Hybrid Country

Whenever there is one party in power in our government you will inevitably hear someone from the other party say "we are headed for disater, If we don't get the current administration out of power their policies will destroy this country." These comments to me seem to be directlt contridictory to what our founding fathers set up for us as a government. If you really think about it, our government is set up to prevent that very scenario.
One of the most treasured constitutional right we have is our freedom of speach. Each individual person is entitled to their opinion. Now, if we need unity and agreement for this country to work, then it would seem we are doomed. You cannot have unity and differences in opinion at the same time, or can you?
I had a very interesting example of unity vs disunity presented to me today. Lets say for instance you have two people and you find that when those two people meet and talk, you find that they both have the same smartphone. Well, you would then be able to conclude that these people are united - correct?. They have the same phone, therefore they are united. But then, when you look a little further, you find that when you check the contacts and apps on each phone they are very different, in fact one person could not function with the others phone. There lives would be in turmoil until the could change the phone to contain the information they need to function. So then they must not be unified correct?
I say to you that unification is not dependent upon people acting and thinking the same way. Probobly one of the biggest issuers I have with the concervative view, is not their beliefs at all, but the need to call all other views lies. They claim all who disagree with them are unpatriotic, people with liberal opinions hate america. I say to you nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the policies of the current administration which are very liberal and impose a larger amount of taxes on the american people to pay for government programs, and the policies of the concervatives who wish for less taxes, smaller government and free markets are unified. Both partiers have a common ground in patriatisum. Yes, the apps and contacts are different, but both parties begin with the same smartphone, The United States of America. Both parties have the same phone, they just have different apps. Both parties  are doing what they believe is in the countries best interest, they just have different opinions on how to achieve the american dream.
The problem is not in the idea that we have different opinions. The problem comes when one opinion feels the other opinion is wrong and must comply with what they believe in order to be a patriotic american.
Do you remember when Toyota created the Prius. For most of us, this was the first time wer had ever heard the term Hybrid, however, we have been living in a hybrid society (The only one of its kind) for more than two centries. At times, this country will need to run on a smaller, less intrusive form of direction, which conserves money and power and still keeps us moving forward, while at other times, we will need to move faster, or need more power to keep our country moving forward. A unique form of republic government, where the people periodically vote on which type of government we need based on the current conditions of our country. If we lose either one of these driving forces, we lose the ability to have the american people chose their government. We lose our fundamental right to speak, have an individual opinion, and the choice for the direction of our country.
A vote for one type of government over another is NEVER a moritorium to dispense with the type of government currently facing defeat at the poles. The current climate simply didcates a change. The climate will change again and we will need the other form of governmental patriatism. To think otherwise is to say we do not need opinions. We are fine with one trane of thought, all the time.
Nothing could be further from what the founding fathers setup for the United States of America.

Enough in the economy of Love

As you are all aware by now, There was an election last tuesday and I hope you all voted. I have always said that voting is one of the most important privilages we have in this country we call the United States of America. However, if you listened to the retoric of the election, I mean really listen, you heard a lot about less Government. In fact, the candidates who won, were running on a message primarily involving less government, or as I heard one of those victors say this morning, turning responsibility back over to the states. This begs the question: Are we a group of states running as Federal government, or are we a Federal Government running a group of states. I believe that we began as a group of states, who formed a government to do things that the states could not do for themselves. Over the last 230+ years, we have become a federal government who unites the States into one nation. Of course from what we have seen in this election, the states are less than united in what they want.
Probably the biggest misnomer that has come out of this election is "Less Government" I have spoken of this before. "Less Government" at the Federal level means turning the responsiblities back over to the individual states and getting the federal Government out of the states business. But what about less government at the state level, and does any of this retoric mean less taxes. As I have discussed before, we have to pay for it somewhere. If not at the federal level than the state level. If not there it is left to the local communities. This brings us to the next question: Is this good or bad. That question I do not have an answer to. It depends upon what happens at the state and local levels.
This bring me to my experience today which drew me back to the blog to write where I have not written for a while. Today, I attended a church other than my own, and was blessed with a message, or more accurately a video durring the message which was simply called "Enough". The message title was "Enough in the economy of Love".
When we have a reversal of government, which I think we all can agree is what has happened this last week, in the direction of Right from left, or Conservative from Libral. Many questions arise. If government is less, than who will take care of education, or the less fortunate such as the disabled, or those who live in poverty.  Those who are liberal believe that we have enough in this nation, and the best way to help those less fortunate is to have the federal Government establish programs and collect money through taxes to "Redistribute" the wealth to those less fortunate. That's right, I used the word redistribute. For those who believe in less government, the idea is more of a personal decision, and if you have and worked hard for your money, you deserve to decide if and to who you give your money to.
The video "Enough" explored this issue from the view of God. The video explained that when God started his church, he was very clear on how issue of those less fortunate were to be handled and by who. The speaker brought us all the way back to the Hebrews back in slavery by the Egyptians. God said to the Hebrews. In the darkness of night, take only what you need for a days needs and leave. Did you catch that - He said "take only that which you need for a days needs". (Paraphrasing) He did not say take all you can carry, or leave everything. "Take what you need for a days needs" From this, the early church needed to rely on God for what they needed, and also those around them. As the early church developed the same needs we have today emerged. Some had more and some had less. During this time the belief of the early church was that "If you had two coats you stole one from someone who needed it." It didnt matter if you made them both yourself, or if you purchased them both from a travelling merchant. "If you had two coats you stole one of them" What I took from this is we as Christians are commanded to take care of those less fortunate. If we consider ourselfs a part of Gods church, we are charged with taking care of those less fortunate. The video made itclear, things like socialisum and communisum, really do not exist, except in the minds of those who want to cast a bad light on Gods plan for those with more to take care of those who have less. "Redistribution"
"Enough in the economy of Love". There is always enough in an economy of love to take care of everyone. Now some of you may read this and say "How dare he judge me and tell me I have to give what I earned away to help the lazy deadbeat on wealfare. Well to that I say, I dont dare. It is not my place to go around saying, you have two coats so you stole one of them. Well, from what I learned today, that is a view focused on the things of this world. The view we Christians need to have is a view of Eternal life. We need not be thinking so much about what we need to survive hear on this world, but we need to be focusing on what we will have in Eternal life. What are we storing up for our eternal life in heaven. Jesus was challenged with a question while he was with us on this earth. In the view of the early church, if a man married a woman and died, the brother of the man who died was required by church law to marry the widow. If he also died, then the next brother needed to step in. Jesus was asked, "If several brothers have married one woman , when they all die and go to heaven, which brother will the woman be the wife to. Jesus in his all knowing wisdom, condemed the pharasies for having a worldly view. He charged that we need to have an eternal view, and in heaven, there will be no need for marriage. We will all be in a perfect everlasting relationship with God.
So back to the subject. What happens now that our Government has changed. From the message I heard from God today, it shouldnt make a difference.We each need to examine our view. Are we focusing on this world or are we focusing on eternal life. Am I judging you if you keep both of those coats. No. That is between you and God and he has made that also crystal clear. "Judge not lest you be Judged." What you decide to do with your money is ultimatley not between you and your wife or you and your children, or you and me but between you and our Lord.
For me, I am not rich, but I do make money in this world, so I will need to do much better in the "economy of Love." Does this mean all the worlds problems will go away. No. But at least my eternal life will not go away either.

Who the Hell do you think you are!!!?

Who the Hell do you think you are? Using those two words in the same sentence!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!!? Giving our nations enemy something it did not achieve!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Playing commander and chief!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Disgracing and insulting every Man and Woman who EVER joined the armed forces to defend this country to their death if nessesary!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Using those two words together to defend an indefensable position!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? calling a muslim mosque a "VICTORY MOSQUE"
Ill tell you who you are.
You are a traitor to your country, handing the extremist muslims (Not all muslims)a victory over the USA when they have won nothing.
You are a concervative elitest who has abandoned his countries constitution and showing your hypocrisy in the process.
You are a coward in the face of defeat.
The issue of a mousqe in Lower manhattan is an issue that has two very distinct sides to the arqument. Side one: 3000+ people of many different races, and religions died in a horrific terrorist act carried out by 20 muslim extremists who knocked this country down, and gave this country a bloody nose; but that is where it ends. This country has risen from the dust of the TwinTowers to defend our country where our enemies hide. Oue enemies have not been victorious, therefore logic dictates that there cannot be a "Victory mosque" yet you call the mosque of lower manhatten just that. THat makes you a traitor to your country.
The families of those who died will have there memorial at Ground Zero. This is what this country will do to remember those who lost there lives that day.
Side Two: The constitution of the United States protects religious freedom. This is not arguable. This means that the Muslims have every right to build there mosque at the site they chose two blocks from ground zero because if it were any other church, we would never have been an issue. This means that the muslims are being singled out for their religion. If you do that you have abandoned the very Constitutional rights of religious freedom this country was founded on.
You would have us believe that this is not a religious issue because the muslims can build there mosque any where they want, just not at ground zero, but that is the first lie. You continue to say the mosgue will be at ground zero, yet if you look at a map the mousqe will be built two blocks away, around the corner and in the middle of that block. This lie is a typical lie, specifically catored to do what is typical of you the conservative right when you have a position which is indefensable. You play on our emotions, and try to make the argument about something else you believe you can win. A cowards game.
The second lie, You,  the anti constititionists have come up with to try to trick us into looking away from the constitutionality of the issue, is the process of the Orthodox Church destroyed when the Twin Towers colapsed. You are trying to make us believe that the orthodox church has been prevented from rebuilding by the Port Authority while they fast track a mosque. You are trying to make us believe that the Port Authority is the one who is not supporting the constitution, therefore in the interest of fairness the mosque must not be built. Another lie. This is how I have heard the events have taken place. The Orthodox church which was destroyed in the attack, has been offered a plot of land much better than the one they currently were on, and also 60 million dollars to rebuild on said property. In addition if they do not want to move, they can build on the original site they were on at any time, they still own the property. However when the orthodox church approched the Port Authority about rebuilding on a larger sight the port authority said yes and also threw in $60 million dollars to help them rebuild. The church insisted on $80 million and also wanted decision making authority on properties around them. The Port Authority refused and the church has walked away from the table. They can still build on there original sight, but have thus far chosen not to. The original deal is also still on the table also, So this leaves the whole idea of the orthodox church a non issue.
Two sides both of equal relevance, but one is indefensable. Now you would have us believe that according to your poles, 70% of the people are against this mosque, but you do not tell us that in this same pole, as many people also said they believed the constitutional freedom of religion must be upheld. News flash, a lie of omission is still a lie.
Discussion on the issue is good, it can make our country stronger, and we all also have the constitutional right to our freedom of speech. Some just exercise this right with cowardess and shame instead of honesty and truth.
Who the Hell do you think you Are!!?