and fearful government.
Such revelations were good for democracy and society. Because we the people are supposed to be the masters of our government, not the other way around. And the spying that was happening domestically, was also (and still is) occurring abroad in nearly every country around the world.
But, Snowden for all his bravado, courage, and smarts, proved himself too good to be true.
Snowden made a series of mistakes, mistakes that were intentionally you might say and were well thought of to the best of his ability, and it is these mistakes that have proven him to be less intelligent and courageous than he otherwise might be perceived.
Mistake #1:
He fled. Fleeing is for cowards, especially as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. He would not have been killed, but he certainly would have been prosecuted and likely served a lengthy jail sentence. Turning him into something of a martyr which would in turn give greater emphasis and influence to his intelligence leaks.
Mistake #2:
He fled to the wrong place. Whether he had hoped or expected to remain in Russia is uncertain, but fleeing there ultimately proved he had run short on logic. Russia is the one and only longtime legitimate U.S. threat and counterweight. Essentially, Russia is our rival and has been since the days of the Soviet Union. They obviously had selfish intentions with him and it would be these intentions that would help propel their expansionist agenda later.
I just wanted to make a quick statement on him here.
First, it is important to highlight what we may consider to be "good" or of "importance" to both the U.S. and the world. He brought to the attention of the world, the vast depth and breadth of U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities within the U.S. and abroad.
And it came as a shock. Previous to Snowdens revelations, few people had any understanding of the complex reach that U.S. intelligence agencies were capable of. Certainly no mass population knew that their every digital footprint was being recording, analyzed, and filed away.
Americans weren't necessarily shocked at being spied upon, rather they were shocked at how much they were spied upon. Every e-mail, instant message, video call, and key stroke were being recorded. Some of us weren't surprised by such spying, but were certainly surprised to hear about phone conversations being recorded, webcams that were manually activated and recorded by government agents, and basically every facet of our lives scrutinized by a dishonest and fearful government.
Such revelations were good for democracy and society. Because we the people are supposed to be the masters of our government, not the other way around. And the spying that was happening domestically, was also (and still is) occurring abroad in nearly every country around the world.
But, Snowden for all his bravado, courage, and smarts, proved himself too good to be true.
Snowden made a series of mistakes, mistakes that were intentionally you might say and were well thought of to the best of his ability, and it is these mistakes that have proven him to be less intelligent and courageous than he otherwise might be perceived.
Mistake #1:
He fled. Fleeing is for cowards, especially as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. He would not have been killed, but he certainly would have been prosecuted and likely served a lengthy jail sentence. Turning him into something of a martyr which would in turn give greater emphasis and influence to his intelligence leaks.
Mistake #2:
He fled to the wrong place. Whether he had hoped or expected to remain in Russia is uncertain, but fleeing there ultimately proved he had run short on logic. Russia is the one and only longtime legitimate U.S. threat and counterweight. Essentially, Russia is our rival and has been since the days of the Soviet Union. They obviously had selfish intentions with him and it would be these intentions that would help propel their expansionist agenda later.
Mistake #3:
It is very, very likely that he has more important documents than simple spying habits of U.S. government agencies. It's quite probable that he has important, classified military and national defense documents that, if in the wrong hands could pose a risk to American citizens' health and safety. Even if he didn't have such documents, the fact that a foreign government has him and his documents on U.S. spying capabilities and current operations creates a giant hole in our defense capabilities. Even worse, it is Russia that has such information. As I mentioned earlier, they are the only country which has and continues to perceive themselves and demonstrate to the world their legitimate "anti-U.S." attitude. I emphasize the word "legitimate" here because they are large enough economically, powerful enough militarily, and influential enough socially to have wide-ranging and effective measures against the U.S. and many western European countries. That is something Iran, North Korea, and even China lack.
Mistake #4:
He fled to the wrong place. Yes, I am bringing this up again because it is incredibly important. It reveals errors in his logic, and a lack of intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would know that a U.S. who is traveling through Russia with a treasure trove of U.S. classified national security documents would be at least questioned by Russian agents. At least! So if it turns out that he ultimately had no intention of staying in Russia and helping Russian authorities (which he most certainly is), then we can get to understand him a bit better by acknowledging he made a mistake, one in which he likely did not think through well at all. A very costly and stupid mistake.
Now, if he had fled to Russia with the intention of handing over the documents to Russian authorities and helping them then we have a bigger issue, or rather he does as well: a case of stupidity. He has essentially turned out what could have been an act of heroism into an act of cowardice and even more seething, an act of betrayal to his country.
Russia has just as bad a human rights record as the U.S. if not worse (arguably, worse). And those in charge of the country currently known as the Russian Federation, happened to be high ranking brass of the former empire known as the Soviet Union, whose human rights abuses outweigh nearly every country that has ever existed in the entire duration of our species on this planet. We can also surmise judging by Russia's current actions in the Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China, and their power-projections around the globe that Russia as we know it today is but an extension of the old Soviet Union thirst for power and glory.
It is very, very likely that he has more important documents than simple spying habits of U.S. government agencies. It's quite probable that he has important, classified military and national defense documents that, if in the wrong hands could pose a risk to American citizens' health and safety. Even if he didn't have such documents, the fact that a foreign government has him and his documents on U.S. spying capabilities and current operations creates a giant hole in our defense capabilities. Even worse, it is Russia that has such information. As I mentioned earlier, they are the only country which has and continues to perceive themselves and demonstrate to the world their legitimate "anti-U.S." attitude. I emphasize the word "legitimate" here because they are large enough economically, powerful enough militarily, and influential enough socially to have wide-ranging and effective measures against the U.S. and many western European countries. That is something Iran, North Korea, and even China lack.
Mistake #4:
He fled to the wrong place. Yes, I am bringing this up again because it is incredibly important. It reveals errors in his logic, and a lack of intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would know that a U.S. who is traveling through Russia with a treasure trove of U.S. classified national security documents would be at least questioned by Russian agents. At least! So if it turns out that he ultimately had no intention of staying in Russia and helping Russian authorities (which he most certainly is), then we can get to understand him a bit better by acknowledging he made a mistake, one in which he likely did not think through well at all. A very costly and stupid mistake.
Now, if he had fled to Russia with the intention of handing over the documents to Russian authorities and helping them then we have a bigger issue, or rather he does as well: a case of stupidity. He has essentially turned out what could have been an act of heroism into an act of cowardice and even more seething, an act of betrayal to his country.
Russia has just as bad a human rights record as the U.S. if not worse (arguably, worse). And those in charge of the country currently known as the Russian Federation, happened to be high ranking brass of the former empire known as the Soviet Union, whose human rights abuses outweigh nearly every country that has ever existed in the entire duration of our species on this planet. We can also surmise judging by Russia's current actions in the Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China, and their power-projections around the globe that Russia as we know it today is but an extension of the old Soviet Union thirst for power and glory.
This leads into his next mistake...
Mistake #5
Wrongly place criticism. He has consistently stated and held to the belief that the American government is bad and has overstepped its bounds with the level of spying they do. But he goes further by referring our government as "evil" and "corrupted". No doubt he's right to some extent, but then he often praises or hints to the so called "good deeds" and righteousness of the Russian Federation. By doing either, or by doing both as he is currently doing, he's essentially labeled Russia the better country. Which in terms of economics, stability, household wealth, satisfaction, healthcare, birth rate, military power, etc, he's wrong. So we must assume that he is either a) ignorant of Russian history, b) ignorant of American history, c) ignorant of both, d) he's just not as intelligent and courageous as he's hyped-up to be, or e) he's emotionally unstable from the point of view that he is unable to make a rational decision without emotional interference. Emotions have a time and place for decision making and this was not a proper time for it.
In conclusion, I believe he did a good thing by revealing the illegal spying activities of the U.S. government. But rather than accept being something of a hero, he not only fled the country, but he went to Russia of all places and from the comfort of his new Russian home, he condemns the U.S. It's irony and stupidity at it's worse. He's a traitor to his country for putting the health and safety of me, you, and all our neighbors and family at greater risk.
Mistake #5
Wrongly place criticism. He has consistently stated and held to the belief that the American government is bad and has overstepped its bounds with the level of spying they do. But he goes further by referring our government as "evil" and "corrupted". No doubt he's right to some extent, but then he often praises or hints to the so called "good deeds" and righteousness of the Russian Federation. By doing either, or by doing both as he is currently doing, he's essentially labeled Russia the better country. Which in terms of economics, stability, household wealth, satisfaction, healthcare, birth rate, military power, etc, he's wrong. So we must assume that he is either a) ignorant of Russian history, b) ignorant of American history, c) ignorant of both, d) he's just not as intelligent and courageous as he's hyped-up to be, or e) he's emotionally unstable from the point of view that he is unable to make a rational decision without emotional interference. Emotions have a time and place for decision making and this was not a proper time for it.
In conclusion, I believe he did a good thing by revealing the illegal spying activities of the U.S. government. But rather than accept being something of a hero, he not only fled the country, but he went to Russia of all places and from the comfort of his new Russian home, he condemns the U.S. It's irony and stupidity at it's worse. He's a traitor to his country for putting the health and safety of me, you, and all our neighbors and family at greater risk.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Ukraine Crises: Russia, China, and world diplomacy.
The crises in the Ukraine is much more serious than what we read about online and see on the news every evening. It is simply shocking that what I'm about to discuss hasn't yet been mentioned by any news organization anywhere. I haven't seen the Financial Times, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, BBC, Foreignaffairs, The Economist, or even ForeignPolicy mention what I'm about to. It's quite likely that someone somewhere has mentioned it in a small blog much like mine here and that it is simply too small to be widely recognized.
The Real Issue(s):
1) : NATO
* The Russian Federation is stuck in Soviet era rut thanks to a Soviet era leader at the helm. They have an imperialist agenda of always wanting more and to prove themselves to the world. Despite their stagnate economy, fairly outdated military, internal problems, domestic terrorism, socialist issues, and both moral and financial corruption, they insist on invading sovereign nations. All the sovereign nations they invade just happen to be their neighbors and former satellite states during Soviet times.
This Soviet mentality fuels their desire to conquer and expand the size of their nation and also encourages their embrace of their "East versus West" perception.
NATO, originally created to counter the "Soviet threat" of the latter half of the 20th century has always been predominantly run and empowered by U.S. military forces and U.S. funding. There has been little change in the financial and military structure within NATO since its creation; the change that has come is due to the U.S. opting to reduce its involvement in NATO as a result of it's involvement in the global war on terrorism and it's involvement in Afghanistan.
As a result of the U.S. scaling down its involvement with NATO, NATO is severely weakened and hasn't been of considerable strength for many years. What isn't discussed very often is the lack of power-projection i.e. the lack of teeth that is, NATO.
NATO still has considerable military power and capabilities but is severely hampered by its lack of geo-political weight and internal problems. Most of the countries that make up NATO consists of European countries with strong economic ties to Russia.
In summary: NATO has no geo-political weight; NATO is ineffective and essentially useless. I.e. NATO has no teeth to enforce nor deter any legitimate threat.
That is not the point I wanted to discuss that has yet to be mentioned by anyone else as I had mentioned above. I will get to it now:
2) The deeper issues not yet talked about:
* This is all hypothetical at the moment but have very real possibilities of materializing in the very near (<5 years from now) future.
First, remember the Russian invasion of Georgia a few years back? The aggressor nation (Russia) went virtually unchecked. Historically, The U.S. has acted as a counter-weight to Soviet Russia aggression. We consistently prevented them from rolling over Europe and Asia for decades, both in terms of military might and political influence. However, in the Georgian conflict we refused to intervene. We shy'd away from any conflict with Russia and adhered to a sense of isolationism and pacifism that hadn't been witnessed since pre-WW2 years. This last sentence can also be used to describe current U.S. geopolitics and diplomatic relations.
Before we continue, we need a basic understanding of why the U.S. has become a passive-nation in terms of international diplomacy and military enforcement... i.e. world police.
First: our economy is severely strained. Were still experiencing growth but the vast majority of that wealth is going to the already wealthiest Americans. While most of the debt is being incurred not just by those in poverty but is also now infecting the middle-class with fewer chances than ever before to ever repay it, leading to a sharp yearly increase in loan defaults.
In other words: more inequality=less geopolitical might
At first, this might seem strange if not counter-intuitive. You might say "look at the influence American companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, or Coca-Cola have on the world" well yes, it's true those companies have a huge influence on people around the world but that simply does not translate into geopolitical might. At least, not in terms of action equaling reaction. There are other factors at work here. The most important of which is money. Thanks to current regulatory standards, investment boards, and the incessant drive for greater profits and wealth disparity, money absolutely rules everything. Including politics.
No major public company is going to support a war that may result in profit-loss, whether short of long term. It simply cannot be afforded. And if an already poor nation is at war they are less likely to purchase more luxury goods (such as a new computer) when they are more focused on affording food or rent as prices are driven up and job losses increase.
In other words: war typically=a decrease in profits for for luxury consumer goods
Lastly, all major U.S. companies are represented in congress through the sponsorship of politicians and lobbyist groups.
In other words: major companies influence government policy
Those are two main reasons why the U.S. and NATO countries are not interfering with current Russian aggression. Next, we move on to theories to help explain the consequences of this current aggression.
So far, the Russians have acted exactly as predicted by many analysts. They have moved into the Crimea region of Ukraine and have successfully "taken" or "acquired". Of course, the region has not yet declared itself part of Russia, but that will come shortly. Russia is in it's power-projection stage and will continue to flex its muscle through hostile invasions. The Baltic states lie in the immediate danger zone. Followed by the more western-Eastern European countries. Russia is using this current conflict to test the strength and courage of it's NATO counterparts. They want to know if the U.S. or anyone will intervene, and if so, how much and in what way. The U.S. has not made a military threat, hasn't made a legitimate economic threat, and has not made a definitive political threat. Nor has any NATO, or European country. It is not surprise that Europe hasn't made any legitimate threats or moves against Russia because for one, no country in Europe has any want or need for war, nor do any of them have the capacity for it, and secondly they have ties to Russia that extend well-beyond normal economic ties and into energy and life-dependency. Most of Europe cannot risk an open war or even to make threats against a country like Russia who's ego is as bare and small as that of a menacing eight year old hyped up on caffeine, because they need Russian oil, Russian business, and most importantly Russian natural gas.
That last point has been discussed at length in several places over the years so I will not dive into that any further. But here is where things continue to get more interesting:
The U.S. has no deep-rooted energy ties with Russia. We have no dependency on Russia or anything Russian. We don't need their technology, their natural gas, their roads, nothing at all! We do have formal relationships with Russian companies through business contracts and other dealings. But again, we are not dependent upon them (other than using a couple roads to transport materials to Afghanistan). And historically, we have always stepped up to confront and check Russian aggression. ---So why are we not stopping them? Why have we not checked Russian aggression this time?
Well, for one we have been deescalating our involvement in major confrontations in both scale and geopolitical importance and opting to fight in wars against incredibly weak opponents and have been doing so with a severe lack of intelligence and frequently under false pretenses. In one sense, you might say that our latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, our mission never was and still isn't to occupy for the long-term nor acquire. If we did, we could be appropriately labeled imperialists. The Russian invasion is actually a take-over, they seek and will acquire the Crimea region of Ukraine through illegal means. Though our invasions were illegal, we still had more legal means and reasons for doing it than the Russians can fabricate for their own invasion.
Secondly, and this may sound crazy at first but will make sense later, we have a democrat in office and not a Republican. Democrats are known for being more tame and seeking more diplomatic and peaceful relations with nations and making every attempt at avoiding war. I'm not saying this is bad, in fact I am not making a judgement here at all so please don't think I am bashing democrats. Republicans on the other hand are known for being more aggressive and dare I say, warmongers. Remember when George W. Bush was in office? Remember what the main issue was between the U.S. and Russia? Missiles! Bush wanted to install a vast network of missiles throughout Europe that would act as a missile shield. Russia saw this and interpreted it as a direct threat to it's security and claimed they would increase their ballistic missile capabilities and networks along their European borders.
Looking back at those years (2000-2008) we notice how Russia, as aggressive and hostile as their threats were, never made an invasion of a sovereign nation. They kept to themselves mostly, and thanks to our aggressive nature, they never made good on their most terrible of threats. Then, we have Obama come to office and has made many efforts to keep the U.S. passive from conflicts with major powers. This is predominantly a democrat phenomenon but also a growing U.S. epidemic. An epidemic of passivity that would, under perfect conditions be ideal, but are unfortunately unrealistic.
I predict that Russia will continue its excursions into sovereign nations' territory, intimidating and even taking away land and assets by illegal means for years to come.
Now on the next big issue that is not discussed:
China
China has an intimate relationship with Russia, they have strong economic and political ties. Additionally, they share similar ideologies in how they run their governments, how they project power abroad, how they settle internal disputes, power-struggles, and domestic terrorism, how they view the world, and how they perceive themselves in it.
China has the same "short-man in the room" syndrome that Russia suffers from. Unlike Russia however, China has a booming economy that allows them to showcase their power with little effort. China is also vastly more important than Russia on the geopolitical and global economic stage. They do, however wish to flex their military might and let the world know just how powerful they are.
Unlike what a few quack journalists have said in such magazines as the Economist, PoliticalAffairs, and others, China certainly is paying attention to the situation and they certainly are rooting for the Russians because if they see Russia succeed and go unchallenged by Western powers, they too will make similar moves. First, they will threaten then move militarily against smaller, less powerful Asian neighbors. Neighbors that the U.S. and Europe are even further from than the Ukraine. They may also make more hostile and more aggressive moves in Africa, using their economic might to intimidate African nations in appeasing them. They will obtain land for military bases as they have already begun doing, this will lead to similar moves in both Central and South America where they are already undoubtedly in the process of acquiring land for military and intelligence purposes. We already have assets in their neck of the woods so it will make perfect for them establish military assets in our region of the world to act as a counterbalance to us. This would be incredibly dangerous but still inevitable. We have no allies that can or seem to want to project power the way we do, and we know it. We've been working to get our European allies to step up for years now and thus far there has been no sign that they will. The time may surely come when we rely on them to help defend us or deter anti-U.S. threats coming from abroad.
In summary: we must continue to counter Russia and not back down. We must continue to police the world and check any threats, and deter any hostile acts.
The Real Issue(s):
1) : NATO
* The Russian Federation is stuck in Soviet era rut thanks to a Soviet era leader at the helm. They have an imperialist agenda of always wanting more and to prove themselves to the world. Despite their stagnate economy, fairly outdated military, internal problems, domestic terrorism, socialist issues, and both moral and financial corruption, they insist on invading sovereign nations. All the sovereign nations they invade just happen to be their neighbors and former satellite states during Soviet times.
This Soviet mentality fuels their desire to conquer and expand the size of their nation and also encourages their embrace of their "East versus West" perception.
NATO, originally created to counter the "Soviet threat" of the latter half of the 20th century has always been predominantly run and empowered by U.S. military forces and U.S. funding. There has been little change in the financial and military structure within NATO since its creation; the change that has come is due to the U.S. opting to reduce its involvement in NATO as a result of it's involvement in the global war on terrorism and it's involvement in Afghanistan.
As a result of the U.S. scaling down its involvement with NATO, NATO is severely weakened and hasn't been of considerable strength for many years. What isn't discussed very often is the lack of power-projection i.e. the lack of teeth that is, NATO.
NATO still has considerable military power and capabilities but is severely hampered by its lack of geo-political weight and internal problems. Most of the countries that make up NATO consists of European countries with strong economic ties to Russia.
In summary: NATO has no geo-political weight; NATO is ineffective and essentially useless. I.e. NATO has no teeth to enforce nor deter any legitimate threat.
That is not the point I wanted to discuss that has yet to be mentioned by anyone else as I had mentioned above. I will get to it now:
2) The deeper issues not yet talked about:
* This is all hypothetical at the moment but have very real possibilities of materializing in the very near (<5 years from now) future.
First, remember the Russian invasion of Georgia a few years back? The aggressor nation (Russia) went virtually unchecked. Historically, The U.S. has acted as a counter-weight to Soviet Russia aggression. We consistently prevented them from rolling over Europe and Asia for decades, both in terms of military might and political influence. However, in the Georgian conflict we refused to intervene. We shy'd away from any conflict with Russia and adhered to a sense of isolationism and pacifism that hadn't been witnessed since pre-WW2 years. This last sentence can also be used to describe current U.S. geopolitics and diplomatic relations.
Before we continue, we need a basic understanding of why the U.S. has become a passive-nation in terms of international diplomacy and military enforcement... i.e. world police.
First: our economy is severely strained. Were still experiencing growth but the vast majority of that wealth is going to the already wealthiest Americans. While most of the debt is being incurred not just by those in poverty but is also now infecting the middle-class with fewer chances than ever before to ever repay it, leading to a sharp yearly increase in loan defaults.
In other words: more inequality=less geopolitical might
At first, this might seem strange if not counter-intuitive. You might say "look at the influence American companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, or Coca-Cola have on the world" well yes, it's true those companies have a huge influence on people around the world but that simply does not translate into geopolitical might. At least, not in terms of action equaling reaction. There are other factors at work here. The most important of which is money. Thanks to current regulatory standards, investment boards, and the incessant drive for greater profits and wealth disparity, money absolutely rules everything. Including politics.
No major public company is going to support a war that may result in profit-loss, whether short of long term. It simply cannot be afforded. And if an already poor nation is at war they are less likely to purchase more luxury goods (such as a new computer) when they are more focused on affording food or rent as prices are driven up and job losses increase.
In other words: war typically=a decrease in profits for for luxury consumer goods
Lastly, all major U.S. companies are represented in congress through the sponsorship of politicians and lobbyist groups.
In other words: major companies influence government policy
Those are two main reasons why the U.S. and NATO countries are not interfering with current Russian aggression. Next, we move on to theories to help explain the consequences of this current aggression.
So far, the Russians have acted exactly as predicted by many analysts. They have moved into the Crimea region of Ukraine and have successfully "taken" or "acquired". Of course, the region has not yet declared itself part of Russia, but that will come shortly. Russia is in it's power-projection stage and will continue to flex its muscle through hostile invasions. The Baltic states lie in the immediate danger zone. Followed by the more western-Eastern European countries. Russia is using this current conflict to test the strength and courage of it's NATO counterparts. They want to know if the U.S. or anyone will intervene, and if so, how much and in what way. The U.S. has not made a military threat, hasn't made a legitimate economic threat, and has not made a definitive political threat. Nor has any NATO, or European country. It is not surprise that Europe hasn't made any legitimate threats or moves against Russia because for one, no country in Europe has any want or need for war, nor do any of them have the capacity for it, and secondly they have ties to Russia that extend well-beyond normal economic ties and into energy and life-dependency. Most of Europe cannot risk an open war or even to make threats against a country like Russia who's ego is as bare and small as that of a menacing eight year old hyped up on caffeine, because they need Russian oil, Russian business, and most importantly Russian natural gas.
That last point has been discussed at length in several places over the years so I will not dive into that any further. But here is where things continue to get more interesting:
The U.S. has no deep-rooted energy ties with Russia. We have no dependency on Russia or anything Russian. We don't need their technology, their natural gas, their roads, nothing at all! We do have formal relationships with Russian companies through business contracts and other dealings. But again, we are not dependent upon them (other than using a couple roads to transport materials to Afghanistan). And historically, we have always stepped up to confront and check Russian aggression. ---So why are we not stopping them? Why have we not checked Russian aggression this time?
Well, for one we have been deescalating our involvement in major confrontations in both scale and geopolitical importance and opting to fight in wars against incredibly weak opponents and have been doing so with a severe lack of intelligence and frequently under false pretenses. In one sense, you might say that our latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, our mission never was and still isn't to occupy for the long-term nor acquire. If we did, we could be appropriately labeled imperialists. The Russian invasion is actually a take-over, they seek and will acquire the Crimea region of Ukraine through illegal means. Though our invasions were illegal, we still had more legal means and reasons for doing it than the Russians can fabricate for their own invasion.
Secondly, and this may sound crazy at first but will make sense later, we have a democrat in office and not a Republican. Democrats are known for being more tame and seeking more diplomatic and peaceful relations with nations and making every attempt at avoiding war. I'm not saying this is bad, in fact I am not making a judgement here at all so please don't think I am bashing democrats. Republicans on the other hand are known for being more aggressive and dare I say, warmongers. Remember when George W. Bush was in office? Remember what the main issue was between the U.S. and Russia? Missiles! Bush wanted to install a vast network of missiles throughout Europe that would act as a missile shield. Russia saw this and interpreted it as a direct threat to it's security and claimed they would increase their ballistic missile capabilities and networks along their European borders.
Looking back at those years (2000-2008) we notice how Russia, as aggressive and hostile as their threats were, never made an invasion of a sovereign nation. They kept to themselves mostly, and thanks to our aggressive nature, they never made good on their most terrible of threats. Then, we have Obama come to office and has made many efforts to keep the U.S. passive from conflicts with major powers. This is predominantly a democrat phenomenon but also a growing U.S. epidemic. An epidemic of passivity that would, under perfect conditions be ideal, but are unfortunately unrealistic.
I predict that Russia will continue its excursions into sovereign nations' territory, intimidating and even taking away land and assets by illegal means for years to come.
Now on the next big issue that is not discussed:
China
China has an intimate relationship with Russia, they have strong economic and political ties. Additionally, they share similar ideologies in how they run their governments, how they project power abroad, how they settle internal disputes, power-struggles, and domestic terrorism, how they view the world, and how they perceive themselves in it.
China has the same "short-man in the room" syndrome that Russia suffers from. Unlike Russia however, China has a booming economy that allows them to showcase their power with little effort. China is also vastly more important than Russia on the geopolitical and global economic stage. They do, however wish to flex their military might and let the world know just how powerful they are.
Unlike what a few quack journalists have said in such magazines as the Economist, PoliticalAffairs, and others, China certainly is paying attention to the situation and they certainly are rooting for the Russians because if they see Russia succeed and go unchallenged by Western powers, they too will make similar moves. First, they will threaten then move militarily against smaller, less powerful Asian neighbors. Neighbors that the U.S. and Europe are even further from than the Ukraine. They may also make more hostile and more aggressive moves in Africa, using their economic might to intimidate African nations in appeasing them. They will obtain land for military bases as they have already begun doing, this will lead to similar moves in both Central and South America where they are already undoubtedly in the process of acquiring land for military and intelligence purposes. We already have assets in their neck of the woods so it will make perfect for them establish military assets in our region of the world to act as a counterbalance to us. This would be incredibly dangerous but still inevitable. We have no allies that can or seem to want to project power the way we do, and we know it. We've been working to get our European allies to step up for years now and thus far there has been no sign that they will. The time may surely come when we rely on them to help defend us or deter anti-U.S. threats coming from abroad.
In summary: we must continue to counter Russia and not back down. We must continue to police the world and check any threats, and deter any hostile acts.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Ad Infinitum
How much further can the U.S. sink into the abyss that is, debt?
I'm not just referring to financial debt and red ink, but also moral and spiritual decline that has been increasing in size and speed.
What is wrong with my country? My nation has forsaken me!
I did not choose to be born here, but by some Godly miracle I was and I am indeed grateful for being born into the most powerful and wealthiest nation in existence. But now I sit in front of my laptop, with an open notebook to my left and books on either side of me that are full of information, or clues, that might help me understand the minds of our nations most powerful elite... and yet I can't help but feel they are not really necessary for understanding evil. Evil is as evil does, and only good can counter evil.
So why is it that 1% of my fellow countrymen own more than the rest of us? Why is it that only their bank accounts swell with profits while the rest of us work just as hard and hope and pray that at the end of the day we will break even? Why is our president, our senators, all of our elected officials refusing to listen to the cries of their countrymen and why are they so merry about trampling over us and destroying our rights, rights which took as long to earn as our wealth and national sovereignty to accumulate? How has corruption become so blatantly obvious and acceptable to be even encouraged and promoted by the very same politicians we have supported? Why, and pray tell me, how is raping a young girl considered punishable by a five year sentence when possession of weed is easily twenty? How is murder defined as a $5,000 fee, but downloading a song on the internet is $50,000? In what ways does it benefit me, or society to ban, sue, patent, sue, trademark, sue, copyright, and sue to oblivion an acceptable way of life? Why is telling a lie to your countrymen in order to protect your financial assets O.K.? How is it fair to steal life away from people, to murder, and play God over seven billion people?
I'm not just referring to financial debt and red ink, but also moral and spiritual decline that has been increasing in size and speed.
What is wrong with my country? My nation has forsaken me!
I did not choose to be born here, but by some Godly miracle I was and I am indeed grateful for being born into the most powerful and wealthiest nation in existence. But now I sit in front of my laptop, with an open notebook to my left and books on either side of me that are full of information, or clues, that might help me understand the minds of our nations most powerful elite... and yet I can't help but feel they are not really necessary for understanding evil. Evil is as evil does, and only good can counter evil.
So why is it that 1% of my fellow countrymen own more than the rest of us? Why is it that only their bank accounts swell with profits while the rest of us work just as hard and hope and pray that at the end of the day we will break even? Why is our president, our senators, all of our elected officials refusing to listen to the cries of their countrymen and why are they so merry about trampling over us and destroying our rights, rights which took as long to earn as our wealth and national sovereignty to accumulate? How has corruption become so blatantly obvious and acceptable to be even encouraged and promoted by the very same politicians we have supported? Why, and pray tell me, how is raping a young girl considered punishable by a five year sentence when possession of weed is easily twenty? How is murder defined as a $5,000 fee, but downloading a song on the internet is $50,000? In what ways does it benefit me, or society to ban, sue, patent, sue, trademark, sue, copyright, and sue to oblivion an acceptable way of life? Why is telling a lie to your countrymen in order to protect your financial assets O.K.? How is it fair to steal life away from people, to murder, and play God over seven billion people?
Friday, November 9, 2012
American Christianity
American Christianity; I have a problem with it.
The problem I have with American Christianity is American Christianity.
First, lets take a step in the right direction and define what Christianity is.
the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies -Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Christians are followers of Christ who subscribe to his teachings and apply them to every aspect of their lives every second of every day.
Christians are "called" and through calling they "accept" the teachings of Jesus Christ and accept that He is lord and Jesus Christ must also accept them. Upon accepting the teachings of Christ and acknowledging Him as the All Mighty, we are then called to apply the teachings of Christ to our lives in every way possible.
---Most of the teachings we subscribe to come directly from Christ himself. However; since the Bible is the word of God that means every word in the Bible comes from God Himself through "inspiration" which the writers of the Bible had. On that note, we also apply the ten commandments found in the old testament (OT) to our lives.
In actuality, the entire Bible is applied to our lives, but realistically we focus more or less on the teachings of Christ found in the new testament (NT) in the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, plus we take to heart the ten commandments.
What is it we are called to do as Christians? We are called to love the lord and obey Him first and foremost. Secondly, we are called to be faithful and kind to humanity, we can take this to mean "giving, helping, not creating evil in the form of animosity, jealousy, envy, hatred, etc."
On one hand it's a very simple calling. Christianity is not rocket science but it is perfect.
Here is where we will dive into the issues concerning Christianity in America today. Here is the list of issues we will address together and the order in which we will address them:
The problem I have with American Christianity is American Christianity.
First, lets take a step in the right direction and define what Christianity is.
the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies -Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Christians are followers of Christ who subscribe to his teachings and apply them to every aspect of their lives every second of every day.
Christians are "called" and through calling they "accept" the teachings of Jesus Christ and accept that He is lord and Jesus Christ must also accept them. Upon accepting the teachings of Christ and acknowledging Him as the All Mighty, we are then called to apply the teachings of Christ to our lives in every way possible.
---Most of the teachings we subscribe to come directly from Christ himself. However; since the Bible is the word of God that means every word in the Bible comes from God Himself through "inspiration" which the writers of the Bible had. On that note, we also apply the ten commandments found in the old testament (OT) to our lives.
In actuality, the entire Bible is applied to our lives, but realistically we focus more or less on the teachings of Christ found in the new testament (NT) in the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, plus we take to heart the ten commandments.
What is it we are called to do as Christians? We are called to love the lord and obey Him first and foremost. Secondly, we are called to be faithful and kind to humanity, we can take this to mean "giving, helping, not creating evil in the form of animosity, jealousy, envy, hatred, etc."
On one hand it's a very simple calling. Christianity is not rocket science but it is perfect.
Here is where we will dive into the issues concerning Christianity in America today. Here is the list of issues we will address together and the order in which we will address them:
- Preaching
- Interpretation
- Representation
- Radicalization
1. PREACHING
As Christians are called to spread the gospel. Whether it is in the cities or our in rural areas with few people it doesn't matter. We are called to spread the word of God and allow everyone the opportunity to hear His words and His messages.
Here is the issue: American Christianity is vastly different than that of Christianity during Paul's days. American Christians take "spreading the gospel" to mean "spread, re-spread, re-spread, re-spread, etc". Hence why we all see Christians holding signs in front of civic centers, shouting Biblical doctrine in university squares, and why we meet them at our doors when they want to teach us about Christ (Jehovas Witnesses).
Last month four preachers came to my university and in the middle of the whole school (30,000+students) they began shouting Biblical verses and making statements like "accept Christ and turn from your wicked ways or burn in hell".
The kind of Christian preaching where Christians yell, shout, and holler at people is not Christ-like and is not part of Christianity. That is foreign.
Yelling, shouting, and causing disturbances outside of the actual church is not Christianity. God has not called any of us to stand in the middle of the town and shout Bible verses and casting judgment on the people. This is a perfect example of what not to do, and a perfect example of evil. This method does not work!
God calls us to spread the gospel, not force or coerce people into accepting it. In America for instance, people are aware of God. They have heard of the Bible and they have access to it. This is the result of spreading the gospel. We want everyone to have access to it. We do not want to force people to read it or feel guilty in anyway.
We are not called to spread the Word over and over again in the same area if the people do not want it. "shake the dust off your feet"-Luke 9:5
If the people have heard the gospel then we have done our job. If anyone is interested in hearing more than we are called to also help teach and guide them but under no circumstances are we called to repeat the gospel over and over again hoping to convert the population. In fact, as Christ explains it in Luke 9:5 if they do not want the gospel then we are called to stop trying to spread the word there and to move on.
This is the single biggest misinterpretation American Christians have of the Bible and subsequently their faith. So stop trying spread the gospel in America and focus on the people who have never heard of God, such as those people in Africa.
The other thing we should touch on is preaching itself in America, as in the preaching that takes place from the pulpit to the masses in the church buildings themselves.
Christian pastors are preaching wrong.
Why?
Christian pastors are called to be men of good esteem, men with a family (only one family), married (to one spouse), not divorced ever, and men that are faithful to their spouse and their family.
I've seen and heard of many pastors failing at least one of those conditions, and by Biblical standards if they fail one they cannot be pastors.
Here is the issue: American Christianity is vastly different than that of Christianity during Paul's days. American Christians take "spreading the gospel" to mean "spread, re-spread, re-spread, re-spread, etc". Hence why we all see Christians holding signs in front of civic centers, shouting Biblical doctrine in university squares, and why we meet them at our doors when they want to teach us about Christ (Jehovas Witnesses).
Last month four preachers came to my university and in the middle of the whole school (30,000+students) they began shouting Biblical verses and making statements like "accept Christ and turn from your wicked ways or burn in hell".
The kind of Christian preaching where Christians yell, shout, and holler at people is not Christ-like and is not part of Christianity. That is foreign.
Yelling, shouting, and causing disturbances outside of the actual church is not Christianity. God has not called any of us to stand in the middle of the town and shout Bible verses and casting judgment on the people. This is a perfect example of what not to do, and a perfect example of evil. This method does not work!
God calls us to spread the gospel, not force or coerce people into accepting it. In America for instance, people are aware of God. They have heard of the Bible and they have access to it. This is the result of spreading the gospel. We want everyone to have access to it. We do not want to force people to read it or feel guilty in anyway.
We are not called to spread the Word over and over again in the same area if the people do not want it. "shake the dust off your feet"-Luke 9:5
If the people have heard the gospel then we have done our job. If anyone is interested in hearing more than we are called to also help teach and guide them but under no circumstances are we called to repeat the gospel over and over again hoping to convert the population. In fact, as Christ explains it in Luke 9:5 if they do not want the gospel then we are called to stop trying to spread the word there and to move on.
This is the single biggest misinterpretation American Christians have of the Bible and subsequently their faith. So stop trying spread the gospel in America and focus on the people who have never heard of God, such as those people in Africa.
The other thing we should touch on is preaching itself in America, as in the preaching that takes place from the pulpit to the masses in the church buildings themselves.
Christian pastors are preaching wrong.
Why?
Christian pastors are called to be men of good esteem, men with a family (only one family), married (to one spouse), not divorced ever, and men that are faithful to their spouse and their family.
I've seen and heard of many pastors failing at least one of those conditions, and by Biblical standards if they fail one they cannot be pastors.
Pastors are also called. They don't have to go to college. In my opinion I feel that it can be good if they go to college and learn something. The Bible does not say anything in opposition to this so there it is indeed a good thing. No person should have to go to a Christian college and become "certified" in any way, shape, or form to be become a pastor. That should merely be an option, not a requirement. God never says it is required to go to a school before becoming a pastor.
Also;
Pastors are called to preach the word of God to their flock. They are not called to be funny, pleasing to the people, or to story tell. They have one job: communicate the word of the Lord to the people and support their flock.
Too often have I seen and hear about pastors who are completely desperate to please people so they tell more jokes than they explain Biblical versus. They tell stories about what they did last week as opposed to telling the flock "here is whats wrong; there is whats right. This is how we get there." or something along those lines.
No one cares about what you did last week. I don't want to hear it, and neither do the people. You are a false teacher. Get away from me!
The last church I went to (3 months ago) the pastor actually had pizza delivered from Pizza Hut for the whole congregation and said these damning words "church should be fun!"-I almost stormed out right there.
The fact is; church can be fun. But the emphasis should not be on having fun; it should be on learning the Bible and progressing your faith. If that sounds fun then by golly church is fun!
And get rid of the espresso bars! Unless the church is willing to give away free drinks and food to the congregation they should not have any cash-registers, or any form of money exchange outside of tithing. Every church I've visited in the last ten years have had a coffee-bar at the front entrance where they charge a fee for their "service".---the only service that is required of a church is the preaching of the word of God.
---Jesus Christ threw down the carts of those seeking to sell their goods in the temple.
Many of these churches like to use the phrase "the money from our coffee bars go into paying for the building through the loan, maintenance, utilities, or for upgrades."--- that's a level of coercion.---stop it!
Churches have bills I'm aware of that, but anything outside of the necessary is not necessary. If the Bible tells us to give up all we have and live for Christ we should all be making that effort. If the pastor has a new suit every Sunday then I'm afraid there is an issue.
And finally; preach the gospel.
I've seen too many churches not preach the gospel but instead, they rely on telling stories or diving off into politics: "Vote Republican because they are the Christian party!"---No they are not!
"Let's talk about gun rights." said a pastor in church... no... lets not do that. You're not a man of God and I have no need for your message.
Stop the emphasis on cool and focus on whats right. Churches have become political and bureaucratic. This is not the way.
Also;
Pastors are called to preach the word of God to their flock. They are not called to be funny, pleasing to the people, or to story tell. They have one job: communicate the word of the Lord to the people and support their flock.
Too often have I seen and hear about pastors who are completely desperate to please people so they tell more jokes than they explain Biblical versus. They tell stories about what they did last week as opposed to telling the flock "here is whats wrong; there is whats right. This is how we get there." or something along those lines.
No one cares about what you did last week. I don't want to hear it, and neither do the people. You are a false teacher. Get away from me!
The last church I went to (3 months ago) the pastor actually had pizza delivered from Pizza Hut for the whole congregation and said these damning words "church should be fun!"-I almost stormed out right there.
The fact is; church can be fun. But the emphasis should not be on having fun; it should be on learning the Bible and progressing your faith. If that sounds fun then by golly church is fun!
And get rid of the espresso bars! Unless the church is willing to give away free drinks and food to the congregation they should not have any cash-registers, or any form of money exchange outside of tithing. Every church I've visited in the last ten years have had a coffee-bar at the front entrance where they charge a fee for their "service".---the only service that is required of a church is the preaching of the word of God.
---Jesus Christ threw down the carts of those seeking to sell their goods in the temple.
Many of these churches like to use the phrase "the money from our coffee bars go into paying for the building through the loan, maintenance, utilities, or for upgrades."--- that's a level of coercion.---stop it!
Churches have bills I'm aware of that, but anything outside of the necessary is not necessary. If the Bible tells us to give up all we have and live for Christ we should all be making that effort. If the pastor has a new suit every Sunday then I'm afraid there is an issue.
And finally; preach the gospel.
I've seen too many churches not preach the gospel but instead, they rely on telling stories or diving off into politics: "Vote Republican because they are the Christian party!"---No they are not!
"Let's talk about gun rights." said a pastor in church... no... lets not do that. You're not a man of God and I have no need for your message.
Stop the emphasis on cool and focus on whats right. Churches have become political and bureaucratic. This is not the way.
2. INTERPRETATION
Another huge misstep within the Christian religion is to create far too many misinterpretations.
"God loves all of you" I hear from pastors all the time... no He doesn't. God is not a teddy bear, stop trying to over-humanize Him!
The fact is; we don't know who God loves with 100% surety because we do not know for sure who He has saved. Read John 3:16 through the end of the chapter. Read Romans, or better yet the OT. No where does God say He loves and accepts all of us. In reality; He has chosen some of those that He has called so not everyone is going to heaven thus not everyone is loved. "FOR JACOB HAVE I LOVED; ESSAU HAVE I HATED."-God.
Our God is a jealous God; He is not a teddy-bear!
"God loves all of you" I hear from pastors all the time... no He doesn't. God is not a teddy bear, stop trying to over-humanize Him!
The fact is; we don't know who God loves with 100% surety because we do not know for sure who He has saved. Read John 3:16 through the end of the chapter. Read Romans, or better yet the OT. No where does God say He loves and accepts all of us. In reality; He has chosen some of those that He has called so not everyone is going to heaven thus not everyone is loved. "FOR JACOB HAVE I LOVED; ESSAU HAVE I HATED."-God.
Our God is a jealous God; He is not a teddy-bear!
3. REPRESENTATION
The same Christians committing these evil acts are the same ones that represent the majority of the Christian population in the United States. And that majority of Christians just happens to be the major population of the United States; hence-forth they are the largest group of people representing this nation around the world.
Scary stuff!
In almost any newspaper available at nearly any given time of day around the world, we can find articles of "Christians attacking Muslims" or some sort of prejudicial discrimination against them. Or we can look to the U.S. military and the U.S. government; the ones in charge just so happen to be Christians. And look at the shape the U.S. is in. Whether it's economical, social, foreign policy, or what have you the census is the same: were in bad shape!
Scary stuff!
In almost any newspaper available at nearly any given time of day around the world, we can find articles of "Christians attacking Muslims" or some sort of prejudicial discrimination against them. Or we can look to the U.S. military and the U.S. government; the ones in charge just so happen to be Christians. And look at the shape the U.S. is in. Whether it's economical, social, foreign policy, or what have you the census is the same: were in bad shape!
4. RADICALIZATION
This is the subject I most look forward to because its barely beginning to manifest itself such that non-Christians in America are beginning to take notice and report on it.
Christians in America are largely no different than Muslims in Africa, Saudi-Arabia, or the U.A.E. Before people freak out about this let me explain:
Muslims take their faith very seriously.-Christians do too!
Muslims want everyone to be a Muslim. -Christians do too!
Muslims have the potential to become radicalized.-Christians do too!
Not only do American Christians have the potential to become radicalized but many of them already are. This is partly why were in countries all over the world, including the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And the Muslims see it as the main reason were there. They see us as Christian crusaders which only heightens the tension and increases the violence because in essence it is a Christian nation in or around a Muslim nation making war.
But it my point transcends all of this: Christians in America today have goals that are not found in the Bible: they seek the Christian-conversion and Christian influence in all of America and in every area. They want Christianity in the law books, in the schools cafeterias, along the roads, in politics, in the judicial system, in civil rights, and a host of other areas. This is absolutely not Christian!-Stop it!
That's absolutely no different than the Muslims of Jordan, or Beirut, or Lebanon. Not only that, but it is not Biblical! Stop trying to enforce your ways on the rest of the world, and the rest of America!
If a woman wants the right to have an abortion than so be it. That transcends my personal viewpoint because I see it as her deciding to do what she feels is best for her own body.Generally, I am against abortion but there are some cases that I feel the option should be given to the woman to make, as in the case of rape or potential death.
Example: if a woman is raped and she does not want the child and the child is not yet a child but a simple cell than I say it is her choice. I could not possibly fathom that situation personally and I don't believe I have any say.
Another example is if the woman may die from child-birth and she decides she does not want that risk. Again, this is her choice not mine. She is big enough to make the decision to engage in sex so I trust she is big enough to make the decision to preserve her own life.
I disagree 100% with any woman who chooses abortion simply because she does not feel she can "take care of the child". In such case, the woman should not have had sex.... and yes it is entirely possible and even plausible to not have sex for long periods of time.
The radicalization of Christianity in America is huge. So big in fact that nearly the entire population of the Republican party is made up of these Christians. Their own presidential candidate (Mitt Romney) is a radical Mormon!
This causes people to believe in false-hoods. Essentially becoming over-zealous by incorrect theories and lies; no, Obama is not the anti-Christ and he has no plans to round Americans up and execute them or place them in prison camps.
The whole ideology of the current Republican party is flawed.
Christians cannot be ignorant, or arrogant and this is exactly what we see in American politics these days. Christian Republicans not taking the time to properly educate themselves on the facts. This leads down a dangerous road that breeds corruption and hostility.
Christians in America are largely no different than Muslims in Africa, Saudi-Arabia, or the U.A.E. Before people freak out about this let me explain:
Muslims take their faith very seriously.-Christians do too!
Muslims want everyone to be a Muslim. -Christians do too!
Muslims have the potential to become radicalized.-Christians do too!
Not only do American Christians have the potential to become radicalized but many of them already are. This is partly why were in countries all over the world, including the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And the Muslims see it as the main reason were there. They see us as Christian crusaders which only heightens the tension and increases the violence because in essence it is a Christian nation in or around a Muslim nation making war.
But it my point transcends all of this: Christians in America today have goals that are not found in the Bible: they seek the Christian-conversion and Christian influence in all of America and in every area. They want Christianity in the law books, in the schools cafeterias, along the roads, in politics, in the judicial system, in civil rights, and a host of other areas. This is absolutely not Christian!-Stop it!
That's absolutely no different than the Muslims of Jordan, or Beirut, or Lebanon. Not only that, but it is not Biblical! Stop trying to enforce your ways on the rest of the world, and the rest of America!
If a woman wants the right to have an abortion than so be it. That transcends my personal viewpoint because I see it as her deciding to do what she feels is best for her own body.Generally, I am against abortion but there are some cases that I feel the option should be given to the woman to make, as in the case of rape or potential death.
Example: if a woman is raped and she does not want the child and the child is not yet a child but a simple cell than I say it is her choice. I could not possibly fathom that situation personally and I don't believe I have any say.
Another example is if the woman may die from child-birth and she decides she does not want that risk. Again, this is her choice not mine. She is big enough to make the decision to engage in sex so I trust she is big enough to make the decision to preserve her own life.
I disagree 100% with any woman who chooses abortion simply because she does not feel she can "take care of the child". In such case, the woman should not have had sex.... and yes it is entirely possible and even plausible to not have sex for long periods of time.
The radicalization of Christianity in America is huge. So big in fact that nearly the entire population of the Republican party is made up of these Christians. Their own presidential candidate (Mitt Romney) is a radical Mormon!
This causes people to believe in false-hoods. Essentially becoming over-zealous by incorrect theories and lies; no, Obama is not the anti-Christ and he has no plans to round Americans up and execute them or place them in prison camps.
The whole ideology of the current Republican party is flawed.
Christians cannot be ignorant, or arrogant and this is exactly what we see in American politics these days. Christian Republicans not taking the time to properly educate themselves on the facts. This leads down a dangerous road that breeds corruption and hostility.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Population: Hypocrisy
I take issue with American society today;
The people within this great country have become quite possibly the largest population of hypocrisy in the modern world.
Everyday I see topics in the news centered around abortion, gay-marriage, weed, etc.
Those issues are important and relevant to people and have thus become a big deal. This is part of the normal process of a dynamic society. It may even be called the "evolution of a society." --Notice I say "...a society" not simply "society". I will get to that in a moment.
There is one great and tantamount issue that immediately reveals itself within society during the debates and discussion of these topics: freedom of speech
Those who do not support or agree with marriage-equality, abortion, and the legalization of weed are faced with a huge and constant wave of attacks. One right after the other. They are called such names as "scum of the earth, conservatives, backwards, backwoods, redneck, dumb, uneducated, religious scum, etc..." simply because they are voicing their opinions.
Do you see the issue with this?
The same people invoking the right to free-speech to support their cause attack those who use the same expression of free-speech to support their beliefs. It is hypocrisy at its finest and it's dead-wrong.
The nation is much like the ocean; there is an ebb and flow to everything and rarely a calm time. Clouds thicken and turn black overhead, the waves grow taller and wider, and the air cold.
America is not balanced and in many respects has never been balanced on civil rights issues, economics, morals, you name it.
But now is different. When people want something they have to have it; and will utterly disregard all opposing views and go to such lengths as filing them under the name of "THREAT" which if enough people agree with can go further in such extremism to "Elimination". All it takes is generalizing and a label and you can create your own explosive mix of radicalism.
Everyone is entitled to their point of view. No one is entitled to hatred for expressing their beliefs.
And the issues with civil rights and other stuff like legalizing weed is not always a black and white issue. Sometimes there are gray areas where the subject is simply subjective and not objective in regards to correctness.
For example: weed may help a man who has chronic back pain and doesn't feel like he should have to fork out thousands of dollars every month for a prescription when he can instead pay a couple hundred for his weed. Others may feel (and rationally so) that weed inhibits a persons senses and abilities to perform certain tasks, making that person more of a liability than an asset in certain situations like driving, working, etc. Both are views founded on some level of rational thought.
So what is the deciding factor? Usually past and current socio-environmental factors arise to guide a persons judgement of such issues. In other words; morals. When logic fails morals come to the rescue, and when morals fail logic comes to the rescue.
Instead of creating enemies and animosity, why not become a true progressive in the sense that condescension and hatred are not tolerated on either end of either party. The Christians and religious don't want marriage-equality because of what their scriptures tell them, not because they have a deep-seeded hatred for the homosexuality community. If both parties, and particularly the more left-leaning population took the time to understand their opposites they might be able to formulate more successful platform.
The people within this great country have become quite possibly the largest population of hypocrisy in the modern world.
Everyday I see topics in the news centered around abortion, gay-marriage, weed, etc.
Those issues are important and relevant to people and have thus become a big deal. This is part of the normal process of a dynamic society. It may even be called the "evolution of a society." --Notice I say "...a society" not simply "society". I will get to that in a moment.
There is one great and tantamount issue that immediately reveals itself within society during the debates and discussion of these topics: freedom of speech
Those who do not support or agree with marriage-equality, abortion, and the legalization of weed are faced with a huge and constant wave of attacks. One right after the other. They are called such names as "scum of the earth, conservatives, backwards, backwoods, redneck, dumb, uneducated, religious scum, etc..." simply because they are voicing their opinions.
Do you see the issue with this?
The same people invoking the right to free-speech to support their cause attack those who use the same expression of free-speech to support their beliefs. It is hypocrisy at its finest and it's dead-wrong.
The nation is much like the ocean; there is an ebb and flow to everything and rarely a calm time. Clouds thicken and turn black overhead, the waves grow taller and wider, and the air cold.
America is not balanced and in many respects has never been balanced on civil rights issues, economics, morals, you name it.
But now is different. When people want something they have to have it; and will utterly disregard all opposing views and go to such lengths as filing them under the name of "THREAT" which if enough people agree with can go further in such extremism to "Elimination". All it takes is generalizing and a label and you can create your own explosive mix of radicalism.
Everyone is entitled to their point of view. No one is entitled to hatred for expressing their beliefs.
And the issues with civil rights and other stuff like legalizing weed is not always a black and white issue. Sometimes there are gray areas where the subject is simply subjective and not objective in regards to correctness.
For example: weed may help a man who has chronic back pain and doesn't feel like he should have to fork out thousands of dollars every month for a prescription when he can instead pay a couple hundred for his weed. Others may feel (and rationally so) that weed inhibits a persons senses and abilities to perform certain tasks, making that person more of a liability than an asset in certain situations like driving, working, etc. Both are views founded on some level of rational thought.
So what is the deciding factor? Usually past and current socio-environmental factors arise to guide a persons judgement of such issues. In other words; morals. When logic fails morals come to the rescue, and when morals fail logic comes to the rescue.
Instead of creating enemies and animosity, why not become a true progressive in the sense that condescension and hatred are not tolerated on either end of either party. The Christians and religious don't want marriage-equality because of what their scriptures tell them, not because they have a deep-seeded hatred for the homosexuality community. If both parties, and particularly the more left-leaning population took the time to understand their opposites they might be able to formulate more successful platform.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Corporations are not people!
How many times must this be argued?
With the most recent Supreme Court ruling, which can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html .
Here we can see the official document as presented by the Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
For more info check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.
If you agree that corporations are people and "they"should have as many rights as you do then vote for this guy: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/warren-blasts-romney-corporations-are-not-people
>>>> Mitt Romney.
This case is a complete disaster for the people of America and proved to the whole world that the U.S. no longer has a competent Supreme Court and by competent I mean one which understands American law, civil duties, and capitalism.
A corporation is a corporation (geez, really?). They have what is called "Corporate Personhood" which entitles them to sue, and to be sued as a whole.
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. "
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Now the recognition and separation between a corporation and a living, breathing human-being was well established and well recognized for the last seventy or so years. It is with the SC's most recent decision that this is now reversed, through the action brought to light by the state of Montana, which already had a law in place that forbid unlimited corporate funding for political process of any candidate. This act was called The Corrupt Practices Act.
Montana's supreme court then ruled earlier this year that such a law is well-founded and is completely ethical and necessary to have a fair election process. With the recent Supreme Court decision, this act is now null and void with the claim that corporations are people, and people have no limit to how much they can donate to a political party or candidate.
This is wrong not just morally, but ethically, and democratically. This is simply not how things are done in a democratic republic that has laws established to protect its people.
What does this mean for Americans?
We can still vote for anyone we want. Our freedom to vote has not been affected per-Se. But in order to vote for the candidate we believe best represents our ideals we must have all the facts, right?
Well typically the candidate with the most money wins. This is a standard much less a rule. Now take Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has established ties with several different lobbyist groups on K Street in Washington. Wal-Mart just like every large corporation keeps an eye on politics and they will attempt to influence any politician that presents a "pro-Wal-Mart" view on things, even if said politician is a direct supporter of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart enters into an agreement with said politician and agrees to pay such politician X amount of money in return for "pro-Wal-Mart" legislation. This extends to politicians in all fifty states and cases are not isolated. Meanwhile, they're forking out millions of dollars to lobbyist groups on the Hill that exert influence over current Senators, law-makers, representatives, etc.
So instead of a corporation having to pay fair wages to folks, perhaps they can exert enough influence on the Hill to re-write the law so they don't have to.
Remember, a business is a business, and they exist to make money. They have no obligation to me, to you, or to our friends and family. They exist to make money. Huge corporations exist to make money for their investors, and those investors will squeeze every cent they can through any means. That's the beauty and curse of capitalism.
Now, companies can donate an unlimited amount of cash to political candidates (and they will only donate to those who represent their ideals, obviously) which means more advertising and marketing for that candidate which translates into more support, which in turn means that candidate can afford to thrash his/her opponent more.
If said candidate is financially supported by a large corporation who has the right to donate unlimited amounts, isn't that candidate likely to be bought and paid for by the corporation and then representative of the corporation's interests and not the peoples? True.
If Microsoft offered Mitt Romney $200 million in return for supporting a bill or policy that allows Microsoft to dump waste in fresh water streams and lakes, do you think he would turn it down? Likely not.
And now our Supreme Court has failed at their most basic civic duty which is to protect the people. We now enter the gilded age of corporate America.
With the most recent Supreme Court ruling, which can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html .
Here we can see the official document as presented by the Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
For more info check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.
If you agree that corporations are people and "they"should have as many rights as you do then vote for this guy: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/warren-blasts-romney-corporations-are-not-people
>>>> Mitt Romney.
This case is a complete disaster for the people of America and proved to the whole world that the U.S. no longer has a competent Supreme Court and by competent I mean one which understands American law, civil duties, and capitalism.
A corporation is a corporation (geez, really?). They have what is called "Corporate Personhood" which entitles them to sue, and to be sued as a whole.
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. "
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Now the recognition and separation between a corporation and a living, breathing human-being was well established and well recognized for the last seventy or so years. It is with the SC's most recent decision that this is now reversed, through the action brought to light by the state of Montana, which already had a law in place that forbid unlimited corporate funding for political process of any candidate. This act was called The Corrupt Practices Act.
Montana's supreme court then ruled earlier this year that such a law is well-founded and is completely ethical and necessary to have a fair election process. With the recent Supreme Court decision, this act is now null and void with the claim that corporations are people, and people have no limit to how much they can donate to a political party or candidate.
This is wrong not just morally, but ethically, and democratically. This is simply not how things are done in a democratic republic that has laws established to protect its people.
What does this mean for Americans?
We can still vote for anyone we want. Our freedom to vote has not been affected per-Se. But in order to vote for the candidate we believe best represents our ideals we must have all the facts, right?
Well typically the candidate with the most money wins. This is a standard much less a rule. Now take Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has established ties with several different lobbyist groups on K Street in Washington. Wal-Mart just like every large corporation keeps an eye on politics and they will attempt to influence any politician that presents a "pro-Wal-Mart" view on things, even if said politician is a direct supporter of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart enters into an agreement with said politician and agrees to pay such politician X amount of money in return for "pro-Wal-Mart" legislation. This extends to politicians in all fifty states and cases are not isolated. Meanwhile, they're forking out millions of dollars to lobbyist groups on the Hill that exert influence over current Senators, law-makers, representatives, etc.
So instead of a corporation having to pay fair wages to folks, perhaps they can exert enough influence on the Hill to re-write the law so they don't have to.
Remember, a business is a business, and they exist to make money. They have no obligation to me, to you, or to our friends and family. They exist to make money. Huge corporations exist to make money for their investors, and those investors will squeeze every cent they can through any means. That's the beauty and curse of capitalism.
Now, companies can donate an unlimited amount of cash to political candidates (and they will only donate to those who represent their ideals, obviously) which means more advertising and marketing for that candidate which translates into more support, which in turn means that candidate can afford to thrash his/her opponent more.
If said candidate is financially supported by a large corporation who has the right to donate unlimited amounts, isn't that candidate likely to be bought and paid for by the corporation and then representative of the corporation's interests and not the peoples? True.
If Microsoft offered Mitt Romney $200 million in return for supporting a bill or policy that allows Microsoft to dump waste in fresh water streams and lakes, do you think he would turn it down? Likely not.
And now our Supreme Court has failed at their most basic civic duty which is to protect the people. We now enter the gilded age of corporate America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)