Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Always 3 Angles

Let them live

''Melissa Etheridge put it best. If I put a baseball cap on my head, I have every right to call it a baseball cap. I do not have the right to call it a yarmulke. And those wearing *genuine* yarmulkes have a right to be upset at people wearing baseball caps who choose to call them yarmulkes.'' Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. Most so-called liberals are happy about that. Most conservatives are not. As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way.
To air this issue on my Fox Business show, I invited Brian Brown of the
National Organization for Marriage and David Harsanyi, libertarian columnist at The Blaze.
Brown says gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman. I asked him to explain.
"Marriage is a public good," he said. "When you redefine marriage, you redefine it for everyone. In states that have redefined marriage, we've seen serious consequences, ranging from what is taught in schools – kids in first grade in Massachusetts are taught that it's the same thing to grow up and marry a boy or a girl – to what happens to religious organizations or organizations that just believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ... You see Catholic Charities' adoption agency essentially being forced out of being able to adopt kids because the state said it is discriminating."
Whoa. Those are three separate points. I don't see a problem with the first: If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn't diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?
"They're being told that their parents' views are essentially bigotry," said Brown.
It's another reason we should have school choice.
On his third point, if a state tells Catholic Charities they may not honor their beliefs and limit adoptions to straight couples, that's a problem of Big Government, not gay marriage.
Harsanyi says he has a way around the whole fight.
"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in ... a private relationship."
OK by me. Who needs the government's sanction anyway?
"When you're getting married, you are not thinking, 'Wow, the government has endorsed this relationship.' That is not very romantic."
I pointed out that marriage involves many legal issues, including alimony, child support,
hospital visitation rights, inheritance and adoption.
"Within five minutes of my idea coming to fruition, a whole industry would be formed with prefab legal documents that would just allow you to have the sort of relationship you want with the parameters you want legally," Harsanyi said.
You'd work it out as a private contract. Some hospitals would say we allow same-sex couples; others would say no.
"More than that, I would say in the contract that my spouse is allowed to visit me in the hospital."
Brown was unconvinced. Read more:
Gay marriage – what's the big deal? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339589#ixzz1WaxLhH7G

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Diamond Planet

President Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle Arrested

''Illegal alien Onyango Obama was arrested over the weekend in Massachusetts for drunk driving, turns out Onyango is President Obama's uncle.''
President Barack Obama's uncle has been charged with drunken driving in Massachusetts and is being held by immigration officials.Onyango Obama was arrested last week in Framingham after police said he made a rolling stop and nearly caused a cruiser to strike his SUV.Police said that when asked if he wanted to make a phone call, Obama said: "I think I will call the White House."A spokesman for Cleveland immigration attorney Margaret Wong, who is representing him, confirmed that the 67-year-old is the president's uncle.Police say the president's uncle is originally from Kenya and is being held without bail on a detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
But Onyango isn't the only illegal alien in Obama's family. Remember
this little gem?
President Obama's Aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is a perfect example of why taxpayers are fed up with illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system, and government officials in return not enforcing immigration law.

Changed Values

''At such a time, we need to remember that our God still reigns -- even in the midst of the rising evil. As we trust Him and follow His way, He will be our strength and refuge no matter how fierce the battles. Thanks be to God who leads us in His triumph!'' Why crime plunged in the 17th century but is rising again in the 21st
"If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." -William Penn, 1-3-1701
The world is changing fast. A massive shift from the guidance of a Bible-based conscience to a mindless pursuit of corrupt "thrills" has been fanning the flames of this transformation for years. The following news items show us some consequences:
"The upcoming protests, replete with a planned tent city in downtown Manhattan, is closely tied to the founders of
ACORN and leaders of major U.S. unions, including the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. There are indications the protesters are training to incite violence, resist arrest and disrupt the legal system. The protest aims to take root nationwide. Activists are advertising on social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter for a "Day of Rage" on Sept. 17 to begin with the 'occupation' of Wall Street and continue with protests across the nation."[1] "Day of rage"
"In Philadelphia, a group of 20-40 youths went on a rampage...resulting in 59 people being beaten and briefly hospitalized. ...a mob ran through the Wisconsin State Fair ...beating up people at random. In London, citizens have been besieged by three straight nights of hellish rioting [that] spread to other parts of the nation."
[2] (Weapons of Mob Destruction)
In her recent article titled, "
How the liberals ruined Britain," Melanie Phillips adds these insights:
"The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value. The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals... and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.
"Now we can see what they have brought about in the unprecedented and horrific scenes of mob violence, with homes and businesses going up in flames, and epidemic looting. ...These youths feel absolutely entitled to go 'on the rob' and steal whatever they want. ....
"What has been fuelling all this is not poverty...but moral collapse. What we have been experiencing is a complete breakdown of civilized behavior ..and at the very heart of these problems lies the breakdown of the family. ... [T]here are whole areas of Britain...where committed fathers are a wholly unknown phenomenon.... It's a world without any boundaries or rules. A world of emotional and physical chaos."
A spreading addiction to depraved entertainment has magnified this moral revolution. The rest of this article explains why this is happening and how we can prepare for the challenges ahead.
As centuries come and go, history occasionally reveals sudden, momentous changes that transform cultures in ways that defy human logic. One of these astounding leaps began about 400 years ago. It brought light into the darkness of the Middle Ages and safety to people bound by fear, superstition and tyranny.
Historian Randall Roth summarizes what happened. His research showed little variation in the rate of human violence between the 14th and the 16th centuries. “Then in the 17th century, there is a very big, dramatic drop,” he says. “It’s so sudden and rapid that it seems too hard to explain...."
Mr. Roth ought to know. From his base at Ohio State University, he had uncovered detailed documentation of 16th and 17th century murder rates which suggested "that countries don’t become more or less civilized that quickly."
Journalist Alexander Stille explores this remarkable shift in his New York Times article, "Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?" Basing his observations on studies done by historians during the last 60 years, he summarizes their findings:
"Although there were no national statistics centuries ago, some historians discovered that the archives of some English counties were intact back to the 13th century. So in the 1970's they began diligently counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels to get a rough idea of medieval and early modern crime rates.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Food: A Passion, An Addiction

''Sin is what psychologists refer to as trauma. Trauma is a response that shocks, seduces, and changes the foundation of our being, our very allegiance, what we believe and feel, the way we look at what is good and what is evil. Through it we begin to believe that evil is good! We begin to believe in our sin-awakened feelings, which, hav¬ing been born of a lie, continue to deceive us.'' From the beginning, mankind has hungered to fill the void created by Original Sin, first with food and later with sex and other attractions. The trauma of Original Sin has created in us a void that cries out for the very thing which created it to fill it. We hunger and thirst, but nothing satisfies. The more we eat, the emptier we become. Something eats away at our substance with every mouthful. So it is not so much what we eat as what is eating us as we eat, that needs examining.
The emptiness we all feel comes from our hav¬ing fallen away from the true ground of our being to live another kind of life, a life that is contrary to the original design of our Creator.
The drug addict's fixation is similar to the one we all share with food. Drugs, like food, create a need for themselves, a hunger that promises ful¬fillment only if we continue to take them; but as you see, they deceive us, giving us illusion in ex¬change for our souls.
The corrupting power of Original Sin, its power to suck out the victim's life essence, hinges on the principle of deception, the art of stealing life through trauma and emotional excitement—this, in the guise of loving or giving emotional support.
Every fisherman knows that the only fish he can catch with bait is a very hungry one! So it is with man. In order to be caught (deceived) and reeled in, the "fish" must be hungry for, or compatible with, deception. We are excited and caught, pri¬marily, by our own selfish, egocentric lusts and needs evolving from, and supportive of, the ego's rebellion against the spirit.
Now, the interesting thing about needs, as far as man is concerned, is that once he has been caught, an unnatural hunger for the bait begins to grow up in him. Each time he is hooked by the reaction of trauma, his emotional need for the bait is intensified; but unlike the fish, man goes out looking for the fisherman in order to get hooked. He seeks the excitement of tease as though his life depended on it—and in a sense, it does.
A man will surrender his real life to the corrup¬tive process he calls love to a hell disguised as heaven. He enjoys the struggle against being reeled in, and his resistance (resentment) makes him hungrier for the bait of love. Indeed, that hate actually makes the bait more attractive. Egotistical men love to hate, because hate literally creates the appetite for, and is compatible with, the spirit of beguilement. For the beast men, it is the only love and fulfillment they want to know. Gross, egotisti¬cal men equate their bigger appetites with evolving manliness.
You, on the other hand, may not be a gross animal, wallowing in lust for ego fulfillment. Yet, your resentment of the game, the struggle, the challenge, that you see other men enjoying, will not help to free you from being caught first by great hamburgers and later by the love game yourself. On the contrary, your ef¬forts to steer a safer course will only intensify your need to swallow the bait-hook, line, and sinker. Your preoccupation with the forbidden ecstasy will cause it to become increasingly attractive to you—and more troublesome. Forbear, then, to let your weakness challenge you to do battle with it. If you do, you will find yourself creating, and then giving in to, the appetite you hate, and it will swal¬low you up.
In this game of life that degrades one into play¬ing the role of predator or victim, what more subtle bait can there be than food? Food, like woman, can be both natural and seductive. It is usually not until we have had a great fall and have become extremely troubled in the soul that we are ready to appreciate the fact that there is a dif¬ference and that we stand ready to try to define it. But define it we surely must if we are to ex¬perience a right and natural desire for the truth that will make us free.
The trouble is that all the experiencing we revel in before we hit bottom and realize something is wrong produces in us a preference for the un¬natural. Most of us have become so involved with worldly pleasure that the unnatural satisfactions have come to look like natural fulfillment to us. They are certainly more exciting, pleasurable, and satisfying to our egos than truly natural experi¬ences, which have come to appear unnatural, uninteresting, boring, and even threatening to our egos.
The result? We focus our attention on the salva¬tion of our unnatural lusts, seeking to make them ever more satisfying to our jaded palates which grow hungrier for that misidentified something missing, in spite of all our misguided efforts toward fulfillment. http://www.newswithviews.com/Masters/roy104.htm

Rat in Wolf's Clothing

Sunday, August 28, 2011

I am Israeli

''Now let us all roll up our sleeves and build on Glenn's message. I am an Israeli – and if you want to destroy our sacred land and the Jews, then "take me first." We Jews and Christians will fight for our heritage and survival, and we don't need government to do it for us. With courage and our hard work, the Lord and His divine justice will take it from there and carry us through these perilous times...'' I spent this week in Israel with Glenn Beck. Glenn, who left Fox News a few months ago, organized an event he called "Restoring Courage," and courageous it was. Months before his event, I had floated a similar idea that I had been promoting – a "Hollywood Tribute to Israel" – not only with him but a number of influential people, because, as I have written before, not only is the Holy Land "holy," the root of Judeo-Christian civilization, but its future is so tied to your own during these trying times.
So it came to pass that Glenn pulled off a magnificent spectacle, bringing Christians and Jews from all parts of the globe together to show their courage in supporting Israel.
Israel, thanks to the so-called "Arab Spring" so welcomed by our pro-Muslim President Barack Hussein Obama, is now surrounded by Arab states, like Egypt, that are even more hostile to the Jewish and Christian people. The Jewish state needs courageous "citizen soldiers" to support and fight for it. For if Israel is destroyed, the United States and the West will no longer have a vital democratic ally in the Middle East to serve as a check to radical Islam – thus also protecting our supply of oil – and our own heritage will be forever lost.
Let's be blunt. God gave this land to the Jews and by extension to all Christians. The followers of Jesus Christ were largely His fellow Jews, and we are one as a people. I am a Zionist and so, too, is anyone who takes the Bible and our God seriously. Israel is our land, and we must protect it.
This was the theme of Glenn's event, and it resonated not only around Israel but the entire world – as it was broadcast and reported in over 100 countries. Israelis especially took heart – having been chastened by what they perceive to be an American president they view overwhelmingly as not only anti-Semitic, but also hostile, in an underhanded way, to their right to exist. Barack Hussein Obama, no matter how many apologists come to his defense, is bent on Islamic rule in the Middle East, and he and the self-hating Jews he surrounds himself with are dangerous. So, too, are many other liberal Jews who have forsaken their proud heritage and will not stand up and fight for their own people. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, in praising Glenn's event – Dershowitz himself a liberal Jew – also said as much in a recent article. But that is not the case with conservative-minded Jews and especially evangelical Christians, who are the biggest supporters of the Jewish people and Israel.
Glenn's event lasted four days, and many celebrities, like actor Jon Voight and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, took time to come. But there were also people from all walks of life. And, on the last day, Aug. 24, 2011, they gathered at the holiest of Jewish sites in Jerusalem to honor Israel. The only disappointment was that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not appear, likely not wanting to "offend" President Obama prior to the General Assembly meeting of the United Nations this September. At this meeting, Netanyahu hopes that the United States will veto a resolution creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank. While I like the prime minister and wish we had a president like him, shame on him this time for not showing his face. Glenn and all of us deserved his presence. He should have shown the same courage Beck and others spoke about! Read more: I am an Israeli http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=338237#ixzz1WLetB4oS

Shit for brains

Mierda flota sobre el agua

Saturday, August 27, 2011

The sin of self-righteous people

''Her story is a reminder that our sins can be forgiven and forgotten. I am not suggesting that God is somehow oblivious to our sins. God is omniscient, after all. He knows all things. But if God has forgiven our sins and has chosen to forget them, then we should not keep dredging them up again. We should not choose to remember what God has chosen to forget.'' We are living in a time in which everything is being recorded. There are cameras wherever we go. When drivers run a red light, it is documented on camera and a ticket is mailed to them. When we go to an ATM machine, we are being filmed during the transaction. There are approximately 30 million surveillance cameras throughout the U. S. to ensure that if someone commits a crime, they will be filmed. There is no escaping it; they will be caught in the act.
The Bible tells the story about a woman who was caught in the act of doing something wrong: the actual act of adultery. She was an unwitting pawn in a plot to bring Jesus' ministry to an end, and according to the law, she could have been put to death by stoning.
Jesus' enemies wanted to destroy him, and they were trying to devise some kind of trap they could set, because he never did or said anything wrong. His adoring crowds were only growing. So they devised what they thought would be a foolproof plan: They would catch a woman in adultery, bring her before Jesus, and he would have to say she should be stoned, which would cause him to lose favor with the people. If, on the other hand, he said the woman should not be stoned, he would not be obeying the law.
So they went and found a woman and entrapped her. I don't believe they randomly found a woman who was committing adultery. I believe they set a trap. Perhaps even one of the men who brought the woman before Jesus was the other guilty party.
In the Mosaic Law, if two people had committed adultery, they could be put to death by stoning. But both parties had to be present, and they had to be caught in the actual act. There also had to be witnesses. There could be no doubt whatsoever. As a result, this law was rarely enacted. According to the historian Josephus, it was a rather rare occurrence to see this kind of stoning take place. So Jesus' enemies weren't even meeting the criteria of the law. All they had was the woman.
As they brought her before Jesus, much to their surprise, he turned the tables on them. He turned the white heat of his wrath on their sin instead of hers. They thought they looked so holy as they spouted Scripture. But this should serve as a reminder that not everyone who quotes the Bible – especially those who quote it to condemn others – are always believers. It is possible they might be guilty of worse sin.
That is why Jesus said, "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?" (Matthew 7:3 NLT) The statement was meant to illicit a chuckle, because it is an absurd illustration to show how ridiculous it is for some people to always be nitpicking the sins of other people when they are sometimes guilty of far worse. And that is what was happening here.
The sin that stands out in this story is not the sin of a woman who was unrighteous and knew it. That is not to say the issue of sexual sin and adultery isn't a serious matter. It is. Think of how many lives have been destroyed by it. Adultery goes beyond the mere sexual act; it almost always includes deception and betrayal. Some years ago, a USA Today article, "Business Scandals Prompt Look into Personal Lives," pointed out that among those who had committed corporate fraud, in many of the cases there also was infidelity. The point was that if executives are lying in one area of their lives, they most likely will lie in other areas as well. Read more:
What God forgets http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=338261#ixzz1WDcUUoqz

Media Hype Weather Event -- Again

''Why do they do it Enus? What? Say Irene is worse than it is. MONEY. Always follow the money to the truth.''

The hype over Hurricane Irene is overblown, predicts the CEO of Advanced Forecasting Corporation.
"North of Delaware, most hurricane force winds will very likely be gusts, not sustained winds."
o The demise of Irene has already begun. There is no visible eye. The storm intensity is down to 99 mph. This would be a low-end category 2 or a strong category 1 storm, while 36 hours ago some predicted a catastrophic category 4 storm. Air Force Reserve aircraft have found that Irene's eyewall has collapsed, and the central pressure has risen -- rising pressure means a weakening storm.
o The reduction in storm intensity likely confirms that this storm is not going to be as monstrous as it has been publicly forecast to be.
o Yes, it will be windy. However, north of Delaware most hurricane force winds will very likely be gusts, not sustained winds.
o At Advanced Forecasting Corporation, we are concentrating on the surging waters which typically cause over 85% of the loss of life in hurricanes. We have modeled the following predictions:
1) There will be wind damage over eastern-most North Carolina as well as some storm surge flooding up the Pamlico Sound. Some houses in the Hamptons will be flooded and destroyed. Flooding might occur in New York's Battery Park Subway station and on the FDR Drive since the city could get up to 8 inches of rain. There may be some New England neighborhoods submerged due to rivers overflowing.
2) With 90% confidence, we predict a total damage bill below $1 billion. Unless there is an unexpected secondary or tertiary event, this is not going to be a huge-loss storm.
o Our internal modeling uses genetic algorithms to emphasize the weaknesses of storms. Remember that storms are energy. Just like people, they all have their own personalities. From the get-go, Irene was not a power storm. Her goal was to become wide, not internally powerful. Personified further, the storm became too big too quickly and it cannot master its own strength.

No Surprise: FoxNews #1

''That Fox remains the dominant fixture in the field isn't in question. According to the Aug. 25 rankings for cable news networks, Fox led the way with viewership totals more than twice that of CNN and three times that of MSNBC. Its audience was six times the size of CNBC.
"The broadcast networks, once the collective dominant force on the American news landscape, have slipped into mediocrity. For instance, as about 10 percent considered one or another of the networks as the most trustworthy source of news, and a similar percentage considered them the least trustworthy outlet," said Wenzel.''
A new poll shows that the national network or news channel that Americans trust the most is Fox News Channel, with 37.8 percent of all respondents in the poll picking Fox out of a list of nine possible options.
Far back in second place, with 11.1 percent of the respondents, was CNN, while
ABC and NBC were tied at 10.8 percent apiece and CBS holding at 10.4 percent.
But the most untrusted source – as revealed in the same poll, was a surprise – Fox News Channel.
Learn the media madness from behind the scenes: Read Joseph Farah's "Stop the Presses!"
The survey results come from a scientific telephone survey conducted Aug. 20-22 of nearly 1,100 respondents with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.93 percentage points, according to officials with Wenzel Strategies, which worked on the project. Read more: Survey: The most trusted national news network is… http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=338277#ixzz1WDXY0INE

Enter the Dragon

...it's not really that funny

Jackie Kennedy: 'Conspiracy Nut'

''Is there really anyone reading this column who actually believes the “official” story that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy in the manner in which he is purportedly to have done it: all by himself? Get real! Now we know that even Jackie Kennedy, who was in the limo when her husband was killed, didn’t believe it!
I further believe that the assassination of John Kennedy was a major turning point in US history....''
Tapes that were recorded within months of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and that have been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston are soon to be released. In the tapes, former First Lady Jackie Kennedy reveals that she believed Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson and other influential individuals orchestrated the Dallas shooting that killed her husband.
Jackie went on to marry Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis, of course. Mrs. Kennedy had ordered that the tapes should not be released until 50 years after her death. She died 17 years ago from cancer at the age of 64. Now, her daughter, Caroline Kennedy, has agreed to release the recordings early. According to press reports, the tapes will be aired by ABC and by British broadcasters as well. The tapes are also said to reveal illicit affairs by both President Kennedy and Jackie.
According to DailyMail, “Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B. Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F. Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.
“The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.
“She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald--long claimed to have been a lone assassin--merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”
See the DailyMail report here.
So, now I suppose we can add Jackie-Kennedy-Onassis to the list of “conspiracy nuts.” Right? Isn’t that what anyone is called who believes that the federal government hides the truth about what happens and conjures up a convenient “official” story to sell to the American people? Isn’t that what the media calls anyone who dares to question any “official” report? Isn’t that what Glenn Beck calls them? Isn’t that what Joe Scarborough calls them? Isn’t that what Bill O’Reilly calls them? Isn’t that what Rush Limbaugh calls them? They are “conspiracy nuts.” Right? I wonder if we will now hear any of these talking heads call Jackie Onassis a “conspiracy nut”?
And since we are talking about conspiracies, I want to go ahead and just say up front: I believe that anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies that many times involve people and agencies at the highest levels of government and business is downright simple minded, willingly ignorant, incredibly naïve, or has a personal, vested reason to remain clueless. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin663.htm

Friday, August 26, 2011

Nightmare Scenario for Eastcoast

A Dragon Rises

''China, a communist country, is utilizing and exploiting capitalism as a weapon. The trade imbalance that has favored Red China is not benefitting the quality of life of the average Chinese citizen, who makes between $2000-3,000 USD per year, but is benefitting the Red Chinese military, especially the Navy.'' To fully understand the reasoning behind this "security alert" and the preparation of our military and our emergency responders, we should examine what the Chinese PRC has been engaged in through the years as it relates to the fifth-column sabotage against the USA and our critical infrastructure, and the linkage to Iran, Russia and world events.

"The Total Collective Effort" is a phrase used in counterintelligence to describe the Chinese Communist Party's espionage activities to sabotage the military, industrial, economic sectors, the political and election process, and the critical infrastructure of the United States. To understand this comprehensive plan, we must first understand what sabotage is (international socialism) and the goals. War and sabotage have been utilized as tools throughout history to effect change and to subjugate people. Sabotage is defined as a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy through subversion, obstruction, disruption and/or destruction. Sabotage is also an act or acts of commission or omission with the intent to injure, interfere with or obstruct the national defense of a country by willfully injuring or destroying, or attempting to injure or destroy, any national defense or war material, premises or utilities to include human and natural resources. According to Merriam-Webster, sabotage is an act or process tending to hamper or hurt.

China will be expanding simultaneously on several economic fronts against the U.S., including:
Initiating an economic war to bury the U.S. dollar. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., recently stated in an
interview that Red China is utilizing the trade surplus to fund military expansion as opposed to improving the welfare of the Chinese population and that China is actively engaged in building deepwater and inland ports in our hemisphere.
Using Iran security-wise via proxy to destabilize further U.S. interest in the Middle East while consolidating new economic alliances.
A new stage in
China's military expansion. Japan must not be lax in taking precautions against it. A spokesman for China's Defense Ministry confirmed for the first time late last month that the country's first aircraft carrier was being readied for use "for research, testing and training purposes."
The spokesman was apparently referring to the second-hand Soviet-type 60,000 ton-class midsize
aircraft carrier Varyag, which is being refitted in Dalian, Liaoning Province. The announcement indicates China's plan to conduct a sea trial of the flattop. The disclosure of the aircraft carrier plan came less than a week after a high-speed railway accident in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. The timing could mean the Chinese government hopes to reduce the people's mounting criticism over its handling of the deadly accident by diverting their attention.
An aircraft-carrier fleet is planned and will be operational. If China does send its carrier on a sea trial, the Chinese Navy will have warplanes practice takeoffs and landings on the flattop. In addition, China is building an aircraft carrier of its own design in Shanghai. It is said that China is seeking to complete a carrier-led fleet by 2020 after building additional ships to fill out aircraft-carrier battle groups. China's aircraft carrier deployment plan will form the core of its strategy to expand its maritime activities over the high seas.
China reportedly aims to prevent U.S. Navy forces from entering seas within a line connecting Kyushu, Okinawa, Taiwan and the Philippines. Furthermore, it also aims to achieve air and marine supremacy inside a line connecting the Ogasawara Islands, Guam and Papua New Guinea by mid-2030.
One purpose of these plans could be to execute an "anti-access" strategy in the event of a contingency in the Taiwan Strait.
The Chinese military is developing "carrier killer" anti-ship ballistic missiles that are presumably intended for use against U.S. aircraft carriers. It will possibly formulate a new strategy that combines these new weapons with aircraft-carrier battle groups. Read more:
Security alert: China's military buildup http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=337921#ixzz1W7eGpn1j

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Evolution? Call me crazy

''...it is also possible that a Higher Power created both animals and man in pretty much their present forms. The truth is that no one knows, but, to paraphrase Guy Murchie, you are the most improbable collection of molecules in the Universe. Whether you're an atheist or someone who believes in a Supreme Being, the one thing on which we can all agree is that man does, indeed, exist – and that fact alone is either a figurative miracle or a literal miracle, depending on which side of the spiritual fence you're on.'' While making a point about how stupid Americans are, Bill Maher once mockingly said, "60 percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country." Perhaps Maher should consider supporting Jon Huntsman, who recently tweeted: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
You're not crazy, governor. In fact, I might just agree with you on both points. I, too, trust a lot of scientists on global warming, but they're the ones who have overwhelmed the
scientific community with so much hard evidence against the theory of manmade global warming that the whole notion has become something of a joke.
As to evolution, we might have something in common there as well. I found it quite interesting to watch that shameless liberal mom in New Hampshire prompting her little boy to ask Rick Perry about evolution, to which Perry responded, "I hear your mom was asking about evolution. That's a theory that is out there – and it's got some gaps in it."
I don't have a religious dog in the evolution fight, so from a very young age I came at the
theory of evolution from an intellectual, common-sense point of view. Even though I was predisposed to believing in evolution, what I found when I began reading up on the subject was that virtually every book began with the premise that evolution was a fact.
To my surprise, however, the more I read, the more evolution sounded like something out of "Aesop's Fables." Inanimate matter "evolving" into an animal, and an animal evolving into a human being? It seemed to me to be an idea that required a size extra-large imagination.
As Guy Murchie pointed out in his book "The Seven Mysteries of Life," an intellectual, long-standing argument for a random universe wherein a seeming miracle such as evolution could take place on its own is that, given enough time, anything – including the evolution of human beings from inanimate matter – is possible.
This argument, said Murchie, is based on the premise that if you could sit enough billions of chimpanzees in front of computers for enough billions of years, random chance would allow them to write all the great works of literature.
Which is a fascinating thought until you consider the mathematics involved. There are approximately 50 possible letters, numbers and punctuation marks on a computer keyboard, and there are 65 character spaces per line in the average book. A chimp would therefore have one in 50 chances of getting the first space on the first line correct.
Since the same is true of the second space on that line, the chimp would have one chance in 50 x 50, or 502, of getting both spaces right (meaning just the first two letters of the first word of just one of the great works of literature). For all 65 spaces on the first line, the figure would jump to 5065, which is equal to 10110.
How big is 10110? According to physicist George Gamow, said Murchie, it is a thousand times greater than the total number of vibrations made by all of the atoms in the universe since
the Big Bang!
Conclusion: It doesn't matter how many chimpanzees or how much time you allow, not even one line of one great work could come into existence through pure chance. Given that you are infinitely more complex than a single line in a book, what are the odds that you, with all of your billions of precise, specialized cells, accidentally evolved from "primordial soup" over a period of a few billion years?
Thus, evolution in a random universe – i.e., a universe without a Supreme Power Source – would appear to be a mathematical impossibility. As with such phenomena as wind and gravity, it would seem that the only way evolution could have come into existence is through the work of a Higher Power that is beyond human understanding. Not an old man in the sky, as
atheists like to mockingly portray this Power, but an invisible, conscious source of power that man can never hope to comprehend. Read more: Is evolution a crazy idea? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=337301#ixzz1W24C7dbk

Irene Could Become Category 4 Monster

Forecasters say Hurricane Irene has slowed just a bit but is still expected to rev up again when it takes aim at the East Coast and could become a Category 4 monster by Thursday.
The National Hurricane Center early Thursday said Irene is approaching the northwestern Bahamas as a Category 3 storm with maximum sustained winds at 115 mph. Federal officials have warned Irene, which has grown considerably more powerful since Tuesday, could cause flooding, power outages or worse all along the East Coast as far north as Maine, even if it stays offshore. The projected path has gradually shifted to the east, though the storm is still expected to make landfall as a major hurricane in North Carolina sometime over the weekend. It is then expected to continue trudging northward.
Irene was roared its way across the entire Bahamas archipelago Wednesday, knocking down trees and tearing up roofs and posing the most severe threat to the smallest and least populated islands, officials said.

California Dreamin'

I will put enmity between thee

''My God, are you blind? Can’t you see it? The enemies of Christ are all unified in the hatred of Him? They are trying to destroy us through death by a thousand cuts. They all share a common hatred of Jesus. They are all on the same team, fighting the same cause…the destruction of Jesus.'' “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” -Genesis 3:15
I am sorry if I come across as a know-it-all, but I honestly believe that I see things that others don’t see. Sometimes I wish I didn’t, but the reality is, very few people have connected the dots for you in the way I am going to attempt.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” If you cannot see with the eyes of the Spirit, and you cannot hear with the ears of the Spirit, you are probably better off if you stop reading now. Most of what I am about to write will not make sense to you. But today I am writing to my brothers and sisters who do see and hear with the eyes and ears of the Spirit. My prayer is that the next few minutes will be a time of enlightenment for you.
The battle that is going on in America is not a political battle, it is spiritual. Those who do not recognize this are doomed to frustration. If you are one of those who believe that America will be rescued by changing the occupant of the White House, or by the election of members of the Republican Party, that America will somehow be rescued if we can get some “conservative” judges appointed, or a return to The Constitution, I assure you that your efforts will be in vain.
The battle has been, and will remain, between the seed of the serpent the seed of the woman. It is a battle of good verses evil, light verses darkness, right verses wrong, the Truth against lies. Seeing it as something other than that will lead to a lot of wasted energy.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” -Eph.6:12
Oh, there is a battle going on, for sure, but it is a battle being fought out in “high places”…a spiritual battle in a spiritual world. Spiritual forces control the natural (material) world. This is clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures. Unfortunately, it is no longer taught in our churches.
“Spiritual warfare” is what most “Charismatic” churches call it, and they are correct. But like so many other things in our churches, we have turned the focus of this battle into a personal fight…a fight between Satan and your finances…Satan and your health…Satan and your children. But it is so much bigger than that.
It is the clashing of two Spiritual Kingdoms being played out in a natural world. “And I will put enmity (conflict) between thee (Satan) and the woman (the mother of the Lord), between thy seed (natural born man and his children) and her seed (Jesus and His Spiritual children)…”
This may come as a shock to you, but there are spiritual forces, evil ones, at work in the world. They are subtle (difficult to perceive), because
Satan was more subtle than any beast of the field, but they are effective. The Devil doesn’t show up wearing a red suit, carrying a pitchfork, and displaying horns. He comes as an “angel of light,” but he is the master deceiver. He makes bad things look palatable. Hope and change anyone?
He is called the “prince of this world,” the “prince of the power of the air,” the “ruler of darkness,” the “ruler of demons,” (
here is a full list of his names). Satan is real, and he is battling for control of this “natural world.”
But he is condemned to failure. “
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” Jesus destroyed Satan’s dominion at the Cross. “It is finished” Jesus proclaimed as He breathed His final breath.
What was finished? The death of Jesus on the cross fulfilled His purpose “that he might destroy the works of the devil.” It is finished….the work of the Devil forever under His feet.
But what are the works of the Devil? Sin. Jesus destroyed the power of sin and he ushered in His new Kingdom…not an earthly kingdom, but a Spiritual Kingdom where we now have the power to trod “
over all the power of the enemy.” Satan no longer controls the earth. He was defeated at the cross. Too bad most Christians no longer believe that.
But the battle continues on. Satan and his Kingdom have been dealt a death blow on Calvary…The victory of the
Kingdom of Light over the Kingdom of darkness…but the clock has not yet run out. Victory is certain, but a battle must be fought. http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave249.htm

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Tourists Ordered Off Tiny N.C. Island Ahead of Irene

With Hurricane Irene approaching, evacuations began on a tiny barrier island off North Carolina early Wednesday in what would be the first test of whether people in the crosshairs of what could be the first major storm in years along the East Coast will heed orders to get out of the way.
The first ferry to leave Ocracoke Island arrived in nearby Hatteras with around a dozen cars on board.
It won't be easy to get thousands of people off Ocracoke Island, which is accessible only by boat. The 16-mile-long barrier island is home to about 800 year-round residents and a tourist population that swells into the thousands when vacationers rent rooms and cottages. Tourists were told to evacuate Wednesday. Island residents were told to get out on Thursday.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/08/24/irene-strengthens-to-category-2-hurricane-as-it-closes-in-on-bahamas/#ixzz1VwKbcP8Y

Israeli Woman Makes Brave Escape From Homemade German Torture Chamber

German police were investigating Wednesday after a woman was apparently kidnapped in the northern city of Hamburg and kept captive in a homemade torture chamber.
The Israeli woman made a brave escape from the soundproofed cell, made from a converted telephone booth, in 30-year-old Thomas Fischer's ground floor apartment -- fleeing when her captor forgot to lock the door and diving to freedom through a barbed wire-covered window.
The unnamed 26-year-old, an acquaintance of Fischer, was abducted at gunpoint Friday night from her home in Barmbek, a suburb of Hamburg -- 158 miles (255km) northwest of Berlin -- according to newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost.Read more:

Washington Monument Cracked by Quake

The National Park Service says engineers have found a crack near the top of the Washington Monument presumably caused by a 5.8 magnitude earthquake that shook the East Coast. Park service spokesman Bill Line said Tuesday night that structural engineers found the crack where the 555-foot landmark narrows considerably. He says the lower portions checked out fine earlier but later they found the crack. He says the monument will be closed indefinitely to keep the public safe.

Properties of the number 555
Discernment of the spirits, both good and evil.
Desire, lust.
Swift attack.
An expression of emotion, laughing or crying.
Latakia, Syria is devastated by an earthquake in 555 AD. Latakia is the Biblical Laodicea which is addressed as one of the seven churches in Revelation. It's criticized for being neither hot or cold but lukewarm (Revelation 3:14-19). The Laodiceans are also referenced in Colossians. The Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:14 is thought to have been lost.
In Germay the Peace of Augsburg is established in 1555 AD to end armed conflict between the Catholic and Protestant forces in the Holy Roman Empire. The treaty officially recognizes two religions within the Empire, Catholicism and Lutheranism. This protects Lutherans but leaves Calvinists and Anabaptists open to the charge of heresy. The prince of each region is allowed to decide what religion he and his subjects will adhere to under Cuius regio, eius religio, a Latin phrase translated as "whose realm, his religion".
John Rogers becomes the first Protestant martyr of England under Mary I in 1555 AD. He is burned at the stake for preaching "to beware of the pestilence of popery, idolatry, and superstition" and for his "evil opinion of the Sacrament of the altar" (Foxe's Book of Martyrs ch. XVI). Nearly 300 individuals are burned at the stake under Queen Mary which earns her the infamous nickname of "Bloody Mary".
In 1555 AD Pope Marcellus II becomes the 222nd pope and is immediately followed by Pope Paul IV who strongly affirms the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation). Pope Paul IV also issues a
papal law forcing Jews into Roman ghettos and ordering them to wear yellow hats or veils as a mark of shame.
Nostradamus publishes the first version of Les Propheties (The Prophecies) in 1555 AD.
The Hebrew contraction הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר adds up to 555. הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר is translated as "an eagle" and is transliterated as hanesher. Not to be confused with the Hebrew נֶּ֨שֶׁר (nesher) which is translated as just "eagle" and has a sum of 550.
The specific structure which adds to 555 can be found in Proverbs 30 where it takes on a negative connotation when compared to "the way of a man with a maid" and "an adulterous woman [who claims] no wickedness" (Proverbs 30:19-20). This context evokes an image of lust and hidden sin.
It is said that an eagle will hover gracefully before attacking it's prey swiftly -- much like the lustful man hovering over his maid and the adulterous woman who makes quick work of her meal. The swift attack of an eagle (555) can also be found in Hosea 8:1, Deuteronomy 28:49, and Ezekiel 17:3. Interestingly, Israel Aircraft Industries developed the Nesher fighter plane in the 1970s; it was soon replaced by the U.S. made F-15 Eagle.
The Greek διάκρισις diakrisis (Strong's G1253) -->adds up to 555. διάκρισις is translated as "discernment" and transliterated as diakrisis. See 1 Corinthians 12:10, Hebrews 5:14.
The Greek ἐπιθυμία adds up to 555. ἐπιθυμία is epiqumia (Strong's G1939)-->translated as "desire" or "lust" and is transliterated as epithumia. See Mark 4:19, Luke 22:15, James 1:15, 1 John 2:16-17,
etc. From ἐπί epi "in" and θυμιάω thumiaó qumiaw (G2370) -->"to burn", with root θύω thuó quw (G2380) -->"sacrifice", "slay", "kill".
In Thai the number 5 is pronounced "ha". So 555 is slang for hahaha, or lol.
In Mandarin the number sequence 555 is pronounced "wu wu wu" (嗚嗚嗚) which is said to sound like a person crying.
In electronics the 555 is a very popular IC which is used as a timer. It's most commonly found in an 8-pin DIP form factor.
State Express 555 is a brand of cigarettes that's very popular in Asia. They're manufactured by British American Tobacco.
The Washington Monument in Washington, DC stands 555 feet.
555 feet is equivalent to 6,660 inches.
The U.S. telephone numbers 555-0100 through 555-0199 are reserved for fictional use while the number 555-1212 will connect to directory assitance nationally. The U.S. area code 555 is also reserved for Directory Assistance.
This is an original compilation from RidingTheBeast.com -
555 on Biblewheel.com
The year 555 on Wikipedia
The year 1555 on Wikipedia

Not in Kansas anymore: Quakes and hurricanes, oh my

''...After all, if America doesn't face judgment soon, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. And God doesn't offer apologies.
He does, however, offer second chances, third chances, fourth chances …''
Many Americans are scratching their heads today wondering what in the world is going on with a rare earthquake hitting the East Coast to be followed by a hurricane a few days later.
It reminds us that our world can change very quickly.
Things don't always stay the same.
Occasionally God really does shake things up as a sign to us of the consequences of disobedience and indifference to our Creator.
Yes, I really believe that.
I welcome the ridicule that will inevitably come from a statement like that.
It sounds like foolishness to anyone whose life is not centered around the Creator of the universe.
There will always be mockers and scoffers, the Bible tells us.
But there's an old saying that applies, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
It's amazing what trials and tribulations can do for the soul.
We need them. They are for our own good.
No, God doesn't want to ruin our day or take our life. He wants to give us every opportunity to take advantage of eternal life and fellowship with Him.
Yes, I really believe that we are all accountable to a sovereign God, maker of heaven and Earth. If we ignore His laws and disobey His commandments, there is a price to pay. If we keep doing it, we pay with our lives.
I don't mind the wisecracks a column like this always provokes. I don't mind the darts and the brickbats. I really don't mind at all.
It's my job – as a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – to proclaim the truth.
Silly, huh?
Look, this earthquake turned out to be a warning only, without loss of life or serious property damage. But there will be a bigger one coming, as everyone should understand.
Your life can change dramatically in the blink of an eye.
I don't know what to expect from this hurricane on its way toward the East Coast. It could be devastating for some or nothing at all.
Nevertheless, it's always a good time to get right with God. Read more:
Earthquakes and hurricanes, oh my http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=337137#ixzz1Vvskfbii

Tuesday, August 23, 2011


...And the end

''It is a weird society in which we live, the people bellyache and moan that they are losing their jobs, savings, retirements and homes, but seem to have the money to flock to the casinos, fill the stadiums, cavort in the night spots, and take wild and expensive vacations. It would seem that it is a matter of priorities; good times trumps necessity.'' 'I have been reading Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” and find that we - Mr. Steyn and I - agree absolutely that we are presently witnessing the end of the world as we know it. We have reached the same conclusion, but for different reasons. And then again it may be that what Mr. Steyn defines in his treatise as the reasons for the precipitous decline of the western world is just in fact an itemization of the symptoms of a world already doomed by divine purpose. At any rate suffice to say that this erudite and gifted writer has precisely and accurately defined the major forces that are rapidly destroying the civilized cultures of the western world…and these are: democracy and multiculturalism. Or more precisely an ignorant elitist-driven socialist control over individuality and the spiritually bestowed personal prerogatives that moved the world from the dark ages and ushered in enlightenment and prosperity.
What this writer suggests not too subtly is that it is demographics that is leading the world into a new dark age, and this at the imperativeness of the social and environmental reformists who naively, i.e. stupidly, insist and demand that the social environs be inclusive of all cultures and beliefs no matter how destructive and detrimental to indigenous-law and social anthropology they might be. It is these post Christian secularists who have not only encouraged, but insisted, that uncontrolled immigration be tolerated and encouraged, and that indigenous birth rates be suppressed by birth control and abortion, that are transforming once productive and enlightened cultures into primitive dank and dire theocracies of doctrines that engender no respect for human liberties, or in fact for human life.
Mr. Steyn goes into great detail in his book in regard to the rapidly changing demographics of the Western European socialist democracies, and those of their offshoots of the new-world Canada and the United States. The European nations have been rapidly transformed into near Islamic states, and the North American nations of Canada and the U.S.A. are quickly and ignorantly traversing the same course to oblivion. Count the new Mosques springing up in your communities.
With an Islamic nomadic birth rate of roughly 4 to 1 over indigenous inhabitations it is plain to see the handwriting on the wall. Why is it that we spend billions of dollars that we don’t have fighting fruitless and politically idiotic wars with entrenched Islamic Guerillas in middle-eastern wastelands while the very Ishmael-rooted culture that spawned such Neanderthalian clods is taking over the nations of the world without firing a shot? Is it that the simple-minded socialists that rule and reign have not the foggiest notion that they are crapping in their own nests?
I have lived through the embryonic development of the new age. I have observed the satanic transforming of our society into a morally filthy cesspool. I have witnessed the God-given liberties of the people being washed away by political hacks, and the productiveness of the human soul being transformed to sloth and disgusting moral degeneracy by educated idiots of the socialist ilk. In short I have had a very good look at the new age, and it stinks! And so do those who have created it…

Monday, August 22, 2011

Obama seals (steals) his Latino voting base

''Obama finds himself out of the mainstream on illegal alien amnesty. Most polls show an overwhelming majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents oppose amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens.'' The Obama administration angered their opponents further on Thursday when it changed the U.S. government's deportation policy. The Homeland Security Department's immigration enforcement officials will undertake a case-by-case review of illegal immigrants who are facing deportations from the country, the White House announced."DHS (the Department of Homeland Security), along with the Department of Justice, will be reviewing the current deportation caseload to clear out low-priority cases on a case-by-case basis and make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk," the White House said in an item posted on its web site. http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news269.htm
White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz has already laid out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.
"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," said Dan Stein of FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform).
"Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens," Stein said.
Most of the news media are claiming that the policy change comes at a time when President Barack Obama is under increasing pressure from Hispanic groups who blast the president for having deported illegal immigrants.

In the pocket of...

His most anti-American act

''We will all experience a diminished America as we slide into educational demise as well as becoming a scattered and disenfranchised country. When it comes to “Flash Mobs,” you ain’t seen anything yet. Obama has given the green light to unending illegal immigration. This is what all our kids face: In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls,” Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself.'' In the most anti-American act of his short term in office, Barack Hussein Obama, an outsider president bequeathed amnesty to over 20 million illegal aliens and possibly a much higher number when the final count arrives.
Obama, America’s chief law enforcement officer, decided to stop enforcing the law. No more deportations of illegal aliens! Usurp every legal immigrant and American citizen! U.S. borders do not mean anything anymore and U.S. sovereignty has been assigned to the highest bidder: employers of illegal aliens.
We will watch a border charge by the world’s poor like never before. At least three billion people on the planet live on less than $2.00 per day and they all want to come to America “for a better life.” You can bet a huge percentage of them will do everything they can to cross America’s borders to become a resident of the United States.
But, as they pour over the U.S. border, they degrade the American environment, quality of life and standard of living. Their numbers cannot be sustained.
Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the racist group La Raza, posted on the White House blog that under the president’s direction an amnesty was declared for illegal aliens in America. In Orwellian Newspeak she said, “Today, (DHS) announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation.”
California writer Rick Oltman said, “It was cowardly and was accomplished with lies and deception and it will do irreparable harm to America and Americans. It was cowardly because Obama and the political elites of both parties who want amnesty for illegal aliens knew they couldn’t get the legislation passed. Obama didn’t even try it when the Democrats controlled both Houses in Congress because poll after poll shows super majorities of Americans don’t want amnesty, they want enforcement.
Obama violates his oath of office, “To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
What Obama’s action actually accomplished: free ride for employers of cheap 21st century slave labor. It gives every corporate employer free rein to hire a compliant work force. It takes jobs away from millions of Americans. It aids and abets meat packing plants, hotels, restaurants, construction companies, roofing companies and fast food companies to hire with immunity from the law. It maintains minimum wage and keeps Americans unemployed.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce heralded the move by licking its chops for all the money it puts into the pockets of elites while U.S. taxpayers pick up the subsidizing tab by paying for schools, hospitals and prisons.
A 19 point bulletin spells out who should be exempt from federal law enforcement. Everybody, every type of illegal alien can be exempted. “This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative.”
Enforcement is out, illegal aliens are in.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Peeking at little creatures

Natural Born Bull Shit

''The deception lies in that over 500 politicians, and countless government and academic lawyers would have you believe that there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years. Yet, I and scores of other lay people all around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their purposes and to them the end justifies the means.'' There has been much discussion about Barrack Obama’s birth certificate. Why has he spent millions of dollars covering it up? Why has every document produced/provided as proof of his birth place ended up being a fraud? What they are really trying to do is a bit of nationwide sleight of hand – look here but pay no attention to the real issue – he is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The requirement for President of the United States is outlined in the Constitution and states the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
[1] (Emphasis added)
There are those that tend to dismiss this stating the Constitution does not define what the term “natural born Citizen” means therefore we will assume it must mean born within the physical United States boundaries vice a naturalized citizen. They would be in error.
Throughout the Constitution the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they differentiate a specific classification of citizen even different than a naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have identified a specific kind of citizen unless it was for a specific reason.
One of the failings of the Constitution, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge, by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.” So who in our Federal form of government make the laws? Of course that would be the Congress; and within the Constitution the founders placed guidance that may assist us in determining where we may find this information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” (Emphasis added) Probably many of you have never heard of such a thing, but Ben Franklin did.
In a correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Charles William Frederic Dumas, Franklin stated:
[2] “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.” (Emphasis added) So not only where they familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added) Notice the plural use for parentage.
This was based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance. The position being that if a person whose father was born outside the country and the son inside the country it would put the son in a position of dual allegiance between his birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication is that if circumstances placed the country at odds with the country of a president’s father the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against a nation that he has a direct relationship with. How could a man expect to defend against or wage war with the country of his father?
Which brings us to the issue at hand – how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” As the Constitution is the basis of our law and is law in and of itself we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest contention in determining the meaning as the term is not used in general language today, outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, so it is of little use.
Second; should the “plain meaning” not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.”
[3] (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those that wrote the Constitution telling us that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”

Saturday, August 20, 2011

The #1 Evil births all

I am certain that the number one evil of our time is prejudice and intolerance. It is from this evil that all other evils grow and multiply. In almost everything I've written there is a thread of this: a man's seemingly palpable need to dislike someone other than himself.


I tell you the truth. Anything you refused to do for any of my people here, you refused to do for me.

If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

-- Jesus Christ

Human Inhumanity

Why Are People So Abusive? An essay the cruel side
of human nature and a solution.

Human Nature.

Sometimes it isn't very pretty.

In primitive cultures, the primary source of threat to human beings is Nature. But in economically-advanced countries, it is not nature, but other human beings who make us feel threatened most of the time. Human beings are constantly hurting each other in both their intimate relationships and in their social relationships. Yes, sometimes the pain they inflict is physical, but most of the time it is emotional in nature. With a bit of reflection, it becomes quite apparent that Emotional Pain is the single greatest remaining threat that human beings must deal with in the modern era.
Just how big is this Emotional Pain Problem we are dealing with? Well, it is only responsible for virtually all of the suicides, homicides, acts of violence, and cases of clinical depression that we see every day. It is responsible for most of the wars that have been fought in modern times. It is also responsible for the sad fact that most marriages, which begin as special unions between 'best friends', end up as painful wars fought by 'worst enemies.' Emotional pain is the biggest continuing problem that most humans will deal with in their lifetimes.
Human beings have displayed an impressive ability to tackle the challenges of biological pain, but when it comes to the problem of Emotional Pain, they have remained largely clueless. In this essay, I propose a 'solution' to the problem of emotional pain. What is perhaps unique about this solution is that it is not the personal answer that so many individuals have sought for themselves. It requires that we work together to conquer a common foe, just as we have worked together in organized efforts to provide for our many biological needs.
We can do this if we first obtain a more accurate understanding of exactly what it is that we are dealing with when it comes to our sometimes frightening emotional nature. In other words, we need to improve our understanding of Human Motivation. Why do people do the things that they do? It turns out that there are several motivating 'factors' that work together to produce human behavior.


All human motivation is built upon a foundation of Needs. A human need is defined as that which---when satisfied---rewards us with the experience of some type of pleasure or satisfaction (or---if it is dissatisfied---punishes us with some kind of pain or discomfort). We can say that we have experienced the pleasure of need-satisfaction whenever we've felt joy, ecstasy, hope, pride, contentment, security, or even just a feeling of being "complete." The pain of need-deprivation is experienced whenever we've felt agony, anguish, boredom, ennui, angst, or even just a feeling that "something's missing."
We can refer to some of our needs as 'purely biological' when we observe certain 'physical correlates' occurring that are associated with the pain/pleasure that we 'feel.' But human beings have other needs that are purely 'mental' or 'emotional' in nature. When we experience the emotional pain of 'hurt feelings', it may not be possible to point to any physical wound, but when our feelings are hurt, there is little doubt in our minds that we have experienced something that is thoroughly undesirable. We call that undesirable 'something' pain. After a while, we come to realize that when we experience pain, we are experiencing the deprivation of a need. To experience any kind of pleasure is to experience the satisfaction of a need.
It should be quite obvious to us upon reflection that our collection of physical & emotional needs is imposed on us as a condition of our existence. We can no more choose not to have an emotional need than we can choose not to have a need for water when confronted by severe thirst when wandering in a desert. Like it or not, there is absolutely nothing we can do about the burdens that our needs put on us except try to get them satisfied. That they motivate us to act is obvious. What is not so obvious to some thinkers is that our needs determine our values. We 'value' those things/experiences that we think might provide us with some need-satisfaction. We cannot 'choose' our values any more than we can 'choose' to create a need within ourselves for something that we do not already need. Try it. Make yourself need something that you don't already need. Make yourself feel pain if you don't experience the need's satisfaction. It can't be done.
Our needs determine that we will experience pain/pleasure when our needs are deprived/satisfied, but they do not determine what our responses will be to their demands. How we respond to the demands of our needs is determined by (1) our biological programming, and (2) our minds. We are biologically programmed to respond to need-deprivation (satisfaction) in particular ways. We call these 'dispositions' instincts. They have an emotional quality. We fear pain. We feel anger when we identify a perceived source of pain. We feel a stimulating desire to repeat pleasurable experiences that can sometimes evolve into a yearning. These instincts completely determine how we will behave in the absence of the Mind's intervention. It is probably helpful to think of them as the default program that will always be executed to motivate us unless the Mind has a better idea.
With just a little bit of reflection, it becomes obvious that our instincts are the source of all human cruelty. Yes, it is actually true that human beings are cruel to other human beings because they are biologically programmed to do so. Fortunately, we are not entirely dependent upon these instincts for our motivation. We also have Minds that are able to recognize alternative response options that are superior to our instinctive urges (superior, in that they can produce more desirable outcomes). For example, we have instincts that encourage us to kill those who have infuriated us. Think of Road Rage. When we choose not to yield to our instinctive urges, it is ultimately because our Minds are able to recognize that we would be better off if we did not follow the 'recommendations' of the urge that's pulling on us.
(Sometimes our instincts are not easy to overcome. In the case of addiction, instinctive urges are able to exert a tremendous amount of pressure because they use fear to panic the addict into action. Fear is the most powerful of all of our motivating "feelings." Cigarette addiction is a formidable challenge to overcome for precisely this reason. The only way it is possible for human beings to overcome deeply ingrained habits such as these---without drugs---is if the Mind is able to summon up a Greater Fear. Individuals who are "self-disciplined" simply have an Appropriate Fear of the consequences of yielding to their urges. When a superior alternative to an instinctive urge is recognized by the Mind---perhaps inspired by a Greater Fear---instinctive programming can be effectively overridden.)
Philosophers and behavioral scientists have produced inadequate explanations of human cruelty because they have ignored the important role played by our fundamental and intrinsic need for the APPROVAL of other human beings. It is a need that is different from our purely biological needs in some special ways. It appears to be an "open-ended" need in that there is no point of homeostasis at which it is finally satisfied. We can enjoy approval from every imaginable source all day long and still feel hurt by disapproval at the end of the day. More approval received always continues to feel good.
But it's not just a lack of approval that causes emotional pain, even though that eventuality is certainly painful in its own right (loneliness). Expressed disapproval seems to dramatically aggravate the need, often inflicting acute emotional pain (embarrassment, ridicule, rejection). But it's not just a need to avoid disapproval. Expressed approval feels so good, we are always eager for more. It is a need that can be satisfied and/or deprived through many different forms of expression in many different types of situations. It is quite simply the single most important need that we experience in our lives.

Social Environment
In social environments, most human beings try to protect themselves from the emotional pain of disapproval by employing certain strategies/tactics inspired by their biological instincts. We rely on the simplistic 'reasoning' of these instinctive strategies when we are unaware of more sophisticated response options.
Consider the 'logic' of the most evil of all biologically-programmed instincts: the Anger Instinct. The Anger Instinct encourages us to 'hurt back' any enemy object that it suspects might be responsible for hurting us. If you experience a great deal of pain because you accidentally stumbled on some inanimate object, your Anger Instinct will encourage you to hit or kick the offending object to 'pay it back' for hurting you. What sort of strategy is implicit in such a response? The Anger Instinct apparently seeks to bring an end to the continuation of pain [or the fear of it] by urging relentless attacks on perceived enemies until they are finally rendered incapable of hurting or threatening any more. It may not be an especially sophisticated defensive strategy---based on a thorough understanding of the nature of a threat---but it nevertheless has its own 'logic.'
(The Anger Instinct begins to surface in infants as young as ten-months-old. If one baby happens to pick up a toy rattle that another baby had just reached for herself, the latter will invariably strike the former without having ever witnessed such behavior previously. Such observations lead us to the conclusion that anger and violence are biologically programmed behaviors and not 'learned' behaviors as many now assume. Yes, learning is involved in aggression, but what people 'learn' (or are inspired to imitate) is not the feeling of anger that makes them want to strike. What we 'learn' are different ways to express, or act on our feelings of anger. The fundamental urge to hurt a perceived threat or to exploit a victim is generated by our genetic programming.)
There is another instinctive response to pain that has a major impact on the way humans treat each other. It is activated when we [intuitively] recognize that we have a physical or emotional vulnerability. Upon realizing that we can be hurt by the disapproval of others, our Fear Instinct encourages us to hide that vulnerability from the view of any potential attackers, lest they be tempted to exploit it. The logic of this cloaking instinct is simple: if I can persuade you to believe that I cannot be hurt by any disapproval that you might want to express, it just might discourage you from initiating any kind of emotional attack.
It is a strategy that actually works some of the time, but only because 1) all human beings are quite aware of their own emotional vulnerability, and 2) most people tend to believe the performances they are shown by others. Together, these two variables have encouraged many people to believe that their emotional vulnerability is exceptional. We intuitively recognize that we definitely have something to fear if it is true that others are not as vulnerable to disapproval as we are. And so people learn to mask their vulnerability behind fronts of feigned invulnerability just in case they are actually dealing with people who are less vulnerable, emotionally, than they are.
Humans have a demonstrated ability to pretend [at least for a little while] that they are not experiencing pain when they actually are. Instead of showing tears or fear when facing another person's disapproval, many individuals learn to display a confident smile instead. Such performances become even more effective when they are combined with painful counterattacks. If we notice that we've been criticized, we feel an instinctive urge to 'defend ourselves' by criticizing the critic. Some individuals become so impressed with the effectiveness of their counterattacks, they begin to regularly launch pre-emptive strikes to warn off any who might be tempted to criticize them.
In civilized circles, these pre-emptive strikes usually take the form of humor. Having fun at another person's expense lets all observers know that you have the capacity to inflict a lot of pain on them if they make the mistake of criticizing you. (The laughter of those in the 'audience' is an expression of relief or 'gladness' that they were not the target of the criticism that was expressed or implied.) Individuals who become especially fond of this defensive strategy find themselves instinctively led to target those who appear to be 'easy victims' (who show fear or shyness or a reluctance to engage in emotional combat) since they would be the least likely to launch a painful counterattack.
In less civilized environments, Bullies are quite willing to go beyond humor when executing their pre-emptive strikes and counterattacks. For them, the use or threat of physical violence is an acceptable or even preferred option. The Bully's willingness to use physical violence shows that he actually fears the emotional pain caused by disapproval more than he fears the possibility of physical pain. Emotional pain can make us that desperate. The truth that Bullies don't want others to know is that they are just as vulnerable, emotionally, as any of their victims are. They can be easily hurt by expressions of disapproval. The only reason why their emotional vulnerability is not clearly evident is because they are able to mask it behind their smiling/angry faces and because they are able to keep attention focused on the discomfort of their victims.
What makes The Bully different from others is his willingness to terrorize others with threats of physical violence in the hope that it will discourage them from hurting his feelings. "Fighting words"are nothing more than expressions of disapproval that are especially painful to the target, so painful that the targeted individual's Anger Instinct 'recommends' a physical attack on his enemy in order to force him to stop inflicting the pain. A Bully only feels comfortable when all of the potential threats he sees around him show enough fear of his capacity to inflict pain on them that they no longer appear to be threats. It is a defensive strategy that seeks to protect the Bully from the very thing that he is inflicting on others.
In civilized environments, people do not normally resort to physical violence, but it's not because they aren't inspired by their anger to do so. They are. It's just that their anger is inhibited by Fear...the one force that is powerful enough to conquer the Anger Instinct. (Developing patience is simply a matter of developing an Appropriate Fear of the consequences of acting impatiently.) The civilized individual fears losing her job, being arrested, the disapproval of family/friends, or even the physical pain that one's adversary might inflict. Such fears seem to effectively limit the number of incidents of physical violence that we see but they don't kill the Anger Instinct entirely. 'Limited' anger is expressed with great frequency, inflicting an enormous amount of emotional damage. To be the target of another person's anger is to experience the most powerful of all human expressions of disapproval.
Distraction is perhaps the most effective of the defensive strategies that human beings employ to protect themselves from emotional pain. We seem to intuitively understand that we are less likely to be attacked if we can keep the attention of others focused away from the reality of our emotional vulnerability. There are a couple of ways to do this. One relatively harmless way to distract the attention of others away from your emotional vulnerability is to simply focus their attention on various innocuous activities, like the task at hand, or on various 'safe' topics of discussion. But all too often people learn to focus group attention on the emotional vulnerability of some other person in the group. The preferred way to do this, of course, is in the guise of humor.
The payoff reaped from using this latter strategy is clear. When you focus the attention of the group on the pain you've just inflicted on some particular individual, their attention is not focused at that moment on your emotional vulnerability. If the individual you've attacked (made fun of) is unlikely to launch a painful counterattack, then you probably have little to fear in repeatedly attacking her. What people eventually discover is that the practice of inflicting pain on others in this way can actually provide an individual with a measure of security in an environment that might otherwise expose him to a significant risk of emotional pain. Others are not likely to attack you as long as you have their attention focused on the emotional discomfort of others.
Those who are present as witnesses when a teasing/ridicule event takes place discover that they enjoy not being 'in the victim's shoes.' They are able to infer quite easily that they are seen as approvable---compared to the victim---in the eyes of the victimizer. That is, they understand that the victimizer has just declared them to be worthy of his approval, since he did not criticize them along with the victim. They find that they rather enjoy social gatherings when they have someone or some group to make fun of (they tend to feel insecure in intimate settings, when attention is focused primarily on them). The victimizer's reputation in the eyes of others is enhanced because group members tend to recall the smiles they saw on his face and the fact that he didn't show any of the fear that they saw on his victim's face. With a smile, the victimizer can claim that his hurtful comments weren't 'serious' and that no one who isn't flawed should be upset by a little joking around.
(It is noted that not all forms of humor rely on the creation of victimsHumor can sometimes be quite friendly when good friends tease each other, but only if they do it somewhat apologetically and while offering many reassurances. Self-effacing humor [like that perfected by Johnny Carson] enables us to enjoy the same feeling of relief without creating a victim. Unfortunately, humor is far more often used as a pre-emptive strike. People learn that the best way to avoid being victimized by the humor of others is to do it to them first before they have a chance to do it to you. And thus do we end up with the ultimate irony of this strategy: when everyone employs it, we all end up constantly trying to hurt each other with pre-emptive humor in order to protect ourselves from the pain of pre-emptive humor. It doesn't offer us much consolation to know that, ultimately, the pre-emptive strikes of others are defensively inspired.)

Rewards for Abusing Others
The intent of most of these strategies is simply to avoid the emotional pain that is inflicted by disapproval. But our fundamental need is not just to avoid the pain of disapproval but also to enjoy the pleasure of approval. From within the individualistic perspective that dominates our culture, those who have perfected their use of these strategies end up being perceived as 'Winners' on the emotional battlefield. Upon noticing that some people are Winners and some people are Losers in emotional exchanges, our Imitation Instinct encourages us to 'get close to' the Winners and figure out what it is that has enabled them to become winners. They become valued as models to emulate. To emulate The Winners is to identify with them and celebrate their successes (because you hope to achieve the same status for yourself one day). Thus are even Bullies able to receive something that seems to approximate approval. But is it really approval?
The 'approval' that bullies receive from their followers is related to the type of 'approval' sought by those who try to elicit the envy of others. When envious people exhibit smiles of approval after being exposed to the possessions/circumstances of The Envied, their approving feelings are usually not intended for the envied individuals themselves, but rather for the 'special experiences' that The Envied get to experience. Being able to ride around in a $250,000 automobile looks like it might be a fun experience. Having the freedom to not work and spend your time instead on experiencing all different kinds of novel experiences sounds desirable. Of course, we approve of these things/situations because we think they might be desirable. But these feelings of approval do not extend to the people who currently have the opportunity to experience them regularly. Indeed, hatred is the emotion that envious people are more likely to feel for the people whom they envy.
At the root of envy is our very fundamental and instinctive urge to experience any experience that another person seems to be enjoying. We are programmed to want to imitate those people who have smiles on their faces or who seem to be having their curiosity satisfied in a non-threatening way. Hatred becomes a part of the Envy Experience after the Anger Instinct becomes involved. The Anger Instinct is triggered whenever we perceive 1) an enemy that seems responsible for the pain [or threat of pain] we are experiencing, or 2) an enemy that seems to be responsible for depriving us of some pleasure that we'd like to experience. When envious people hate the people they envy, it is because their Anger Instincts have assumed---sometimes accurately, sometimes not---that The Envied are responsible for the need-deprivation they are experiencing.
Experiencing feelings of envy is not a sin. (Responding to those feelings with violent anger is.) Much worse is the sin of intentionally trying to elicit the envy of others. Efforts to elicit the envy of others are driven primarily by a desire to experience the approval of others. Since these efforts are often rewarded with disapproval instead, it would seem that the wise individual would want to avoid situations that might make others feel envious. A far more intelligent way to elicit the sincere approval of those who are less fortunate than you is to earn their gratitude---an especially satisfying form of approval---through acts of generosity. The risk of hearing disapproval when you've acted generously is almost zero.
Our instincts also encourage us to pursue indirect methods of eliciting expressions of implicit approval. If one member of a group is singled out for ridicule, then all those who were not included in the indictment are able to infer that they are approvable in the eyes of the victimizer. They intuitively realize that when they join in the victimizer's ridicule, they are indirectly praising themselves. It provides them with a powerful incentive to participate in victimizing orgies of ridicule (especially if they otherwise risk being ridiculed themselves). This 'strategy' provides few payoffs, however, if all the members of a group are equally skilled in waging emotional warfare. If there are no easy victims available for them to exploit, then the victimizers will find their group environment far less enjoyable, since they will be 'taking it' as well as 'dishing it out.'
Emotional victimizers find that they can avoid targeting each other if they are able to find suitable targets outside of their group. Group 'spokespersons' who regularly criticize outsiders discover that they can become quite popular among their peers, valued for their ability to make the others feel good about themselves. These peers quickly discover that they feel good about themselves when they disparage non-group members. Every utterance that condemns another individual or group indirectly praises the critic for not having the same flaws. If face-to-face encounters with those who are ridiculed can be avoided, group members are able to praise themselves in a way that is essentially risk-free. This indirect method of expressing approval is so popular, it is often used to strike up a friendly conversation with a stranger. Expressing criticism of some third party that you see or have heard about tells the stranger that you find her approvable (at least in contrast to 'those people').
Given our individualistic cultural attitudes, it's quite natural for people to highly value their membership in groups that are constantly disparaging 'outsiders.' Even members of the group who are normally victimized by other members are able to feel like Winners at such moments and are able to enjoy the implicit approval generated by the group comparisons being made. Bashing outsiders ends up being a major part of the 'good time' that the group members enjoy. Simply having some outsiders to 'feel superior to' becomes very important to those who are immersed in the individualistic perspective. Certainly part of their enjoyment comes from the indirect approval they heap on themselves, but another part of it is simply the relief of knowing that they are not among those who are the targets of the group's ridicule. The more savage the criticism they express, the more 'fortunate' they feel about their membership in their approvable group.
People in groups will use anything they can think of to distinguish themselves from outsiders in a favorable way. Some groups focus their attention on the economic resources their members have that outsiders do not have. But groups do not need to have a real advantage over outsiders in order for them to start praising themselves (indirectly). Sometimes groups simply proclaim themselves (indirectly) to possess a collection of noble personality traits [like courage] that most them actually do not have. If, for example, your group ridicules the cowardice of another group of people, you are implying that the members of your group are all very courageous, even though that is extremely unlikely. But it really doesn't matter---in the short run anyway---if group members actually have the character traits that they celebrate. If at least a majority of the group members support the expressions of approval that are being voiced, then most of them are likely to end up feeling good about themselves.

Moral Solution
With a bit of reflection, it becomes apparent that human beings are cruel to each other because they are urged by their instincts to act that way. They are encouraged to victimize others with gratuitous expressions of disapproval in order to express [& elicit from others] indirect praise for themselves and to minimize the possibility of becoming a target of disapproval, themselves. Given the fundamental appeal of this double payoff, is not surprising that an urge to be spontaneously cruel to other human beings is something that comes to us quite naturally. Most victimizers would tell you that they have to do it in order to protect themselves.
So why is it that not everyone is a bully? Well, one reason is that some people simply never learn how to be skillful victimizers. If they don't know how to go about changing their social environment, they will tend to end up becoming chronic victims instead. They don't "understand people" and are not able to see what is behind the performances that others display for them. Those who are neither victims nor victimizers usually end up that way because they just happen to enjoy a social environment that is largely devoid of victimizer-types or because they simply recognize that victimizing others is immoral.
The phenomenon of Morality is a part of the Human Experience for one simple reason: it arises from the Mind's recognition that superior response alternatives can be pursued that would spare all of us the damage that would otherwise be wrought if we were all to follow our biological instincts. Accordingly, we have sought agreement amongst ourselves to eschew certain types of instinctive responses or 'urges.' How do we determine if a particular action [or failure to act] is Moral? We simply need to ask,
Would everyone be better off if everyone were to act [or not act] in the same way?
If so, then the action or decision to not act is moral. If we would all be worse off, then the action or failure to act is immoral. If we would be neither better off nor worse off, then the action or failure to act is neither moral or immoral.
Killing a person who angers you is immoral because we would not all be better off if we were all to kill the people who anger us. Stealing is also immoral in most situations for the same reason. Lying is immoral in some circumstances because we would not all be better off if everyone also lied when facing the same circumstances. But lying would be moral in other circumstances because everyone would be better off if everyone were to lie for the same reasons. Gratuitous expressions of disapproval that do not seek to help the one being criticized are immoral because we would not all be better off if everyone were to act in the same way. Indeed, it is only because people act in this immoral way that the problem of Human Cruelty exists.
Today, we live in a social environment where emotional victimization is countenanced and even encouraged. An awareness of the Emotional Facts of Life leads us to a moral solution to the problem of the emotional pain. Since our emotional happiness is dependent upon how others treat us, we must find a way to persuade them to not hurt us. How can we do this?
First, we must make everyone aware of the Emotional Facts of Life. This defines the educational mission that we must carry out.
Second, we must encourage everyone to reveal their emotional vulnerability to each other. Instead of distracting the attention of others away from our emotional vulnerability, we need to focus their attention on it instead and on the fact that everyone has the same emotional vulnerability.
Third, we must intervene whenever some individual 'forgets' how important it is for us to never hurt others with gratuitous criticism. If some individual insists on being cruel to another, everyone else must join together to heap derision on the transgressor. People need to understand the power they have to bring an end to gratuitous emotional victimization by collectively pressuring victimizers to admit their emotional vulnerability to the world.

But most importantly: ''Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. ...''
(It is moral for us to heap derision on those who are cruel because we would all be better off if we were to all do the same thing)
People in general will be able to do these things if they come to realize that the only solution to their shared problem is a collective moral solution. Individuals who choose not to join in the effort become properly recognized as a threat to the happiness of all others. This gives the whole effort a sense of urgency. We can only feel safe if everyone else is willing to confess his emotional vulnerability to the rest of us. What kind of great burden is it really to admit you're simply a vulnerable human being just like everyone else? Weigh that against the reality that failing to do so puts everyone else in danger. As human beings, we are morally justified in insisting that others to make it clear to us that they are not a threat to us.
With a sense of moral conviction and commitment to the virtues of Emotional Honesty, we could finally defeat the Dark Side of Human Nature, the part that encourages us to treat each other cruelly. This is one 'moral crusade' that actually has a chance of changing the way people behave. An idealistic prescription? Yes. But do we really have any choice? What other path shall we follow heading into the future? Is it really going to hurt us to strive for perfection in this life?