Debunking the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

This is quickly becoming a classic conspiracy theory, and one reason for the ascent is the lack of actual facts known by the majority of Americans. As with many issues facing us today, everyone twists the truth to accommodate their own ideas. If you hate the Bush administration, then any insignificant detail can be made into an unencroachable argument that the government destroyed the twin towers. If you love George W. Bush, you call these conspiracy theorists crack pots. On this issue, I have to side with the Bush lovers. I myself like George W. Bush, and I support him as president, but I most certainly do not love him or his administration. The entire administration has been run poorly, and sloppily for the past six years, and no one with an honest mind can disagree with that statement. However, to blame a terrorist attack on the government just because you might have watched a hatchet job documentary that distorted information to make a political point, and that was created by a low rate person like Michael Moore that one minute complains taxes are too low on the rich, and the next minute changes his residence to avoid paying taxes, is a vastly short sighted and irresponsible thing to do. There have been claims that federal gold was removed from the twin towers weeks before the disaster, but that is not true. Federal gold was never stored in the towers, only personal and corporate holdings. Next, there are those that claim the buildings were blown up with charges...one question, why didn't anyone notice the charges being placed? Do you realize how much work, and C-4, it takes to bring down two buildings by placing charges in the basement? It is ridiculous that people are so full of hate that they create such outlandish stories. Next, why did Bush finish his time with the children? Perhaps, as the rest of us, he was told that it was probably an accident, and he did not want to worry the children he was speaking to. Perhaps he is a compassionate man, not a calculating mass murderer. Next, the dispersement of funds issue is another example of taking insignificant details and blowing them out of proportion. Did you not see the way our bureaucracy handled Katrina relief? Do you think we also have a weather machine that created the hurricane just so we could create a bureaucratic nightmare in its aftermath? Wake up people. Finally, what about the claims from terrorists leaders that they had something to do with the planning of 9-11? Are they on the government payroll? Look people, 9-11 was a tragedy, not a government conspiracy. The last bit of information that proves the government had nothing to do with 9-11 is very simple. To pull off such an event, thousands of people would have had to be involved, and the government would have had to pull off this mind blowing event without a hitch, with no one admitting the fallacy to the press for their 15 minutes of fame...the Government is not even capable of baking a cake without 47 mistakes and a vote, so how do you think these people, called incompetent idiots by most of the people that believe this theory, could pull off such an event? Well, are they morons, or masterminds? Make up your mind, or take your Lithium.
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Why Socialism Will Never Work (in a nutshell)

Utopia, the perfect society, or according to one well known Senator, the perfect village...the theory of Socialism at its root is a wonderful theory. The idea that everyone in a society thrives, and that poverty becomes a thing of the past through collective hard work and compassion. What is wrong with this idea that so many "progressive" thinkers have adopted as their life's ambition...simple, it does not work. The reason that the theory of Socialism does not work is complex, but it can be made simple for the purpose of this article, in short, it is a theory. The problem with a theory, or a concept, or an idea for that matter, is that they all look great on paper, in lab conditions, but when you try to enact them in the real world, the ugly truth about most theories begins to show. For Socialism to work, every member of a society must pull their own weight. Take a look around, does that seem possible to you, as an intelligent life form? The truth is that Socialist are idealistic, and if they truly believe that Socialism will work in a real society, they are also naive. It has been proven that water will follow the path of least resistance, and in many ways, humans are like water. If you constantly give a person sustenance without requiring them to work for that sustenance, they will never work. The old adage, give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime is very pertinent to this discussion. If the government constantly gives men fish, why would they buy their own pole and bait a hook? The answer, they will not. Socialism will never work for the same reason that capitalism makes some people rich. In a capitalist market, those who work the hardest gain the most spoils. Removing the incentive for these hard workers to work, by redistributing their spoils, does nothing more than create mass poverty, it does not eliminate poverty. Look around, has socialism ever been successful? Were the bread lines of the Soviet Union a picture of success? If so, why is America, a capitalist nation, so much stronger in every facet of life than quasi-socialist nations like Cuba? Why do thousands of Cubans risk their lives every year in an attempt to reach America? It seems so simple, and in fact it is. This life is a survival of the fittest, it is human nature, and as long as humans are involved in the equation, Socialism will never work.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Impending Threat?

The attack on 911 served as a wake up call for many Americans. What was the message being delivered by a group of Muslims hijacking 4 planes, crashing two into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvanian field? Simple, we were at war. It mattered not, and matters not, if we wish to participate in this war actively, we are at war. Many say that this is an archaic idea, but their opinion matters not to the enemy. Whether or not Americans acknowledge they are at war with radical Muslims; radical Muslims are at war with America. The politically correct parade that consumes so much of our society will contend that not all Muslims are out to destroy America, and they are right, but during the second World War, were all Germans against the free world? Today's world is no less dangerous than Europe in the 40's, in fact, in many ways it is more dangerous. Today's enemy does not care about living themselves, and that makes it even more difficult to defeat. Also, the world moves at a much faster pace today, and things can happen in an instant that will change the world forever. Why is this happening? What has America done to these people to anger them so? Simple, America has refused to conform to their way of life, their religion, and their culture, and in the world of radical Islam, that is all that is required to earn a death sentence. Many do not take the threat seriously, and constantly say that anyone that does is over reacting. I am sure that the same opinion was popular in Constantinople before it fell. This extreme degree of passiveness and complacency only fuels the fire of our enemy. The real question is not if this "war" will continue and escalate, the only question is when. Will we be prepared, will we be strong and united as a country, or will be be divided, and weak? These questions will be answered, and it could be soon.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Have we gone too far in our war against Terror?

To answer this question we must first understand the term terrorism. Otherwise, how are we to determine if we have gone "too far" with anti-terroristic measures. Terrorism, as defined by Webster, is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition brings many questions to the debate at hand. For one, is the success of terrorism predicated on the destruction of property? From the definition, it is actually dependent on intimidation created by the threat of violence and destruction. Therefore, by intimidating our country, have the terrorists already achieved their goal? It is a very interesting question, and I believe I have a very interesting answer. To say that terrorist pose no threat to our country, since there have been no serious attacks since 9-11, is simply false. There are "attacks" on a daily basis. Threats are a form of terrorism, and in many cases, the damage they do is similar to the damage done by a physical attack. For this reason, I say the threat is very real, and the danger posed is equally real. The question of going to far to stop terroristic activities is actually laughable. Our society has become so entrenched, and so based upon personal gratification, the idea of sacrificing for the good of the country has become almost extinct. The cries of "you are violating my rights", and "free speech", and even "you can not racially profile to ensure security" have become a large part of our societal debate on terrorism. Imagine if the prevalent attitude of today would have been around in the 1940's to the same degree that it currently exists, what would have happened in Europe during WWII? I don't dislike the German language, but I am certainly glad that our forefathers sacrificed their liberties to defeat the evil that existed during their time. In my opinion, you can never do "too much", or go "too far" to defeat evil. The only reason we have our freedoms is the fact that those befor us have sacrificed to help us keep them. Do you want your children, and their children, to be free, or do you want them to grow up in a world where terrorists rule with intimidation? We can never go too far when terror is concerned, in fact, do not feel that we have gone far enough. "Ask not what your country can do for you....".

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is God a Republican or a Democrat?

In case anyone had not noticed, the Bible makes no reference to the Republican or Democratic parties. The answer to whether God wants you to be a Democrat or a Republican can be summed up by one verse in the book of Joshua. While standing outside of Jericho, Joshua had a visitation from what can best be described as Jesus in the Old Testament. In the fifth chapter, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant.
In this passage, Joshua asks Christ the same question many are asking today. The Republicans will claim God is on their side, and some Democrats will claim God is on their side, but the answer is NAY. The real question is not which party God affiliates himself with, because as it is later stated, God is no respect of faces (he does not value one above another), but what party affiliates itself with God. Unfortunately, neither party can claim that they support God fully, and for this reason, it comes down to individuals, not parties. There are many aspects of the Political process that leave God out all together. The slander, mud slinging, back door dealings, and corruption that has become common in the political realm leave one dazed. This is simply more evidence that each candidate should be looked at on his or her merits, and personal position on each issue, not the letter listed beside their name. In many respects, George Washington was wise beyond his days when he suggested that there be no political parties, just individual candidates. This is how God views politics, he looks into the heart of the individual, not their party. However, can it be said that during any one point in history one party is closer to the path of God? Certainly God was not in favor of slavery, and in the same respect, he does not favor Gay Marriage or Abortion, so there is some merit to this point. All in all, I would have to say that God is not in favor of either party, and as I stated earlier, the question is, which party is in favor of God. From the looks of things, maybe God will abstain this time around
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

UnHolywood

The death of Hollywood is not a death in the conventional definition of the word. In fact, many in Hollywood are still making millions from movies, television, and documentaries. However, the death of Hollywood is more of an ever present internal decay of civility and culture that threatens to distort the meaning of the term mainstream. For instance, are George Clooney and his political views mainstream? Hardly, but in an acceptance speech he praised Hollywood for being real, and for understanding what real people are thinking and feeling on a daily basis....anyone else see a problem? Mr. Clooney simply serves as an example of the fact that Hollywood has lost touch with mainstream America, and in many ways it is losing credibility. In the heyday of Hollywood, the actors and actresses embodied the values of the populous. We even elected one of the most popular presidents in our history due in large part to his life in Hollywood. What has happened? For one, the culture of the left coast has invaded the culture that is Hollywood. It is not uncommon today for a star or starlet to be divorced weekly, and to have a lifetime membership at the Betty Ford Clinic. These examples are symptoms of the larger problem, a lack of morality, and a complete detachment between the multi-millionaires on the big screen, and the people that pay $12 a pop to watch them. One example of this moral decay is the recent scene starring a twelve year old actress that depicts her being viciously raped by her father. Is that mainstream American values? Hey, but her parents are hoping the scene will win little Dakota an Oscar, and what is more important than the money that will generate? You see, as Hollywood becomes more and more edgy, and less and less moral, there comes a race to be the edgiest, and in that race, the winner will truly lose mainstream America, and their soul. Hollywood? How about UnHolywood?
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Ethical Hypocrisy

Well, the House at Senate is at it again...slander, hypocrisy, unethical behavior...it seems that the ruling party makes no difference. After years of Republican domination in both houses, and screams of unethical behavior being fired across the aisle from the Democrats, the tables have turned. After the classless words of Barbera Boxer aimed at Condi Rice on Friday, I did a little research on Boxer. She is insistent that if you have no immediate family in the military, you can make no policy on Iraq. Therefore, maybe Boxer should be kept out of all policy relating to finances...she passed over $40,000.00 worth of bad checks in the not so distant past. Sounds a little unethical if you ask me. I can see maybe one thousand dollars, but if you get up to forty thousand, you must know the check is bad before you write it...but she is a liberal woman and a Democrat, so I guess she gets a pass. Then there are the cries of bipartisanship from the Democratic House members. They constantly complained that their Republican counterparts would not let them make amendments to proposed laws. Therefore, when the Democrats took over, you would think that they would rise above the fray and seek a truce with their Republican brothers and sisters...wrong. They have passed a rule that Republicans can make no amendments. Then there is the great, recently re-elected William Jefferson of Louisiana, or should we call him Cool Dollar Bill Jefferson. He was caught with $90,000.00 worth of marked bills that were used to bribe him by an undercover agent...sounds ethical to me. Lastly, actually this is not the final example I have found, but it is the last one I will put in this article, there is the great Nancy Pelosi. Does anyone else find it odd that after preaching about the need for a minimum wage increase in all U.S. Jurisdictions that American Samoa was exempted from the law? Not so strange when you realize that Star Kist, based in Nancy Pelosi's district, has an enormous operation in American Samoa...oh so ethical. So, before you cast a stone, maybe a check in the mirror is in order. Leadership brings with it great responsibility, and apparently neither party has figured this out.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Political Playground

Liberal Wacko, Wingnut, Commie, Troll, Traitor, Dictator, Nazi, Fascist, and so on, and so on....Sound familiar? If you have looked on any number of blogs, or listened to the radio in the past few years, you most certainly have heard or read these terms fired from one side of the aisle to the other. The problem is that you have heard very little else, and very rarely do you hear or read anything logical or with substance. What has happened to our once civilized political process? In short, the adults have began acting like children at recess, so what do you think the next generation, the one's now being raised by these adults, will be like? Without strong communication, little can be accomplished in our world, especially in the realm of politics, and at the rate we are going, it will not be long until absolutely nothing will happen unless one party has a strong majority in both houses, and controls the presidency and the courts, and that is not what the founding fathers intended. In fact, this is the scenario George Washington feared when he suggested that there be no political parties, just candidates, and by George..pardon the pun..I think he got it. Of course, it is not just politics, look at the culture and you will see a picture of the nation, and unfortunately it is becoming more abstract by the day. One good example is seen in the feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell. Nothing of substance has actually been stated by either party, and yet it is has been front page news for almost a month. This is a symptom of the bigger problem our society is facing, a lack of civility, manners, and honest discourse, and it could bring our nation to a standstill. The problem with that is that much like business, you either move forward or you die, and yes, it is possible. Can you even imagine politicians of the past behaving in the corrupt way that the majority now behaves? Actions have consequences, and I for one still have hope that we as a nation can come together and survive the consequences that are coming.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Enough with the fascism talk

After browsing the many blogs and websites on the internet dedicated to politics and news, I have come to multiple conclusions. For one, there is a very high degree of hate and venom on both sides of the political spectrum, and the idea of a moderate is becoming extinct. That said, one of my conclusions really bothered me concerning the political climate of today, and it stems from the use of hate speech. In fact, I was appalled by the racial slurs that riddled almost every sight, primarily the liberal leaning sites. Considering these facts, I probably should not be surprised by the rampant over use, and misuse, of a term that I came across on approximately 99 percent of the left leaning sites when the Bush administration came up. This term is fascism, and I was astounded by the number of people that use the word with no apparent knowledge of its meaning. The term fascist, as defined by Webster is one that partakes in the system known as fascism. So, I looked up the word fascism, and it was defined as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Did I miss an announcement regarding the government? Are we really controlled by a dictator now, or do the majority of those using the term have absolutely no idea what it means? Looking even deeper into the definition, we see that a fascist is one on that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism. If that were the case in the United States, then how are all of these people openly criticizing the current administration? Furthermore, how do these people explain the fact that the opposition party has control of the House and Senate? Once again, the far left has decided that facts are not important when an attempt to further one’s agenda is taking place. Finally, emphasizing aggressive nationalism and racism is listed. If this were the case in the United States, would millions of illegal immigrants still be living hear? All that I ask is that people think before they speak, what do you think?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Conspiracy?

The propaganda machine that is Hillary Clinton has obviously struck again, and this time her victim is a Democrat. Over the past seven days there have been three attacks leveled at Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, and in my opinion, all three have the fingerprint of a Clinton. First, CNN "mistakenly" labeled a picture of Osama bin Laden with Obama's name. Second, it was revealed that Obama experimented with cocaine during his youth...during the 2000 election, the Gore/Clinton camp made the same revelation about George W. Bush...coincidence? And now, thirdly, Yahoo news labeled a picture of Barak Obama with the name Osama bin Laden. Many on the left are blaming the Republican party for these three mistakes/revelations, but consider this, no one has more to lose due to Obama's popularity than Hillary Clinton. In fact, the Republican party would love to see Obama knock Clinton out of the Democratic nomination because he has little chance of winning nationally. This is partly because of his name, but the main reason that I feel he is unelectable is his lack of experience, and his age. In any event, these mistakes hold all the hallmarks of past Clinton propaganda machine character assassinations. Just ask Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and the untold dozens of women that threatened to speak out about the harassments they endured at the hand of the other Clinton. One final bit of evidence linking the Clinton camp to these attacks comes from one time Clinton advisor and confidant Dick Morris who stated a couple of weeks ago that events such as these would soon come to pass if Obama continued to gain popularity...guess he was right.



Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Where is the outrage?

Just another case of hypocrisy in action from the mainstream media and those far left of center in the United States. The Massachusetts legislature finally voted, on the last day possible, to allow the people of their state to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution. That may seem like a non-issue to many, but the fact that they considered not voting on the issue, effectively killing it, is the problem. According to the constitution of Massachusetts, the state legislature is bound to cast a vote on issues concerning amendments to the state document, and the less than conservative State Supreme Court even affirmed this fact as a group of politicians, including the Governor elect of the state, Deval Patrick, lobbied to let the issue die without a vote. In effect, these politicians were attempting to by-pass the will of the people, and ignore the constitution they swear to uphold to further their own agenda. This is disturbing considering the willingness of the mainstream media to label the President of the United States, or anyone they disagree with, a fascist, but turning their head to these acts of subversion. Where is the outrage? Where are the countless articles calling the governor elect a fascist for ignoring the constitution and the people to further his views? I for one do not think the governor elect is a fascist, but if the definition put forth by the mainstream media regarding fascism, when relating to people they disagree with, is to be used across the board for people of both parties, he falls into that category. Just one more case of hypocrisy in the media, especially the print media. What's good for the gooses is still good for the gander....isn't it?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture