VALUES - YES - - RATIONALIZATION & EXCUSES - NO

First I'd like to just mention the 8.6% unemployment rate yesterday, which is the lowest figure we have had since March of 2009, just after the President took office. A few more big improvements like this and the political right will be all but wiped out. I'd like to ask Dr. Levy and others - - as a psycho-therapist might "Well you have pinned a lot of your hopes on just one thing, but suppose it doesn't come to pass. What will you do then? Suppose the European economic crisis gets solved. What if this whole re-employment thing really gets going and takes on its own momentum? What have you got left to fall back on?" Basically the right has been praying for the failure of the nation's economy. Personally, as an American, I would rather be wrong in siding with American interests, then taking an opposition stand against America- - and being wrong that way. I would rather be a little too optimistic and be wrong- - - than be a major a pessimist and turn out to be wrong. They say Herman Cain might be withdrawing from the race soon because his numbers are dropping. Like Randy Rhodes I want to see Herman Cain stay in the race for as long as he can- - because he is such a divisive and destructive comodity, the same way were I Lucifer I'd pray that the Jesus Christ show never goes off the air. One time during a game of Risk I was being beseiged- - attacked by a powerful opponet who outnumbered me. But I kept rolling the dice and kept winning. And Bobby Hayden was cheering me on "Go, Marcus, you're breaking him down - - you're breaking him down". Well, I eventually got wiped out - - but not before doing an awful lot of damage to an Opponet would now be less of a threat to the other surviving players on the board. You do a disservace to yourself if you take on too weak an opponet even if you win. Were I to pitch a no hitter in a baseball game it would be no accomplishment if my team were losing 20 to nothing as I walked in every single run. I would be by my bad pitching be doing a disservice to every hitter on that other team, who now were denied a chance to raise their batting average. I think that if Romney or Gingrich or whoever are really strong candidates- - they should look for competetion to prove it. I would have said the same thing of Obama in 2008 when Hillary was beating him in every debate. If Obama were really made of the stuff he said he was he wouldn't have minded taking on Hillary directly at the democratic Convention. So this paragraph is really about two things. One is the negative side of causing Division and the other is the positive take of how Competetion builds character.

"Doubt is not the opposite of Faith - - Certainty is"

It was Lisa Simpson who said that the problem of Creationism taught in science class is that it is not Science. In science you develop a Thesis or Theory and then you "try" or Test the theory to see if it will stand up. In the Bible "proving" something was to test it. So were I living in Biblical times I might be charged with "trying to Prove God". It may well be that as Doubt increases, so does Certainty. Certainty that you're going down the wrong path. Sure you can mention Creatiomism in science class- - and then point out that Kirkagard and others said that there is A priori knowledge or knowledge based on an a prior assumption - - and provable experiancial knowledge of the investigation of things in the material world. This is the only world or "dimension" on that list of four that is clearly within our grasp to examine and learn from. Certainly Michelle Bachman is right in saying that it's called the "Theory of Evolution". But it is a theory whose certainty grows every day. If there is another Theory out there that can be tested and proved one way or the other- we can do that. Just to throw Neil Savedra's words back on him- - God is not worth anything to man unless he can be Proved or Disproved. In other words is there is a Choice of things either going One way or the Other. So God being proved is no more valid nor less valid than the proposition or option that God is a myth and the people who invented him are assholes, as well as liars and hypocrites. Does Neil really want that as one of the logical choices? If he's true to his word he does. And I think I just answered my own question.

I was just watching this video of Judy of some Thanksgiving “values” seminar by the Republican candidates lecturing us all on proper morality. I agree heartily with Rick Perry’s statement about “What we need preached in churches today are proper Values and the people are smart enough and the politics will take care of itself”. This was perhaps the preminent theme of my Prophecy book of rediscovering American values when it wasn’t considered sheik for Calvary Chapel Christians to talk about in 1980, 31 years ago. Because even at that time a majority of them were still hung up on this idea that Christianity was a “feeling” and to somehow sully it with such a crass idea as politics was somehow “beneath us”. I disagreed strenuously back then. Certain pastors which will go unnamed were so ademament in their spirituality that they would not allow the peddling of goods by church members on the property and the pastor would not sponsor or endorse any project that he personally wasn’t in entire control of.. In reality the Pastor was such an egomaniac that if it wasn’t first, last, and only the church of “ME” he couldn’t get behind anything that might somehow, some way, take the camera focus off of HIM, even if by any other reasoning it was wholesome and healthy for Christians to get involved in. Having said that we have so far swung the other way on the pendulum that as Rush might say “It’s ALL about Money”, just as he said of Colin Powel’s enrdorsement of the 2008 race is “It’s ALL about Race”. Today the “Values” that Christians espouse are strictly the values promogated by the Koch brothers as “talking points” at the tea parties. Personally I feel a little morally offended by being lectured on wholesome living by- - -well, a two time adulterer, and a multiple sexual harasser, and a governor who’s favorite hunting cite is called “Nigger head”. It’s funny how they twist everything. For instance they say “education without Values is dangerous” and if the founders of the Ohio Territory had known this perhaps they wouldn’t have been so quick to sponsor education. They said things like “Well we have polarization in this country” and go on to say “We are divided into people of Faith and people of non faith. And among the people of Faith there are the ones of weak faith and ones of strong faith. And we of strong Faith have been too weak and passive in not fighting hard enough for our particular point of view in the Political arena”. So we are to infer that the Republicans have not been hard line enough in their battles with the President. I take strong exception to the saying that Christians are “Happy” and the rest of us are bitter and miserable and all those negative things. I defy you to contrast a typical Rush Limbaugh program with any program of either Stephanie Miller, Randy Rhodes or Thom Hartman, and tell me who without question is the most bitter and miserable of the four of them. I personally have problems. But clearly Christianity was making me “unhappy” and if we are objective it’s Christian interactions that played in a part in my turning to Alcohol. I’m not here to play the blame game, I’m just saying this is what an Objective researcher would conclude. I became happier when I decided as a recovered alcoholic to give up certain “patterns” in my life and among these was listening to certain Christian pastors on the radio every morning such as Chuck Swendoll and John Mc Arthur. I discovered that Christian was another addition I didn’t really need and I was happier without it. I also bill bring up the Dr. Phil adage of “You don’t miss the Thing, you miss what you miss it WERE”. And now we come to Ron Paul’s remarks, which were probably regarded as borderline “Dangerous” by the rest of the group. He said in this country we have freedom of Choice to either be Christian or Atheist, and likewise we have a choice of our political affiliation. We don’t make self determination a crime but a virtue. It was interesting to hear these others say that what Jefferson meant by a “Pursuit of Happiness” was pursuit of the Higher Spiritual Values that the tea party teaches. Happiness is another of those over-used and often distorted and abused words along with Love and Forgiveness which Christians like to toss around. Dennis Prager for instance teaches us that “Happiness is a duty”. You’ve got the wrong word. That’s like saying “Almond Joy is a duty”. No it isn’t. It’s a good tasting candy bar. What he really means, and Dr. Levy echoes this is that “poor people shouldn’t bother the consciousness of the rest of us by complaining”. By the way while we’re on that- - poor people have Values. You see poor people sharing their meager goods with others even worse off then themselves all the time. How can people like Newt call rich people “Happy” when they have billions in their account and yet are “worried” what might happened if they invested Some of that in people, like expanding their business to create goods and jobs for Americans. How can they be “Happy” when they grumble about only makint 15% percent on their millions per year when they feel they are entitled to 25%. How can they be “Happy” when I was attacked for getting a meager SSI raise, which will all go to higher rent so my landlords can recoup Their losses? They will go so far as to STOP a third party from helping someone out if they feel they “deserve to suffer”. Or something. You know, while we are on the subject of “Subversives” I won’t go to the French Revolution but to another subversive, Jesus Christ, who said “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Do you remember the first thing Jesus said to Judas in the “Jesus of Nazareth” movie on NBC? He said for all to hear, “You shall judge a tree by its fruits”. So what “Fruits” have this right wing group produced over the past thirty years of Reagonomics. They talk about Values and I agree. I think Values should be taught. So why are we denigrating certain segments of American history such as the labor union movement, the crusade to help the mentally ill in the 1800’s, something that used to be mentioned, or the civil right’s movement, or the early women’s sufferagettes ion the late 1800’s? For that matter Black People by in large doesn’t even know who the original “Uncle Tom” was.

Part of the problem if that a person with economic charts and facts and figures has to go up against someone like Dr. Levy “who has a feeling”. How do you have a substantive debate with a Feeling? Even on the whole Jewish question as to why Dr. Levy is not a Christian- - he basically “buys’ the whole Christian narrative- - about Judaism verses Christianity in the first century. He will except everything Churchmen say there. But he won’t convert because he says “I just don’t think God could ever represent himself as a human being”. That’s his whole argument. So now in the sphere of economics his whole argument is “I’m against government Death Pannels”. Or “Obama is a socialist” or “Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever had” or something like “Obama’s policies have made things worse economically”. Or he will even say “Obana didn’t do enough to bring jobs back”. And you tell him “Obama has a lot of jobs bills pending now”. And he comes back with “Well Obama wants to spend money and that’s the problem”. We hear Olympia Snow talking about the whole balanced budget amendment bill now - - Again- - before the Senate after they rejected it once handily. You hear the same clap trap and one liners. You hear things like “Government job programs take away jobs from the private sector” and also “Federal deficits costs jobs”. Gingrich says “My tax policies are right because under my leadership during the Clinton years we cut the unemployment rate to 4.5%. “So you did that HOW?” Tax policy? You sure the hell didn’t! These people tell so many lies it’s second nature to them. They don’t know the difference. The kind of lying they do is not technically a violation of the Ten Commandments, but it still isn’t good. Let’s go down my seven virtues and check out Gingrich and others. What they advocate is not really Faithful to any principle. They make it up as they go along. It is not Compassionate. It is not Honist accounting. It not Brave. It’s Cowardly. It is not Just. It is not Prudent. That’s for sure. It shows a lack of Perseverance- - or pressing forward with real steps that have been proven to work. Because you know once they come into power they’ll decide it wasn’t a good idea anyhow. Obama wants to persevere with a policy to help economic growth that has been working and these republicans fight it. If they want to enact a balanced budget amendment let them do so next year on their own time.

I would like to talk about this whole thing of Swearing by a Higher Power. Many say they will not take Oaths to tell the Truth because Jesus Christ taught them not to. Jesus Christ also told one business parable to that prized whoring yourself out the highest bidder and that betrayal was OK if you did it for monetary profit. So Jesus Christ is not infalable on moral issues. God told us to make good on our Oaths. He did not say not to make Oaths and the OT is replete with Oaths taken that were made good. Judah when he visited a prostitute gave her “collateral” for a promise of a delivery of sheep later on. When you put up collateral for a loan you are in essence making an Oath and putting up your goods to swear by. One can only swear by either Himself or that lesser than himself. He cannot swear by a Power greater than himself, which he has no control over. This is a violation of the third commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain. If you are swearing by God you better make Damn sure you have his Authorization to do so because if he lets you down, you just made a liar out of yourself and are now guilty of having of taken a higher power’s name in vain. “Name dropping” is not something that winners in life do, but losers do. Jesus said that if you swear by the gold in the temple you are OK but swearing by the Temple itself was wrong. Actually Jesus said it was better TO swear by the temple and NOT the gold in it for the Temple was greater than the gold. Jesus is wrong. You swear by something material that you have control over. Men get Gold. Hence there is MORE logical control over that than swearing by- - the omnipotent power of an unseen God. When you swear on the Bible in court you swear by your own karmic standing at the Judgement Seat at the last day. You are in essence swearing by your own works and not by God’s authority. Jesus elsewhere contradicts himself by saying that to swear anything at all is to help the Devil. I guess the code translation of this passage of this is “Everybody knows we Christians are all liars. The last thing we need is to be undone by some Oath”. To say as Bea Arthur did so often on her show “God will get you for that” to me is to take the Lord’s name in vain if in fact God does NOT get the other person for that. God has at his power and discression either to give the oath taker a break, or to screw him over as violator of the Third Commandment. If I were God, I wouldn’t mind screwing a lot of people over. (Selah) Personally I wouldn’t go around telling people they were going to Hell- - and certainly exalt my own virtue saying “I’ve found the secret to God, too bad you haven’t”.