Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Peace on Earth - Laudable, but Impossible

This is that wonderful time of the year when folks around the world (well, in free nations, anyway) proclaim a strong desire for "Peace on Earth". What a great sentiment - albeit impossible.

Don't get me wrong - Mankind should never stop trying to achieve peace on earth, as that is what keeps us reasonably civilized. But no one should ever be caught up in the belief that peace on earth could ever be a possibility - it cannot, and here is why...

The world is a natural place, and it is ruled by natural laws. For example, there are predators, and there is prey. Both are essential for the balance of nature. If not for herbivores (prey), plants would take over the world, creating an atmosphere of almost pure oxygen and depleting carbon dioxide. Such an atmosphere would spell extinction for the plants, and any other life on the planet.

To keep the herbivores in check, so they do not deplete the vegetation to the point that oxygen is no longer being created, there must be carnivores (predators) and omnivores (part carnivore, part herbivore). This creates a balance.

But nothing in nature can remain stagnant. As predators feed on an abundance of herbivores, the predator population grows, resulting in an eventual depletion of herbivores. As "prey" becomes harder to find, the predators begin to die off, as food is scarce. And as the population of predators shrinks, herbivores again proliferate. And the "life cycle" that keeps everything in balance is working as it should.

Enter Man.

Man, an omnivore, and the only one with the power to reason, build, create and otherwise control his environment to any extent arrives on the scene. Man is a predator, but he is also prey, and in an effort to insure his ultimate survival, he must compete with other predators. So, Man uses his human abilities to "remove" other predators from the scene. Man is the ultimate predator in that respect.

And this is where it becomes impossible to have "peace on earth". Mankind does not really have any superior predator to keep his numbers in check. So the population of Man just keeps growing and growing. The only natural means for keeping the human population in check are disease and war. Without them, Man would have made himself extinct hundreds of years ago - if no one ever died in any war, the population on earth would have outstripped the planet's ability to support us centuries ago - long before technology would make it possible to feed more people with less. We would have used up all of earth's resources centuries ago, which would cause extinction of nearly all life on the planet. That is because everything that lives, consumes. For one thing to live, something else must die.

Now think about that for a moment. Imagine 12 billion people on a planet capable of sustaining only 8 billion. Since no one would willingly sit back and watch their children die of starvation, war must inevitably ensue, as people fight and kill each other for the few resources available. What would YOU do if your children were dying of starvation, and someone else had food?

Man will not stop procreating. Yet, earth's resources are finite. If one country needs energy, food, water or any other resource, that country will go to war to take what others have. It is a matter of survival.

And we all want to survive.

War, like big game hunting, helps keep populations in balance. Man has no real natural enemies other than disease, that pose a threat to our survival. So we must prey upon each other.

As Jesus said, "The poor will always be among us." There will always be "haves" and "have nots". And both will always be ready to kill in order to survive.

In short, it is the First Rule of Nature - survival of the fittest.


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Obama COULD Relieve Racial Tensions, But...

If the president were really interested in neutralizing the racial tension and angst in America, and help heal the country, there a a few things he has the power to do - but he refuses to do them, because to do them would be to break the stranglehold Democrats have on minorities and those in poverty.

He could, for example, push for school choice, which would allow those in poorer neighborhoods to go to better schools and get a better education. But he stands firmly against school choice, knowing full well that disallowing it harms the black community. He bows to votes and contributions of the teacher's union (and all other unions) rather than do what is right.

He could subsidize trades programs in the schools in urban areas, to provide hands-on experience and training for good paying trade occupations. But the only "occupation" our president is interested in is that which is perpetrated by the anarchists of the OCCUPY bunch.

He could reduce corporate taxes, encouraging business growth, producing more jobs. Nope! Won't do that, either.

He could stand strong for family values, and encourage black families to be WHOLE families, with two parents. And for children without fathers, he could build and strengthen a solid mentor program, where fatherless kids can find a father figure for guidance.

He could sign a couple of the jobs bills that Republicans have put forth, which would help take some black families out of poverty. But he won't do that, either.

Yeah, there are things Mr. Obama could easily do. But he won't, because the Democrats can only control the minority vote as long as they keep them dependent.


Monday, November 17, 2014

Hunting - Emotion vs Intellect

First, let's get this out of the way - I do not hunt anymore. But at least I know WHY I gave it up, and it was based on an intelligent choice, not an emotional one.

Hunting has increasingly become a contentious issue, because as with anything else, there are those who are for it, and those against. But unlike many other issues, the hatred against hunting - and hunters - is escalating due to the huge amounts of money being spent by a few people to gin up the hatred. For example, in Maine, the state with the best bear management program in the nation, the national Humane Society in Washington D.C., backed also by huge monetary resources from the likes of Mr. Bloomberg, spent many millions to convince Mainers to put an end to bear hunting. Twice they put it on the ballot. And twice they lost. But in the process, their political ads created animosity and helped convince many people that bear hunting is inhumane.

Just recently, a well-known hunter posted a picture of her kill on Facebook, and immediately began receiving death threats. I guess they think killing people is okay, but not game animals.

So, here is the problem: some people look at an issue intelligently, while others look at it emotionally. The visceral reaction from anti-hunters indicates they are making their judgements from emotion, not intellect.

This post will hopefully cast a little light on a few things that most people on BOTH sides are seemingly unaware of.

First and foremost, until recent times in the history of humans, hunting was essential for survival. If you, or someone in your family did not hunt, you simply did not eat. Hunting has always been a fact of life. Today, with markets on every corner, the need to hunt has been diminished for many, but not for all, as there are still places where the local market may be a hundred miles away (as in Alaska), and there are still people who are too poor to pay the outrageous prices in the meat section of WalMart. For those people, hunting is still essential to their survival.

Which brings up the second point - unlike people who are opposed to hunting and who get their ribeye steaks at the meat counter, hunters kill their own meat. They do their own "dirty work". And, unlike the beef or pork the non-hunter eats, the deer, moose or duck that a hunter eats has a fair chance of escaping. The cow or pig never has such a chance. Somehow, non-hunters are unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge that they, too, are killing animals. Maybe they believe that their packaged meats were never alive. If you eat meat, you are killing animals. The only difference is whether or not you have the guts and the skills necessary to do your own dirty work.

Another huge point to be made is the one of conservation. Well-managed populations of game animals is necessary for the well being of the animals. If left unchecked (and un-hunted), the populations would increase to the point that many would starve to death. Non-hunters contribute nothing to managing game. But hunters pay dearly for conservation measures. The fees they pay for licenses is the money used to support conservation efforts. And the hunting, itself, is a conservation method used to keep populations in check, so animals do not starve. In fact, in areas with a shortage of hunters, both the federal and state governments have their own professional hunters.

In that regard, hunters not only pay for the management and conservation for the benefit of the animals, but also are active and unpaid participants in the necessary thinning of the populations.

Maine, again as an example, has had the best management program in the country for bears, keeping the number of animals at the optimum level where both man and animal are able to live in harmony. In contrast, New Jersey has a ban on bear hunting, and residents throughout the state are facing increased incidents of being threatened by bears, as the animals invade even the suburbs, looking for food. And that is a direct result of too many bears vying for too little food. That is what is cruel and inhumane, not hunting.

Non-hunters would do well to use their intellect rather than their emotions and realize that every time they eat packaged meat, an animal died for them. They would do well to realize that the money for conservation comes from hunters. And if they were actually thinking, instead of acting emotionally, they would realize that mankind was designed as an omnivore - being both a meat eater and a vegetation eater. Science knows this because of such things as our teeth - we have both molars and bicuspids as well as canine teeth. They also know this by the placement of our eyes - herbivores (vegetarian animals) all have their eyes on the sides of their heads, so they can see danger coming from almost any direction. Carnivores and omnivores (a prime example is the owl, or cat) all have their eyes in the front, for a greater ability to focus on the hunt.

And there are certain proteins, necessary for human health, that are only available readily from meat. I say "readily" because those proteins can be formulated by mixing certain veggies, such as corn and beans. But in meat, those proteins are already complete. Until the advent of markets on every corner, it was not always possible to obtain the right mix of veggies, which were only available in season. And in some regions (the Yukon, for example) veggies are not readily available at any time. That means Man had to eat meat. It was not an option. Strict vegetarians died in the late winter, as stores of veggies were depleted.

In short, hunting is essential if we are to conserve and preserve wild game in a world where their domain is shrinking as man encroaches. Instead of vilifying hunters, non-hunters should thank them for doing the "dirty job" that non-hunters are unwilling to do.

So, why did I give up hunting? I can afford to buy the meat I want (many cannot), and I made a decision to not kill anything I did not need to kill for either food or self-defense. But if times get tough again, I'll dust off my .270...


Saturday, November 15, 2014

Immigration by Executive Fiat - Act of Desperation

As most folks know by now, President Obama appears set to use Executive Order to prevent further deportations and provide some form of legalization of up to 6 million illegal immigrants. More to the point, he intends to do it right away, even though there is no rush. So, why is he doing this?

The pundits all have their theories, and some of them may even have a grain of truth to them, such as the theory that he is simply trying to anger republicans to the point where they make a mistake, allowing Democrats to keep the White House in 2016. And I agree that Mr Obama probably does have that in mind. But there is an even more insidious nature to his plan.


The Democrat party has spent decades cultivating the Latino voting block, and they need it if they are to keep virtually perpetual control of the government. It is critically important to them. But with both houses of Congress going into the hands of Republicans in January, Obama sees a very real threat to the Democrat  plan - Republicans could very easily pass an immigration bill, and leave Democrats holding an empty bag. I believe President Obama would rather have his presidency go down in flames, rather than to allow Republicans to win over the Latino voting block.

After all, if the Republican Congress passes an immigration bill - and they will - and Obama signs it, Republicans win. But if Obama vetoes it, Latinos will be so angry that Democrats would never get another Latino vote and the Republicans still win. In either case, the Democrats lose if Republicans are allowed the opportunity to pass an immigration bill.

So, Obama has a real need to act preemptively - to use an Executive Order to make Latinos believe the Democrats are looking out for them, and to do it before January.

And THAT is why he will act before the new Congress is seated. It has nothing to do with what is good for the country. With Mr Obama, it is always about what is good for the Democrat party - even to the detriment of the nation.


Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Elizabeth Warren - Economic Moron?

There is nothing more laughable - nor more pathetic - than listening to a liberal discuss economics. And listening to Elizabeth Warren only serves to prove the point that liberals simply are not qualified to discuss money matters.

Ms Warren's latest economic "thought" is a law that requires every working person to contribute to a 401K. Imagine the working stiff, living paycheck to paycheck having to take money from his pay each week and dump it into the stock market when he can't even meet his other financial obligations. I would ask Ms Warren - just which of life's essentials should he give up, just so you can force your beliefs on him? Maybe he should stop feeding his kids. Or maybe give up his home. Just where should he cut his already over-burdened budget?

Sure, she says you can "opt out" - for now. But if that is true, why bother with passing the law? Those who want a 401K can already have one, and those who don't, won't. What is the point of the law? Frankly, it is a foot-in-the-door. Once there is such a law, it will eventually get "tweaked" until all are forced to contribute - except, of course, those on welfare. That means the taxpayers (i.e. working folks) will have to be taxed more in order to provide "economic justice" to the welfare recipient, to insure they, too, have a TAXPAYER FUNDED 401K. We have already seen how Obama has repeatedly "tweaked" ObamaCare in violation of the law, as did Sebelius.

Progressives like Warren, Obama, Reid and Pelosi do not care about the consequences of their so-called "social engineering". They are elitists who believe they have a right to tell other people how to live, what to eat, what to buy or not buy. Nope, can't have a big soda. Nope - no salt on restaurant tables. Yep, you gotta buy insurance. Nope - can't build a sunroom on your home. And when we restrict water useage and your grass dies, we'll fine you for letting the grass die (as they did in California).

Liberals have only one goal, and it is not the betterment of the folks OR the security of the nation. Their one and only goal is CONTROL. Everything they do is designed to gain control over the rest of us, which is precisely why they pushed so hard to force ObamaCare down our throats - control a person's health and you control the person.

And they want drugs legalized - get people addicted to something - drugs, food stamps, welfare - and you control the person. And you control how he votes, which is designed to ensure liberals not only gain control, but keep it.

Here is what the likes of Warren are missing - if you remove restrictions and regulations and let the ingenuity and hard work of the people loose, wealth is created. The folks become more prosperous. And when they prosper, the nation becomes stronger. And THAT is "economic patriotism", not the whacky, self-serving "let government control your lives" stupidy of the Warren plan.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Bill Nye - The Not-So-Much Science Guy

Ken Ham, who runs a ministry and the Creation Museum in KY claims the Earth is only 6,000 years old because he thinks that is what the Bible Says. Bill Nye, on the other hand, claims creationism cannot be true because the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Both these people are idiots, and not to be believed. Neither knows enough about the subject they were debating

First, the Bible never indicates the age of the Earth at all. Mr. Ham gets his misinformation from a mistranslation of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, an interpretation made by King James, who had his own agenda. The original scriptures says the Earth was created in six "yom". It never says "6 days". Yom is the Hebrew word for any span of time, from a moment to an age or era. King James, in an attempt to make God appear even more omnipotent, chose it to mean "day", and translated it as such. From there, similar mistranslations were added, such as Moses being 900 years old. The original Scriptures, again, said "900 yom", and most intelligent people understand about "yom" take that to mean 900 moon cycles (months), or about 72 years - much more reasonable. Back then, there was no "annual calendar" as created by Caesar. Time was measured in the cycle of the moon - month. Even our own Native Americans used "moons" to describe time.

Based on the mistranslation by King James, a university professor in the 1970's, an atheist, used those corrupted figures to determine that, according to the Bible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. His intent was to debunk the Bible, because science shows the Earth to be over 4 billion years old.

And so it came to pass that idiots like Ken Ham came to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He never read the original Scriptures, and was sucked in to the BS of the atheist crowd.

Now comes the other idiot, Bill Nye. Nye claims Creationism cannot be true because the other idiot,  Ken Ham says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. But what Mr Nye - an atheist - fails to mention is the simple fact that the age of the Earth has nothing to do with what Ken Ham believes. And he also fails to mention that nowhere in the Scriptures does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old. Mr. Nye appears to intentionally mislead people by using a false argument - that Creationism cannot be true because Ken Ham, who never read the original Scriptures,  says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That's like saying Creationism cannot be true because some mentally retarded person thinks the Earth was created when he was born. Just because Ham is wrong does not lessen in any way the possibility of Creationism.

What both Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham should do, if they want to be considered intelligent sources for a discussion of the Bible or creationism, is to read the original scriptures, rather than some translation. Until they do that, neither one knows the truth, and never will.

I have read the original Scriptures. I have also studied the sciences. And I can state unequivically that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Both are not only possible, but likely.

Objects without life - rocks, the planets, water etc. - cannot evolve. Yet, they exist, without evolutionary assistance. They had to be created. You can argue as to who, or how, but you cannot argue that they were not "created". Living organisms obviously evolve to some degree - the average height of a man just 150 years ago was five foot six inches. It is now closer to six feet. So, while you can argue that evolution, as detailed by Darwin, might be bunk, you cannot argue that living things do evolve to some degree. We adapt to changes around us.

Now consider - if there is a God, and He has unlimited knowledge and power, do you REALLY think He would not instill in all living things the ability to adapt (evolve) to changes in the environment? Of course he would. Even Proctor & Gamble evolves their products as times change.

So, to both Mr Ham and Mr Nye I say - get educated on a subject if you want to discuss it. Otherwise, you are merely idiots.


Monday, January 27, 2014

To Hell With Apologies - And Those Who Demand Them

I am only speaking for myself, but I, for one am getting really sick and tired of people who constantly demand apologies from anyone who says or does something they disagree with. It's BS.

If a person is pro-gay, they have every right to speak their mind without being vilified by those who disagree. And those who are anti-gay have the same right. There is never any need to apologize for standing up for what you believe in. The ONLY time an apology is in order is if and when someone says or does something that is inconsistent with their own beliefs - not being true to self.

And the only thing worse than those demanding apologies are those who cave in, and apologize for having stood up for their beliefs. The apology is almost always insincere. It's like someone saying they love you only because you asked them to - it's meaningless.

The Washington Redskins have nothing to apologize for because of their name. People who favor gay marriage have nothing to apologize for, nor do those who oppose it. When we allow a few whiny malcontents to dictate what we must think and say, for fear of being called "racist", "homophobe" or other derogatory term, then we become a nation of sheep, rather than a nation of lions. And I need not remind you that sheep have another name - PREY!

Look, if a person says he believes a politician to be a moron and says so, he should never apologize for that, nor does anyone have a right to demand such an apology. If, on the other hand he calls the person a moron but does not really believe them to truly be a moron, then perhaps an apology is in order.

America used to be a nation of people who stood up for their convictions, and that made us strong. Now I am afraid we have become a nation of apologists - and that makes us weak. The most important reason America has lost so much respect in the world lately is simply because we have a leadership that has shown a penchant for apologizing, and retreating. No one can respect someone who cowers to the will of others.


Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Lawless White House Enforces A Law That Does Not Exist

Headed to the Supreme Court is the question (which is no question at all) as to whether or not a person can buy a hunting rifle for someone's birthday.

I say this is not a question because transfers of rifles - even handguns - is completely legal. In fact, Congress shot down the liberal attempt by Obama to require background checks on any transfers.

But that does not hinder Mr. Obama or his henchman, Eric Holder, neither of which has any use for the Constitution or Congress. Or the law, for that matter. The feds are taking this to court because a police officer purchased a hunting rifle for his uncle and they busted him for it, even though it has never been illegal. I might add that the uncle is not an ex-con or anything that would preclude him from owning guns. He is a legal, honest citizen.

Last year Congress was faced with legislation that might have made such transfers illegal by requiring background checks for any transfer. But even the Democrats voted against it, as it was a blatant violation of our rights. But the lawless Obama administration does not care - to them, the law does not matter. All that matters is what THEY want.

Ever since the first percussion weapon was invented, people have had the right to transfer them. When my Dad passed away, I inherited his rifles and shotguns. There was no background check. But according to the anti-2nd Amendment morons, that should be illegal. Under their reign, if they were to succeed, a father would no longer be able to buy his son his first target rifle, or hunting rifle. People would not be able to inherits guns from those who have passed away - they government would have to confiscate them. You would not be able to sell a gun you no longer want or need. You would not even be able to buy a purse gun for your wife, for her personal protection.

Fortunately, the anti-gun nuts have not succeeded, not even among most Democrats. But again, that has not stopped Holder or Obama from bullying legal gun owners, threatening them, and even having them arrested.

And as ridiculous as it may seem, since there is no law against transferring guns, the Obama Administration is wasting the courts time on a non-issue - an issue that Congress already decided.

I can't wait until we toss those lawless clowns to the curb in 2016 and return America to a country that respects the law, instead of being brow-beaten by the corrupt and lawless bunch in the current administration.