Eternal Victims

Louis Farrakahn spoke yesterday to Hispanics in San Diego and did nothing sort of incite them.  He celebrates that "non white" birth rates are higher than whites and that whites will be a "minority" soon.  He laments that Mexico "lost" Colorado, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas to those lousy whites.  He denigrates America repeatedly for taking the land in "trickery" and warfare.

Okay, let's examine this.  What IS a Mexican?  I mean originally speaking?  In general they are a mix of "indigenous" peoples -- Aztec primarily and SPANIARD.  How many of you recall, from 7th grade socials studies, learning about the INVASION of the land that is now Mexico by the evil Spaniards who were from that diabolical place called Europe? The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs in 1521, led by Hernando Cortes, was a pivotal victory for the European settlers. Following the Spanish arrival in what was to become Mexico, a huge battle erupted between the army of Cortes and the Aztec people under the rule of Montezuma.

The Spaniards were aided by the deadly advantage of disease; the Europeans brought ailments that the Aztecs had no immunity to. It is estimated that seventy-five percent of the native population died of violence or diseases like small pox and measles in just the first century of the conquest. Finally, the Aztec capital, Tenochititlan, fell on August 13, 1521. After capturing the city, the Spaniards destroyed the city, and built Mexico City on top of it. Just as Tenochititlan was destroyed, most of the Aztec civilization was destroyed with the European Conquest. 

So Mexico's capital city is built on the ruins of a City that was demolished by conquest…  Mr. Farrakahn, a Mexican is "half invader, half invaded" in a rudimentary sense…  We all are to some degree.  Everyone and I mean EVERYONE who came to this continent came from somewhere else…the human being is not indigenous to this continent as human life did not begin here.  Even the ancestors to the Maya, the Inca, the Aztec and the Anasazi came across a land bridge at the Aleutian Islands.  As people came they claimed land, they fought one another for that land and they took land.  Even the "Native Americans" have decadents who are not "native" technically speaking.

Every land mass on the planet has been occupied and reoccupied.  To judge the actions of man in the past on the values and laws of today is ridiculous and serves no purpose but to incite, to open wounds and to live in the past. But for folks who want to divide, who want to incite and want civil unrest, like Farrakahn, it is a tool.  An evil tool.

The same day I saw this article I heard another report.  Mit Romney was working his campaign and attempted to reach out to a community in West Philly -- an inner City black community.  They nearly drove him out with torches and clubs and demanded to know why he was in THEIR neighborhood? They were "offended" that he was on "their turf".  So he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.  If he did not TRY to reach out - he would have been blasted for not caring.  When he does try to reach out he is blasted for being an invader.

So why is it that the the groups that demand to be treated equally have the desire to remain separate?  It seems to be that equal treatment is not what they really want -- they desire superiority.  The quickest way to get there and to be treated "special" is to cry victim.  That way you don't have to DO anything.  You don't have to BECOME anything.  You can rest on the laurels of those who achieved before you and denounce the crimes committed against your ancestors. And you can tell "half stories" omitting the crimes your ancestors took part in.  We, meaning ALL peoples of the planet, have ancestors who have been invaded, pillaged, and displaced.  I don't care who you are.  So it is time to stop looking toward the past and accept what IS.  Until you accept what IS you can't affect it in any meaningful way.  Should some things change?  Sure.  But to demand change based on things that happened hundreds of years ago is ineffective and unrealistic and lazy.

Student Loans -- Not a Crisis

I went to school late in life.  I didn't catch "the bug" until my mid to late 20's and graduated with my bachelor's degree at the ripe young age of 31.  Knowing that I had to pay for all of my education I was strategic and deliberate.  Something about footing the bill made it more valuable -- in class I wanted my money's worth!  I didn't want class to be let our early or have class cancelled. I had paid for the whole hour.

I started at a community college.  I found there, teachers who wanted to teach rather than teachers who needed to publish.  Most large universities make a good portion of their income on the published works of its professors; the professors there MUST publish or perish.  That need to publish is often a distraction from their primary job of teaching -- not so at a community college.  I worked toward a transfer goal and was accepted to U.C. Davis as a junior. Thus far I had no student debt.  I worked throughout my first two years and found the community college schedule quite conducive for that.

At Davis I applied for student aid.  I got a Pell Grant which almost everyone can get.  I got a Board of Governor's Grant in California which again almost anyone can get.  I applied for a couple of other small private grants and got them too.  The grant money is out there -- you just have to sit down and do it.  I then applied for two small student loans.  The lowest rate was 5% and the highest hovered just under 8%.  Again I found a part time job at a golf country club waiting tables.  I studied, I road my bike and I worked.  I did not party, play harder than I worked and did not waste my time or my money.

When I graduated with a bachelor's degree in Economics I had just under $8K in student debt.  That to me was a lot of money!  I had a year before I needed to begin paying it back.  Right after graduation I moved to Colorado and set out to find a job.  None were to be found.  The dot com bubble had begun to leak and was readying to burst.  I knew no one and had no inside connections for anything.  It took me nearly six months to land a “real” job of any kind through a temp agency, prior to that I took any temp work that came along.  The “good” temp job ended up becoming a permanent job and I was set.  Then the bubble did burst and the Titanic-of-a-software-company I was working for went belly up.  I found more temp jobs and was able to piece together an income.  By now my loans were due.

When I began paying them back the payments were small -- very small. Anyone who did not take out more than a couple of loans can make those payments of the income of a waitress.  I found myself having to take work that did not use my degree at all but paid the bills.  I began to pay extra on the higher interest loan to pay it down faster.  When it was paid off I paid extra on the lower interest loan.  I paid them all off early. When you hear young people dithering about having debt until they are 40 (assuming they went to college right after high school) that is because of one of two things and sometimes both.  First, they took out way too much money in the forms of loans.  They don't have to do that -- they CHOOSE to do that.  And second they make minimum payments on those loans.  Most don't have to do that either.  They can forgo 3 lattes a week and make an extra payment.

On the morning before Mr. Obama was to address students at CU Boulder they interviewed students who had been waiting in line for tickets all night.  We heard the interviews on local radio. One girl was so excited that he was coming and that he as addressing the fact that their student loan interest rates were going up to just over 6%.  She went on to say that she thought education should be a "right".  Wait a sec young lady; you did get twelve years of free education!  I helped pay for your education too.  The rest of it is up to you.  Spread your little wings and fly.  The gift that all of us are blessed with in the United States is a free K-12 education.  Some people beyond that don't need or want more.  They take up a trade, enter into an apprenticeship or begin as an hourly worker somewhere and work their way up to management.  I would venture to guess that a large portion of today's degrees are never "used".  The college-aged generation today was raised in an entitlement atmosphere so no wonder they have an entitlement frame of mind.  A college education is NOT a right; the freedom to PURSUE one is.

Today’s student loan debt exceeds one TRILLION dollars.  Students are protesting this debt.  But wait a minute – it is their debt, not mine, not yours, but theirs.  Some of them actually want that debt forgiven.  I would like my mortgage debt forgiven too and my car payment and the credits cards, but that is not going to happen.  A student loan is an unsecured loan – they can’t really repossess a kid’s education.  Because it is unsecured, young people can actually threaten to walk away from their own personal debt and have few repercussions.  In many cases the value of the education in real terms is lower than the cost of the loan they took out to get that education.  But no one likes to look at this critically because it is our “young people” and it is “education”.  At eighteen a young man can enter the military and die in on foreign soil for the freedoms of this country. His peers of the same age can make better life decisions regarding their debt and their tolerance for it.  To write this off as an “error of the young” is absurd and inexcusable – this time if any, is the best time for them to learn to stand on their own two feet.   Today’s young people have got to understand what debt is and what it means before they take it on.

There are not a lot of great jobs out there – but there are jobs.  No one should believe that by getting a degree they are entitled to a job – it just isn’t so.  I took whatever I could get in order to support myself and service my debt.  I was not entitled to a thing – neither are they.  Grow up and take responsibility for the decisions you make and the money you take.

Slavery in America -- Common Ground

Don't ask me why I thought to look this up. I stumbled upon the idea while doing a completely unrelated Internet search. In that search myriad side bar stories came up. One was a story about a white teen ager in Kansas City who had been doused with gasoline by black teen aged boys. It happened a month ago and I never heard a word of it. I have heard an endless barrage of stories about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, but no word of the burning of an Anglo boy by Black boys. I began to think about what I was taught in high school and even college American History classes about blacks and whites in America and about America's slavery. What I found was interesting.

We all were taught a good deal about black slavery in America. We all know that he civil war was in part fought to change the plight of the black slave. We think we know that happened. Then I remembered a term that was talked about regarding whites. "Indentured servant." I began to research what it really meant, not what I was taught it meant. What it means in the vast majority of all situations is "slave". 
Long before any black person was enslaved or sold in America, tens of thousands of Anglo-Saxons were. Writer Elaine Kendall asks "Who wants to be reminded that half - perhaps as many as two-thirds - of the original American colonists came here, not of their own free will, but kidnapped, shanghaied, impressed, duped, beguiled, and yes, in chains - ?...we tend to gloss over it... we'd prefer to forget the whole sorry chapter." The word "slave" itself is derived from the word "slav," a reference to the Eastern European White people who, among others, were enslaved by their fellow Whites, by the Mongols, and by the Arabs over a period of many centuries. The white people, who were bought, sold and worked until death did not refer to themselves as servants but as slaves. The Black slaves referred to them as "white slaves".

According to Thomas Burton's Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. The Irish and the Scots were the most heavily traded and often put into situations often more dangerous than their black counterparts because their owners deemed them less valuable and expendable. If they died or fell overboard it was not a great loss. The term kidnapping, originally kid-nabbing, was a term coined to refer to the abduction of poor white children to be sold into slavery in Britain or plantations in America. Also the term "spirited-away" was a term used when any White person was taken against his will as the white slaves were called "spirits".

The mass establishment media, as well as academia, focuses exclusively on the enslavement of Blacks. It is promulgated that only Whites bear responsibility for enslaving Blacks and that only Blacks were slaves. The perpetuation of this non-truth is in part responsible for the ongoing division in America between Blacks and Whites. There is still blaming and there is still shaming even though not single living black person was a slave nor a living white person a slave owner. In fact, Blacks in Africa engaged in widespread slavery of their own. Slavery was endemic in Africa, with whole tribes being enslaved through conquest on a regular basis. When Arabic, Jewish and White slave traders arrived on the coast of sub-Saharan Africa, they did not often have to hunt their quarry -- they almost never had to leave port. They were met on the coast by Africans more than willing to sell slaves to them by the thousands. And in America, records show that Black slaves were owned, not just by a few wealthy Whites, but by free Blacks and by Cherokee Indians. In some cases, these Blacks and Indians even owned White slaves.

While I found a lot of answers in my research, it left me with a nagging question. Why? Why is it so important to keep the historic plight of the black slave alive and well yet the story of the white slave is never, not ever told? Why is the story of the white slave not only "not told" but a new story called "indentured servitude" fabricated to gloss over it? There were some indentured servants (both black and white), but in all my reading I found that the vast majority of them were slaves with no way what so ever to work toward freedom. This rewriting of history is a very deliberate and calculated process. To what end? I hesitate to use the word "agenda" because I don't want this to be laced with anything other than the facts as I found them. But it bears to ask what is the purpose today to perpetuate this fallacy? What was the purpose in the first place?

It might be a useful thing to talk about and to bring out in the light and I mean REALLY talk about. Maybe, just maybe if we do this true equality can be felt and resentments of past crimes can be let go. We might find some connectivity in our ancestors' common misery. It seems that finding common ground -- of any kind is a good thing.

The EPA Power Grab

The EPA was started in the early 1970's by none other than Richard Nixon. It was the days that we all can remember the "Give a hoot, don't pollute" and of course the Indian paddling through a trash filled lake and the moving ending of the close up of the tear on his cheek.  I remember those commercials CLEARLY and they moved me, even as a little kid.  I was a conservationist before anyone was talking about it.  I picked up trash, collected aluminum cans and turned OFF the water while I was brushing my teeth. We never did a half load of laundry and dear God knows how many times we reused a zip lock bag (considered precious) or a piece of tin foil.  We turned lights off in rooms that we weren't using or it came out of our allowance.  I still do all of these things today.

The EPA has its fingers in almost everybody's pie. Take for example the lead based paint measures that must be taken when you remodel a house built before 1978.  If you are hiring a contractor he must go to extreme measures to make sure no particles become airborne if he disturbs more than 6 square feet of anything. These extreme measures can add hundreds of dollars to the expense of a very small job but will lead to thousands and thousands on a larger job.  Do you have thousands of dollars extra to spend?  But if you are an owner-builder or a do-it-yourself person you don't need to comply -- you can tear up as much as you want!  If it is truly THAT dangerous why wouldn't everyone have to do it?  The irony of this sort of mandate is that it will drive jobs like this underground -- where there will be no permits and no controls.  Remember back alley abortions -- they happened anyway.

Today's EPA is an organization that has run amok.  It has its fingers in literally everything we do because everything we do has some perceived impact, directly or indirectly on the environment.  I am going to give you a couple of examples of what the EPA is up to and how it affects us locally.  But when I am done, make sure understand that I am talking about a FEDERAL mandate so it will affect you too.

First I will note that the EPA is now a cabinet level-organization.  In its requirements for changes in the law it must submit those changes to Congress.  There is no language that requires Congress to APPROVE anything!  So all they do is say "This is what we are going to do" and they can do it.  NO checks and balances.  This is the beginning of "amok".

The EPA manages how towns, municipalities and states deal with storm water runoff -- among MANY other things -- but we will narrow our focus on just this for now.  In many eastern cities the storm runoff enters the sewer system and then becomes a part of the sewer treatment process.  If that is the case I understand a strict set of management rules around it.  In the west and the mid-west that is almost NEVER the case.  Storm runoff is distinctly separate from anything other than storm runoff. The two systems have nothing, no pipes, no controls, nothing in common.  In fact the local laws around development require that they be kept separate.

The EPA also issues permits for municipalities, counties and states and has the right to audit all the past projects of those entities and make decisions about whether or not they were done properly, an entity that performs badly on an audit risks losing its permit or will not be renewed.  Without that permit the entity cannot issue citizens any permits to build anything.

So now the EPA wants to mandate that all run off from a storm in every state in the nation handle that run off as if it were water pollution. So they are now saying that water is a pollutant to water. Not only do they want this moving forward but they want to require that all developments be retro fitted to comply with these new standards.  Our county engineers did a study on a single, medium-sized commercial development in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.  It was a small strip shopping center with a Safeway as the anchor store.  The retrofit on that development alone would cost $1.2 million dollars and that does not include the purchase of the land that the newly constructed retention pond would have to be on.  What commercial land owner has that kind of money?  If the Horse Park had to retrofit for all if its barns and arenas we would close the doors. The EPA wants this to apply now to everyone -- residential and commercial in EVERY state whether your land sits inside a city limit or is in the middle of nowhere.  So now if you build a home on a city lot or on 40 acres or 640 acres in Huerfano (BFE) County you must have a storm water mitigation plan.  This entails building a retention pond and making sure that all run off from every roof, driveway or impermeable surface of ANY kind goes into that pond.  Keeping the water that comes off your structure IN the pond and only releasing it back onto the ground at historic flow rates (this means in Colorado very slowly).  So now you have to dedicate land for nothing other than a storm event.  What happens if you don't have that much land to set aside for this pond?  Tough doo-doo, you can't develop.  The city lot won't be large enough anyway -- where would your pond go?  

 The cost for all of this pond building and retro fitting lands squarely on the shoulders of the land owner or the developer.  Any of the economic recovery we have seen (if there has been any) will stop cold.  Oh and there are already requirements for "pond owners" to control mosquitoes -- so now you have yet another thing to manage. The EPA makes suggestions about now using that pond for irrigation.  What they don't realize is that in the state of Colorado it is against state law to trap rain water and put it to use (dumb, I know -- but true).  The state wants all water to return to the aquifer. The other thought that comes to me is this, I am trapping the water because it is now considered pollution. If that water in the pond is considered "pollution" why would you allow me to now water my grass with it?

Another amazingly costly mandate concerns road building.  The EPA is now asking that anytime a road is being re-surfaced and a mile or more of the surface is removed for the laying of new asphalt that the road be considered NEW development.  The road is not changing at all.  The road bed and the grading and subsurface are still totally intact. The path of the road is not changing. The difference between new development and redevelopment is HUGE where the EPA is concerned.  This would require new EISs (environmental impact studies) to be done for all resurfacing projects.  All the engineering to be redone and every hoop that is out there to be jumped through again. So not only does this add amazing expense to road building it stalls the process mercilessly.  I don't know about your state but here in Colorado we have a narrow window in the seasons for road building.  If we thought the roads were bad now…just wait, they'll get worse!

So the EPA is mandating from Washington requirements for states that have nothing in COMMON with Washington to change the way they do business.  The EPA is taking away a state's right to manage itself and is passing laws at the federal level that don't take the unique physical, legal and environmental factors OF a particular state into account.

I had a long meeting with one of our county engineers.  Our county is going to lead the charge against the EPA.  We are going to demand that when the EPA goes before Congress that they MUST get Congressional approval.  Our county had experienced unparallel growth in the last decade -- most occurring in the first part of the last decade.  In 2007 it was ranked in the top ten of the fastest growing counties in the nation.  Over that decade our water quality has steadily increased.  Despite the growth the local ground water and the stream water has gotten better; in fact it is outstanding.  This is because the county cares about itself. It is one of the reasons people choose to live here.  The EPA doesn't care that the practices already in place exceed the goals and standards of most of the nation.  Whatever the county is doing now WORKS.  Who knows if the new EPA standards will positively or negatively affect the stellar record of Douglas County? This sort of blanket law very likely will have negative unintended consequences. They obviously haven't tested them in environments like ours -- heck they don't even know our state's laws around water and water use. I guess it won't matter though -- no one will be able to afford to build.  Thank you EPA for cutting our throats yet again.

What I don't get is, why?  In this case I know that the EPA does not care about the record of water quality.  In the case of Douglas County they have not even looked at it.  I know in Colorado, Douglas County is not the only one doing things well -- the state as a whole is doing this very well. We think that the EPA is motivated by environmental concerns and protecting it.  We all know it requires balance to do so.  We must allow growth and economic recovery and attempt to mitigate negative impacts on the environment.  But we know we can't eliminate them altogether and be a society of civilized people.  Flush toilets are far better than outhouses for ground water and public health.  If the EPA continues its control and mandates -- who is going to be able to build anything?  The EPA has being running so far and so fast without any sort of checks and balances that they have both lost sight and lost perspective.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Other than having "power", extreme power, I am not sure what the EPA gets out of all of this.  But we see tyrannical dictators all through history acting in bizarre ways -- the EPA at this point is no different.

These are just a few of the things that will be directly affected by new EPA standards.  It is by NO MEANS and exhaustive list.

Protect the environment YES but we must stop the EPA.

Obama, Oil and the Games Being Played.

A few days ago in Largo, MD Obama said that the US is producing more oil than it has in the last 8 years (I heard the speech). That oil he is referring to is being produced only because private investors are doing it on private land and he cannot stop them.  There has been no new exploration on federal land whatsoever.  His speech he says "We are drilling everywhere.  Well not in the National Mall and not in your yard."  You Mr. Obama are doing nothing -- private enterprise is doing it all despite you.  When he talks to folks who want to think he supports oil exploration he uses this speech. When he is talking to environmental groups he brags about "no new rigs", "no Keystone pipeline". Which is it Mr. Obama?  Are "we" drilling a lot or aren't we?
 

Obama has in effect placed an embargo on the United States and that position has created YOUR gas prices. The rest of the world does not believe the US will become energy independent under this man and thus the price goes up. The moment they feel like we are expanding our exploration -- those prices will plummet.  Oh and he says we like "gas guzzlers" ... your presidential limo gets 8 miles to the gallon sir.

 

He is discussing, and when the timing is JUST right, he will release gas from the U.S. strategic reserves to bring the price at the pump down -- just in time for your vote. What he does not tell you is that we, the American tax payers, are required to replace that oil into the reserves at market price. Of course he denies they have "made a deal" but breaking news says that gas prices have already dropped a smidgen from the news of just the "talking". And he says that a president can do nothing to affect the price of gas? Hmmmmm.  "Talking" affected it in less than 24 hours. Your gas prices are high because the world watches us not produce our own oil.  They don't believe we will ever be able to pull out of Saudi Arabian oil and we are at their mercy -- and we are under Obama.  If they for a moment thought we could and would flood the market with inexpensive crude -- prices would drop dramatically.  Why in the worst economy of our lifetime would he decide to hamstring the economy with high fuel prices?  I have theories.

He already tapped into our strategic reserves twice (30 million barrels a pop -- that is almost 10% of it) to ease the pain at the pump for his politics -- he did not save us money -- we still have to pay for that oil. This is NOT new oil -- it is oil that is there for our strategic reserves -- he is playing politics with it...and we all (Rs & Ds) are paying for it.

 

He has issued no new permits to American companies in the gulf (but he has allowed foreign companies to do so). And JUST now he is talking about issuing a "handful of permits" for the gulf --- hmmmm, again very good timing.  Remember how talking affects prices? Thinking now, talking now, get a little excitement and when the timing before the election is "just" right he will issue them...the games go on.

 

And lastly -- do NOT, I repeat DO NOT believe a word the Obama administration tells you about the US having only 2% of the world's oil reserves. He is just not allowing us to access it and he would rather affect the market with OUR reserves like a parent doles out an allowance to a dependent child...

 

When he took office nationally gas averaged $1.78 a gallon...we have had no 9/11's the housing market does not affect oil prices...think about it. A self imposed embargo.... Hmmmmmm. Make it hurt and then come to the rescue… Then once you have elected him again, the price goes up and you are driven to use alternative energy because now it is relatively cheaper (the difference between the costs of fossil fuels and alternative energy is smaller now because of oil prices being through the roof).  Most alternative energy sources are NOT sustainable -- they cost more than they produce.  The wind farms of the plains will become broken down eyesores when the government subsidies dry up.  I support the research and development of alternative energy -- I do NOT want to be forced to use it by anyone UNTIL it is affordable and sustainable.  I am actually okay with government assistance in R&D -- I am not okay with it to fund operations that are not sustainable.  I hear people talk about the "fat cats" in the oil industry "lining their pockets".  Well Mr. Obama is the one helping line those pockets -- he is driving up the price!  And don't think for a MINUTE that there are not equally fat cats behind "alternative energy".  There are…

The Liberal Lynch Mob

I went to bed thinking about this and woke up thinking about it.  I am affected by it and I am not clear why so particularly other than how utterly blasphemous it is. It is frightening that this group can affect their state legislature regardless of what the law says.

The story, this is a direct quote from an online story:

"For 40 years, it's been illegal to hunt mountain lions in California -- so you'd think California's top Fish and Game Commissioner might respect the law, at least publicly.

Not Dan Richards. The new Fish and Game President not only traveled to Idaho to kill a mountain lion, he even responded to the mounting controversy surrounding the photo he made public saying it's "none of your business." 

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and at least 40 state lawmakers have now called for Richard's resignation. If he doesn't resign, he can and should be voted out by a simple majority in the legislature." (end quote)

I am stunned. This man did not break any law; he is a law enforcement officer. He might have thought twice about posting a picture on Facebook but it does not call for his moving or resignation/firing. Is your Facebook page  really his business?  If he loses his job he will most certainly have a case for wrongful termination.

Dan Richards traveled to a state where it is completely legal to hunt a mountain lion; he had a successful hunt and is now being told that while he is away from home, outside the state of California, that California law applies to him, no matter what! (The more I write the more stunned I get).  So by that rationale if the speed limit is 75 M.P.H. in Nevada and only 65 M.P.H. in California, he can be pulled over and ticketed for doing 70 in Nevada -- because after all California law applies to him everywhere!  Of course this argument would be dismissed as an example because it does not tug at the heart strings of the liberal lynch mob. Stunned.

Here is a better analogy and I hope that everyone reading this applies the example to his or her thought process. Christians think is is wrong to abort a pregnancy yet it is legal. To them the fetus is a living human being and abortion is tantamount to murder. Some Americans think it is wrong to hunt for sport -- yet it is legal. What would those calling for Dan Richards' resignation do if a bunch of Christians demanded the firing of a state official or high school teacher because it had been learned she had had an abortion?  There would be outrage and marching in the streets -- how DARE they accost this woman with their morality.  Well to those of you out to get Dan Richards…how dare you.

No one in the lynch mob has thought of this man as a human being.  Does anyone know if he is the sole bread winner in the household? Does he have twin boys about to enter college? A thirteen year old daughter who is battling leukemia? Or how about the idea that he and his wife are primary care givers to an ailing parent with Alzheimer's?  Does any of that matter?  None of these are facts that I know to be true -- they are simply examples of what could be. If these were the facts would if affect your opinion?  It seems that this activist group, including California's lieutenant governor, would rather ruin a man's career and take his whole family down because they simply "do not believe in hunting".  We are entitled to our opinions in this country.  What we are not entitled to is the circumventing of LAW in order to satisfy our capricious, emotion-based beliefs.  No one does to to the woman who had the abortion -- it is not right to do it to this man.

In California it is not necessarily a GOOD thing that these cats cannot be hunted.  They have no natural predators; California has an ABUNDANCE of what we in Colorado call "subdivision deer" and we are inviting them into our habitat as WELL as invading theirs.  Of course there is always the argument that "they were here first" but we have to examine how we, as humans have increased their population by providing havens for their prey.  They really face few food source shortages anymore because of us!  And they are opportunists -- they will take what is easy wherever and whenever they want to.

Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable. Mountain lions are legally classified as "specially protected species". This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. It is all politics and emotion to be brutally honest.  While most people who hike have never seen a cat -- be sure, they have seen you.

They are magnificent animals and even I, as a hunter, will never choose to hunt them.  They are just not "prey" me and I would not shoot what I would not eat. But just because someone does shoot something they will not eat does not make them wrong in my eyes.  I may not agree with what you choose to do -- but if it is a lawful activity -- I will defend your right to do it.

If we as humans unnaturally affect a population (either up or down) are not we as humans responsible, to the best of our ability, for returning some balance?  Unfortunately, for those who don't like it, the only thing we have at our disposal is hunting.  And in our infinite and skewed wisdom in California you ARE allowed to shoot a mountain lion if he is about to eat a big horn sheep -- his natural prey…

I am still utterly stunned.  If this man does lose his job over this he is well within his rights to sue the state of California for wrongful termination. And mark my word, he will win and each of these tax payers who are demanding for his termination will end up paying the bill -- your California tax dollars at work. 

Divine Intervention -- Tim Tebow

I have heard so much about Tim Tebow, the Broncos miracles and the thoughts and questions about this being "Divine intervention". USA Today reported that in a telephone survey, the Poll Position website found that 43.3% of people who are aware of Tebow's success believe Divine Intervention has been a factor. The crux of this is the pollsters did not ask how the respondents defined Divine Intervention. They also probably did not ask what the beliefs of those being polled were. Let me tell you what, as a Believer, we mean by Divine Intervention and why it is real and it happens every single day.


An atheist might look at this poll and dismiss it, guffaw or even have distain, "How can people be so stupid?" But that reaction simply shows their ignorance and inexperience with Divine Intervention and the recognition of it. It is a fairly simple and not uncommon occurrence. 


Do I think that God's hand is directly involved in a Broncos win? Of course not. Does God play a role in the outcome of the game? You bet. What non believers don't get is what awesome power lies in belief, faith, willingness and acceptance. God is always there -- you invite him in or you don't. And guess what? You can call Him whatever you want my; personal term happens to be God. He does not turn his back on anyone; we turn our backs on Him.


What an atheist wants to argue is that faith IN God is not God. Ah, but it is. There is no line between the two. When I am limited by only faith in myself I am accepting the limitations of myself as a human and the universe, as I perceive it. I have already doomed myself to achievements I can imagine. Tim Tebow does not accept the premise of self limitation and that my friends, IS Divine Intervention. Only until you believe you CAN…can you. What about all those things I never dreamed of? What about the impossible? I chuckle at the arrogance of the atheist who thinks that "this is all there is". In 1492 the earth was flat and Columbus was surely going to fall off the edge of the world. How great is this world? Back then it was the Church (a creation of man) who limited the Universe -- now it is the non-believer who is limited. We have come a long way!


The world of hard core science is more likely to have an open mind to the unknown, to the unimagined. Atheism is stuck in the middle. They often think of themselves as the most open-minded folks on the planet (making us Believers closed-minded) -- when they are often choosing so much less for themselves than there actually is… I think of the lyrics from a song by Mercy Me…


If I hear just one more time
That I should try and be more open-minded
I think I just might scream
The world says this is all there is
Yet I believe the One who says there's life after this
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?


Ever heard of String Theory? From an article by PhD Physicist Frank Lee, "String theory, also dubbed as "the theory of everything" has been able to unify all four fundamental forces. The most revolutionary finding of the string theory is that our 3D world is not the entire universe. It is actually embedded in a ten dimensional space, analogous to a TV screen (2D) embedded in a house (3D). Theologians have long suspected that God could live in a higher dimensional space. Now that the string theory has provided evidence for the existence of a higher dimensional space, the theory could also unify religion with science."


Science is closer to believing in God than we ever dreamed. God created man to be curious, to want to KNOW. But we as humans are limited; we either can choose to Believe or to not Believe. We were created with free will and the power of choice. I choose to not limit my life and my world to the known, the understood and the tangible. Why would anyone choose such a small world?


In the end there really is no debate. An atheist demands "proof" of God. An atheist by demanding proof is assuming he or she has the power to understand and be all knowing -- that is simply not possible, science will tell you that. We all admit that there are things in this existence that are unknown, not understood and undiscovered. Until someone BELIEVES in God can he understand even an inkling OF God, so by definition an atheist never will - he has already decided NOT to. If he, the non believer, tries to argue against the existence of God he is entering a debate he has no business being in…until he has BELIEVED can he have any hope understanding of that which he argues against.  All of us who DO Believe have most certainly faltered in our faith -- we have both perspectives.


What is great for the atheist is that God is there whether you believe in him or not…