WELLROUNDEDPEOPLE.COM

Thoughts on Racism, Rhetoric and the Black Community

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-07-24T13:25:00Z

Recently we have witnessed polarizing acts and accusations of racism play out on our television screens, in our newspapers, and on radio talk-shows around the country; it seems the "race card" has become the weapon of choice in the elite circles of the American mainstream.

And while we must admit to ourselves --and one another-- that racism does exist is small portions of every ethnic group inhabiting our country. We should also recognize, these sentiments to be unacceptable to the vast majority of the American citizenry.

However, in this article, I would like to discuss the hardships facing the African-American community and the cause of some of these hardships:

The sensationalized video of a "New Black Panther Party" member has been played over and again on television and radio programs; bringing realization, of the deepest and darkest feelings of racism to the forefront of the American conscience. In that video the NBPP member stated: "I hate white people, all of them. Every last iota of a 'cracker' I hate him; because, we still in this condition, man."

My first reaction to this story was to simply write this man off as a lunatic. Probably because, it was the path of least intellectual resistance; plus, by most standards I would have been justified in doing so. However, after the NAACP's condemnation of the Tea party as "white-racist" sympathizers; this story seemed to gain new relevance.

I believe whole-heartedly that this man hates white people. But these feelings are owned by him, and as such, his remarks cannot be used in the judgement of anyone except him. In fact, I support his right as a human being to harbor any conception of reality he so desires. Furthermore, whether or not he likes Caucasians doesn't impact my life "one iota." I have no desire to control his thoughts or feelings. But I am desirous of understanding them.

As sure as I am of this man's belief in his rhetoric; I am equally as sure that he wasn't born with these feelings. So in many ways he could be defined as a victim, not of "white people" but of the hatred residing in the hearts and minds of those responsible for indoctrinating his young mind; and his unwillingness to accept responsibility.

Interestingly, it's not his use of the word "hate" or the derogatory term he uses to define white people that causes me the most concern. Instead it's his reasoning for both; as he puts it: "because, we still in this condition, man." Although, these words weren't uttered with the same force as the hate-filled rhetoric encompassing most of his speech. For me they personified the desperation encompassing a large portion of the black community.

I would like to believe the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's purpose was defined by it's label. Moreover, I would like to believe the NAACP is working toward the economic and social advancement of African-Americans in a multi-cultural environment --not outside of it.-- Where individual success is measured on merit regardless of political persuasion.

However, with their denouncement of a purely political movement, as being racially motivated; they also denounced the efforts of average black workers and business owners, who share the ideas of smaller
government, lower taxes and more economic freedom. This is the "Uncle-Tom" syndrome: by identifying a movement or belief system as "white" they allow themselves the leverage to ostracize any member of their ethnicity for agreeing with it.

The NAACP's propensity toward "collective" thought, I believe is evidence of a climate of intolerance within the organization. Likewise, their tendency to vilify members of their own race simply for displaying a different political viewpoint, leaves one to wonder if the organization is driven by it's name sake, or rather by a political agenda.

The facts about the "condition" of African-Americans in American society: African-Americans make up about 12.4% (37.6 million people) of the US population. But account for nearly 40% of welfare and Medicaid rolls. Alternatively, white-Americans make up about 65.4% (198.9 million people) of the US population, and account for about 40% of welfare and Medicaid rolls. These are staggering statistics, and reveal a --real-- problem in the African-American community. Yet, the leaders of this community feel the need to push a political agenda, rather than lead. However, I do wonder if black Americans didn't punish free-thought within it's community; would these numbers be so high?

It is my belief that freedom can only be gained or experienced individually; that "collective" freedom, is not freedom at all. It leaves you bound to the expectation of compliance with the "collective" will. The NAACP and like organizations should set-aside political agendas and look inward for a path leading out of poverty. And learn to celebrate the --individual-- achievements of their people, regardless of their political persuasion. As an American it makes me proud to see members of the black community joining the Tea party just as it would lift my spirit to see members of the white community join in the noble cause of civil rights.

Defining Moments

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-07-15T19:13:00Z

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" - John Stuart Mill (1862)

As American armed-forces engage in multiple conflicts in the middle-east; they do so for the single purpose and cause of maintaining freedom. These men and women have sworn to protect and defend this nation against her enemies foreign and domestic; and now self sacrificially, while, separated from their loved ones, with honor and integrity perform the taxing and perilous task of war.

Having the wherewithal few of us can muster, American soldiers place their bodies, lives, dreams, and aspirations between us and our enemies; willing to sacrifice them all to preserve the same for their neighbors. This is the most noble of human characteristics, and gives each one of them the distinct title, of -Hero- in the hearts of those they defend.

Yet, while our fighting men and women offer their lives to preserve freedom, there are those in this country, calling for the execution of many of them and their children, simply because they are "white." In the hearts and minds of the these overtly racist and despicable characters, there are no "Americans" only whites, Jews, and any other religious or ethnic group they choose to cast their disgusting form hatred upon.

While the brave men and women of our armed forces fight for the unity of ideals under one banner; these cowards position to subvert that unity, and divide our nation with an evil hatred for their fellow man. Making it evident that even while our soldiers fight a war against a dangerous and imperialistic ideology. We at home also are engaged in a war; a war of preservation for the values and ideals of "Americanism;" a war in which we must engage, for the salvation of our way of life, and the ratification of freedom for our posterity.

The radicals we face in "the new black panther party" and like-minded organizations are cowards, and prostitute the suffering of their ancestors for the purpose of political footing. Well, I'm here to say: --By God-- we are all Americans! Not Black, White, Jewish or Hispanic Americans; we are all, and rightly so: just Americans.

Although, our military has sworn to defend our nation and are bound by that pledge; we all have a duty to defend our country from internal threats, and a moral obligation to our soldiers to preserve our republic as they work in it's preservation around the globe.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by:soldiersmediacenter @flicker.com

The Depth of Dissension

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-07-08T19:44:00Z

At lightning speed the integrity, honor, and ideals of America are being undermined, and diluted; so fast, in fact, that many stories are swept aside, or completely misinterpreted.

Too many of our children fail to realize the significance of their freedoms; while some, sworn to uphold and defend those freedoms, lack the simple dignity, to display the proper respect to our flag, and anthem. On the surface this may seem trivial, but in the context of history, and the sacrifices, and blood-shed that accompanies our freedoms, this simple dis-courtesy becomes very revealing; furthermore, very disturbing.

We must understand that our flag, and our anthem, embodies the very idea of America, and the audacity of our founders to not only desire freedom, but demand it. They embody the life of every soldier that stood at the gates of liberty, and refused her enemies passage. They embody every American soldier that has willingly surrendered his life for the cause of freedom. They embody the very idea that all men are created equal, and that a man's only master should be his conscience. This is the message of our flag, and the emotion of our anthem; this is why any American should feel pride when the national anthem is played, and be honored to render the proper courtesy.

Yet, these immortal symbols of freedom garners apathy, and in some cases, contempt, from the very people that live securely beneath their umbrella.

--I guess it's made easier to condemn liberty, if you live in a nation that provides you the freedom to do so. Although, I find it curious that anyone would invoke their freedoms to speak out against the very freedoms that give them a voice.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.
Photo by: the-o @flicker.com

My Brother's Keeper

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-07-06T19:04:00Z

I can't help but wonder if the government continues to subsidize irresponsible behavior --on the part of businesses and consumers.-- how they expect to cultivate something other than a culture of irresponsibility?

And as we prepare to enter a new decade; a decade that's only promise seems to be crippling debt. Washington politicians continue to borrow from the labor of American workers and their children, at levels that will bring the infrastructure of the once, seemingly invincible US economy to it's knees.

But why?.... Why are Americans being asked to "bailout" businesses that engage in irresponsible financial practices?.... Why are Americans being forced to pay for the promises of unions, that, through "collective bargaining" have bullied entire industries to the threshold of extinction?.... Why are Americans being forced to purchase health care for their neighbors?... Why are the American people being forced to pay for the consequences of the very behavior, government is now subsidizing through legislation, such as: "TARP" and "Stimulus"?.... Why are Americans being force-fed legislation that saddles their grand-children with debt, and impoverishes their only means of repaying it?

--If I didn't know any better, I would swear American law-makers are experimenting with the architecture of a 12 step program, entitled: "how to destroy a capitalist economy."--

President Obama once said: "I do believe at some point, you've made enough money." Using the same reason, could it not also be said, that at some point government has acquired enough power? Or, are the citizens of this nation obligated to surrender a large portion of their earnings to fill the promises of people, that, in the course of a day's time, does nothing to create a dime of wealth?

The way I see it: dishonesty in the private sector is far less dangerous to the survival of the American economy, than the danger imposed by a corrupt and deceitful government. But, when corruption becomes the collaboration of these imperial forces, the electorate becomes the financier's of their own demise.

It's a vicious cycle.... A cycle that is now threatening to devour the American free-market: government blames industry, industry blames government; then with the threat of a pending "crises" government commandeers more of it's citizens earnings, and industry gains a clearer path to the monopolization of commodities needed or desired by the American consumer.

I think we could all agree that federal and state governments should be frugal, and wise with the taxes, collected from their citizenry. Sadly however, while there is little doubt that people in general are less thrifty with someone-else's money; in the case of bureaucracy, they are imprudent, and even careless with it.

Recently, I heard a commercial on the radio, that said: "by now you've heard about the government's bailout of the banks;.... well,.....now it's your turn." At first I thought it was banter, until they began to describe how I could get my hands on some of this "government money." I suppose this was intended to demonstrate Washington's "concern" for the financial hardships of the American consumer. Instead, it perfectly exemplified the growing omnipresence of an already grotesquely obese federal government.

It appears our elected officials are governed only by their own self-interest; they continue to ask the people to surrender more of their freedom and wealth, while, they, themselves surrender nothing and pilfer our children's future. Theft, corruption, lies, and deception are the common practice of today's politicians. This is not new, nor is it determined by political persuasion or party affiliation; America's interest --and therefore, the peoples interest-- has not been the priority of Washington officials for a very long time. Such impotent leadership has proven detrimental to the security of this nation against foreign threats, as well as our economic standing in the global market.

Author's note:

America: We now face an enemy that has made a commodity of it's soul, and placed a bounty on the head of it's master; an enemy of disfigured morality and an impotent conscience. The enemy we now face has caused liberty to hemorrhage, and freedom to weep; it has enslaved our fathers and impoverished our posterity. How will we face this enemy? And what shall be the outcome? And as the possibility of two very different Americas intersect; the people must choose. Fervently I pray: that choice is wise.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: krisnfred@ flicker.com

Limbaugh vs. Huffington Post

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-06-27T14:38:00Z

President Obama's recent comments at Hampton University suggests that he believes "too much" information is adversarial to our republic. Stating that: "Information becomes a distraction, a diversion" that is putting "pressure on our country and on our democracy."

This is an interesting perspective to be held by an American citizen, nevermind the occupant of it's most powerful political office. Although, his comments do raise a valid point, I tend to reside on the opposing shore of his ideological sea.

The President suggests that conservative Americans should balance their patronage of the Rush Limbaugh show with a healthy dose of content from the Huffington Post; although, he failed to encourage liberals to expand their understanding of the limbaugh doctrine outside of what's been written in the pages of the Huffington post and similar left leaning "media" resources.

Any impartial observation into the rhetoric of these two Titans of "informational media" would reveal a remarkable difference in their tactics and ultimately in their objective.

However, within the confines of the current political climate, it's doubtful we will see any impartial observation; rather, it's doubtful we will see any observation --perceived-- as impartial.

Conservatives operate from a political platform; as well, they have a political agenda: to impose limitations on the size and scope of the federal government. Limitations guided by the language of the US constitution.

Liberals also operate from a political platform, but theirs is a social agenda. Joseph Goebbels ( Nazi Propaganda Minister under Adolph Hitler) once said:"Information is a means of class struggle, not a mirror to reflect events objectively." This lies at the heart of the difference between conservative and liberal driven "media."

According to Marxist theory "class struggle" will cause the downfall of a capitalist society. The liberal media engages in the propagation of "class struggle" in American culture.

By the political and social labor of liberals in and out of public office, Americans have been categorized; neatly filed into sections and sub-sections --"demographics" for the purpose of political exploitation. Without these divisions and the corresponding struggle between these divisions the liberal agenda would remain the written contemplation of a self-identified communist. Furthermore, without these struggles the advancement of a centralized political, economic, and social force in American society would take it's rightful place and be laid beneath the feet of liberty.

What's interesting is the liberal media's ability to mount an offense, by creating the --perception-- of a defensive posture. Although, this tactic is not peculiar to the American liberal, their ability to execute this tactic is second to none. Equally as interesting is the liberal media's ability to persuade many in these divisions, of the left's concern for their well-being, while restricting them --through subsidization-- to the conditions of their current situation.

As Joseph Goebbels suggested: information is not a means by which facts are disseminated; instead, it is the means by which the distribution of propaganda is achieved. For this reason the president's statements are intriguing, and compels one to reflect upon the nature of "media."

Please leave comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by:11447809@N08/4689214974 @flicker.com

Moral Equivalence

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-06-17T20:44:00Z

I have often wondered why liberals --or their more ambitious and intolerant faction: 'progressives,' have such disdain for Americanism, or more specifically Capitalism. But due to my perception of progressives as being morally and intellectually dishonest, I have never excepted the explanations disseminating from the progressive camp.

Capitalism, and the Capitalist society it produces, seems to be the greatest obstacle --in the minds of progressives-- to achieving human equality.

Although many forms of Capitalism has been practiced throughout history. From the Roman and Arabic practice of mercantilism in the early middle-ages; in-which products would be bought, relocated, then sold at a higher price. To the Japanese form of Capitalism of today; in-which national and corporate achievement is valued over individual prosperity.

It is the American form of Capitalism; in-which social and economic prosperity is rewarded to the achievement of --individuals-- that garners the contempt of the progressive movement.

Liberals and progressives have an undeniable propensity toward collectivism. This propensity, on some level seems the logical explanation for their hatred of 'individual capitalism.' However, such a simplistic and dismissive position would undermine, not only the complexity of this ideology, but also the conviction of it's 'believers' to achieve an end, regardless of the means it necessitates.

The word "Capitalism" in the minds of liberals, progressives, and even the intelligentsia that occupy the classrooms of our most celebrated learning institutions, has become synonymous with terms like greed and corruption.

However, progressives draw no moral equivalence to the greed and corruption that plagues the halls of this nations Capitol. Instead, they perpetuate and defend the corruption of government officials, for the purpose of achieving the end they so desperately desire.

"Capitalists" as defined in progressive circles, bears a strange and striking resemblance to the "bourgeois" who were described as oppressive toward the "proletariat" in many of the social and economic theories of Karl Marx.

In many ways, I believe liberals and progressives see themselves as defenders of the "proletariat" injecting themselves between man and his poverty. This is a sincere belief within the progressive movement. Sadly, the protection progressives offer against poverty comes at the price of individual and economic freedom; exemplifying in my opinion a secularist's distorted sense of morality.

It's human nature when looking upon poverty and suffering, to desire the end of that suffering. Likewise, when presented with a man having not a morsel, it's human nature to give him bread. However, most reach for a logical balance between charitable giving and the enabling of dependency. Progressives do not seek this balance. Instead, they seek to provide man with all that is needed to survive in a society; thus, leaving his hands and his mind idle. Such one dimensional views of society displays a severe deficiency in the moral aptitude of the modern progressive movement.

American "Progressivism" has many separate factions and is found under the banner of many seemingly unrelated organizations: Code Pink, LGBT, NAACP, and MoveOn.org, just to name a few. Making it difficult at times --especially for the casual observer-- to decipher their "collective" agenda. However, there is a thread of commonality running through the core of these organizations that is unmistakable; a thread that is woven deeply into the hearts and minds of American liberals and progressives: A putrid hatred for individual capitalism; moreover, individuality.

As well as an ominous view of 'American capitalism' these groups also share a common vision of future society. One of: "economic 'equality' communal effort, and egalitarianism." In short: "A Marxist Utopia." However, progressives see this possibility, only through a totalitarian statehood, communistic economy, and the forceful Cooperation of ordinary citizens --whatever force is required.--

In the "great experiment" of the progressive ideology, these sacrifices for a "free nation" are not only acceptable, but negligible; moreover, they are necessary. But a free man will not easily surrender his freedom, and would likely, first, surrender his life if given the choice. This means progressives would need an incremental approach. --To rob a man of his freedom, you must first "free" him of his responsibility; and through the "promise" of security, you might then take from him, his possession of liberty.

It is no small task to overthrow the Constitution of a free people; success will not come quickly. But then again, these forces have not just begun their work.

I believe the greatest error that can befall the future of the American nation is to underestimate the conviction of the left to bring about "change." For as surely as the apostles of Christ would lay down their lives to utter the message of the cross; so too will the American left surrender their nation for the possibility of utopia. And with the same fervor.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: roland @ flikr.com

The American Left

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-06-14T15:38:00Z

The liberal progressive intellect has surpassed any need for the employment of common sense into it's dissertation of current political events in America. In fact, the greatest minds of the progressive movement seem to refrain from the slightest resemblance of logical thought when confronting the societal upheavals of modern day America.

The left's ability to wrap their ideology around any given situation and distort it's content is almost artful in it's presentation, but I'm afraid dishonest in it's implementation.

The rabid reaction of progressives after passage of SB1070 in Arizona perfectly depicts the dishonest nature of the American left; --under the guise of "human rights" liberal progressives seek to dismantle the security of the American nation, by undermining the very sovereignty of it's borders.

The cries against "racial profiling" can be heard in constant rotation from the left on cable news and in most major news papers; meanwhile, the citizens residing in the border towns of Arizona confront the very real dangers that accompany a porous border.

The idea that the laws governing immigration can't be enforced because of the possibility of someone being "profiled" escapes even the most fundamental structure of a reasonable thought; yet, the obvious flaw in such an argument goes largely uncontested by American law makers for fear of being labeled intolerant or racist.

The left's rejection of rationality doesn't stop there; recently the board of supervisors in Santa Clara California placed a ban on the inclusion of toys in "happy meals." Their argument for this ban, is that it will lower the number of children struggling with obesity. However, the real lesson of this ban is that the progressives have no limit in their willingness to invade the rights of parents and children to make these decisions.

There's an old American adage that perfectly applies to people like these in California and those protesting Arizona: Mind Your Own Business. There is no freedom without the freedom to make bad decisions. These self-important, self-appointed, dishonest deniers of human dignity and personal freedom believe themselves worthy of telling Americans how to live and what decisions are best for them. Again, I say to them: mind your own business; -- you have no right nor reason to be in the every day lives of the American people. You are at best a busy body and at worst you despise their desire to live free, either way they don't need your irrational, immoral, and irrelevant input into their lives, nor into the lives of their children.

The fact is these issues are defined and resolved by two simple concepts; the first: the RIGHT of the states to ensure the safety of it's citizens, and the second: the RIGHT of the American people to make their own dietary choices. No liberal spin on these issues can take precedence over the concept of freedom, and anyone foolish enough to believe this is something other than an act of aggression against their God given and constitutional rights, is just that: Foolish.

Personal Note:

Freedom..... True freedom, is not something that can be taken lightly; nor is it anything given freely by this world's leaders. Freedom is fought for; freedom is paid for, by the blood of patriots. It must be sacred in the hearts of those afforded this rare and precious thing we call Freedom. Freedom is not a commodity that can be sold for the promise of safety or security; it must be held tightly by it's possessor, understanding that the only security given to mankind, the only safety he will ever know, is Freedom.

Rand Paul: A Political Firestorm

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-24T23:38:00Z

Just one day after his lopsided victory over GOP backed senatorial candidate Trey Grayson, Rand Paul appeared on MSnbc's 'Rachel Maddow Show' where he was asked to defend earlier statements he made on the "The Civil Rights Act of 1964."

During this interview Dr. Paul argued, the federal government may have over-reached it's authority when imposing "Civil Rights" laws on private business; he also said he agrees with 90% of what the act represents, saying Racism by the government establishment should not be tolerated and indeed should be outlawed.

However, such statements are sure to create a political firestorm. But why? This is a question that should greatly interest the American people. Does Dr. Paul's argument lack the constitutional validity inherent in the argument of, say.... Rachel Maddow? Or have we let our personal and political beliefs blur the line between constitutional and social justice?

I, nor any fair-minded person will question the importance of The Civil Rights Act for abolishing of the "Jim Crow" laws that institutionalized Racism, and perpetuated government sponsored segregation; such laws by their very nature are unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust.

However, if Rand Paul proved anything by his recent statements, it's that philosophical and intellectual debate is not welcome in the current political climate. Most media outlets, and sadly I believe, most elected officials are incapable of peering beyond the surface of this matter. Whether you agree with Rand Paul or not, he does at the very least provoke thought as to what constitutional leverage the federal government has over privately owned businesses.

The issue of race permeates many political discussions; sadly however, it is sometimes used to justify, unjustifiable positions. This is where we need the insight to see past racially charged rhetoric and examine situations strictly on there constitutional legality.

The recent events surrounding the passage of SB1070 in Arizona, perfectly exemplifies this point. It's opponents were unable to legally justify there position of employing, housing, and schooling those entering this nation illegally; therefore, they turned the debate on it's head and refused to answer for their condoning of criminal behavior, saying this was instead a racially motivated human rights issue.

--When ideology and "political correctness" take precedence over the security of this nation's citizens, we are in a dangerous place politically.--

In my opinion: these debates over government's role in the lives of it's citizens are necessary for a healthy and vibrant political environment; furthermore, such debates should not be limited to topics deemed "politically correct." --Even uncomfortable debates can be worthwhile.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Ronald Reagan: Capitalism vs Socialism

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-19T13:17:00Z

Social Acceptance in a Radical Nation

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-18T21:59:00Z

The "purpose" of 'Political Correctness' is to define the terms of acceptable speech inside the arena of political and societal debate; it attempts to create a 'social center' whereby all political and social discourse can be measured; moreover, it divides politicians and their supporters down the left and right side of this "political prime meridian."

However, the result of such restraint on speech has been to create an environment of Religious, philosophical, and cultural mediocrity; sending everyone racing for an ever-changing, imaginary line, of social acceptance.

The implementation of socially enforced "acceptable" speech has bankrupted the market-place of ideas, while creating an elitist class of hypocrites, believing themselves morally worthy of exercising judgment over their fellow man against standards, to which, they themselves do not uphold; maliciously, we destroy the character of our neighbors for failing to meet the social standards implemented by liars, and modern day Pharisee.

For this reason you will find many contemporary "heroes" and celebrated figures bow in confession at the alter of public opinion. We see this time and time again, when the personal right to privacy is invaded by the right of free-press, shaming those that now and then show themselves to be human, by making a bad decision into offering a public apology for transgressions of a private matter.

I believe this method of behavioral measurement denies people of their individuality, creating a kind-of generic society, where we can never learn the deepest beliefs or motives of neighbors and friends; in fact, I would even dare to say, we now live in a society of persona rather than honest individuals.

Truth is, we are all radicals; from the Conservative Christian or Agnostic Libertarian to the Atheistic Socialist; we all fall to the left or right side of "political correctness." In fact, this nation was founded upon radical ideas; our forefathers believed in socially unacceptable notions such as, personal freedom and personal responsibility, they believed a man should be free to practice his religion without judgment, they even believed in the personal rights of man to privacy and economic freedom.

- In our present society a Christian can be defined as someone who professes belief in Christ; whereas, a radical Christian is defined as someone that actually practices his teachings.-

Individuals should never allow their beliefs to be subject to "social acceptability." We are a nation of laws; it is our duty as citizens to uphold and obey those laws. However, it is not our responsibility to condition or dilute our religious, moral, or social beliefs to that of the modern-day pharisee.

This nation has always been a place where cultures collide, where people of all nationalities were free to pursue their individual goals; we must not lose this peculiar and magnificent product of the American experiment, nor can we turn to collectivism in a nation of individuals.

Please leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: bootbearwdc@flickr.com

For Liberty's Sake

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-14T00:26:00Z

It appears history has chosen this hour; this generation, for the battle that will decide the future of the American nation. The lines have now been drawn; reconciliation no longer seems possible; nor will compromise be considered. The divisions of ideology, are too great, and America stands divided by an ideological chasm --with no one to build a bridge.--

This battle has not just begun; for almost a century, a new vision of America's future has collided with the hope of it's past. Nay, this battle has not just begun, --but soon it will end.-- What shall be left in it's wake? America is moving toward this new vision at a breath-taking speed, leaving the American people with just two choices: for or against.

The politics of this nation has taken a sharp and intentional turn to the left; forcing even the moderates of conservative America to the right, seeking balance, order, logic.

There has been a tearing of the Vail, revealing a brief glance into the agenda of the political majority; the intent, the purpose, the reason, has slipped out of the shadows, to show itself bearing no resemblance to the portrait painted by it's deceptive artist.

Regretfully, this war will not be fought on a field of battle, where honor and valor would rule the day; where man would be given the chance to bleed for his cause. Instead this battle continues, behind the dark robes of America's judiciary, in the private rooms of elected officials, and in the institutions that mold young minds.

The idea of America; yea, even her principles are surrounded by her enemies, and the only recourse is in the hands of the legislative process. But thus far this process has failed in the preservation of her liberty, the continuation of her freedom, and yea, even the sanctity of her constitution.

What does the future hold for this great lady? Will independence once again reach her shores? Will the morality of her people deliver her from her darkest hour? Will her enemies find destruction when she stretches forth her mighty hand?

Assuredly, this nation is subject to the crumbling of her foundations, just as assuredly, she faces the danger of an ideological force, not born of her womb. However, her strength lies within the principles of her own birth, and resides in the hearts of many of her young. Therefore, the force of the danger she faces, can be matched only, by the strength of her posterity, and by that strength, it is her enemies, that shall crumble; consumed by the force of justice; destroyed for liberty's sake.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: 97964364@N00/688938575@flickr.com

America's 'Myth-Illogical' War part III: Young Minds

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-11T00:58:00Z

In the mid-1800's the theories of Darwin were gaining wide-spread support in the European nations; in certain portions of the US, however, the theory met fierce opposition due to the belief of many Americans that evolutionary science starkly contrasted the teachings of the Bible; this belief left many in the religious community fearful of how the young minds of children would interpret such doctrine.

During the next half century many battles would be fought in the "interest" of children's education; eventually however, evolution would become the predominant theory of explanation for the origin and advancement of mankind in the public school system; this theory as many feared would begin the dissolution of faith based teachings.

Over 150 years after this debate landed upon American shores we can clearly see the moral effects of such secular worldviews on our society. The secular victory in this debate opened up many more avenues for the indoctrination of children; today in the public school system students are taught lessons of morality that are conducive with the laws of secularism and "political correctness." even -in some cases- celebrating lifestyles, their parents would consider sinful.

In my opinion: the advancement of theory with a purely secular and somewhat speculative origin, when presented as scientific fact, to a necessarily captive audience, can leave deep and long-lasting impressions on malleable young minds, and that such additions -without debate- into the school's curriculum serves more to cultivate moral desensitization than critical thought processes; it seems the
reasonable question of mankind's origin has become a catalyst for the secular indoctrination of American children.

I believe healthy skepticism --in all things-- is a necessary and critical part of human advancement. However, concerning the origin of mankind where the evidence is inconclusive, alternative theories should be presented to create a more balanced curriculum.

I cannot agree with the notion that religious beliefs prohibit the critical thought skills needed for a scientific endeavor; however, I do concede that personal beliefs religious or otherwise influence the interpretation of many scientific findings.

Allow me the expression of these thoughts: it is not the scientific data collected nor the method of it's collection in the study of mankind's evolutionary traits, that ignites fierce opposition of the religious community; instead, I would contend that it's the introduction of such evidence into the public school system as an opponent or alternative to religion.

We must understand that "truth" has many obstacles to over-come, among the many adversaries truth encounters, it is the agenda of the "seeker" that poses the greatest danger; from my observation some forms of science are driven largely on personal and social agenda, rather than the honest intellectual pursuit of truth; therefore many times the purpose of research is to establish a predetermined conclusion, leading many scientist to collect evidence supporting the desired outcome while disregarding evidence that contradicts it's validity; leaving scientific truth permanently resided: ---somewhere in the middle.---

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo By:Osbornb/@flickr.com

America's 'Myth-Illogical War' Part II: Church and State

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-08T02:21:00Z

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - US Constitution 1st Amendment (1791)

This is the language of the law that governs this nation, as it relates to religion, speech, press, assembly and the petition of grievances.

Out of this language arose the now infamous phrase: "Separation of Church and State." However, the question must be asked: was this our founders intent?

It actually surprises me that so many interpretations can be made out of such simple language; however, I believe this may be due to one's desire to interpret what is not written as apposed to accepting the law --as written;-- this is a common occurrence when the interpreter values their personal agenda over the principles demonstrated by the law.

The language used in this law to describe the relationship between government -as an entity- and religion has been the subject of much heated discourse; again I believe this has nothing to do with the language
of the law, and everything to do with the agenda of the interpreter.

A perfect example of 'agenda driven interpretation' came in 2008 regarding the national day of prayer, when faced with another terrifying day of the people around her praying; Annie Laurie Gaylor co-president of the 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' (FFRF) decided she must act fast and on October 3, 2008 filed a law suit calling the national day of prayer unconstitutional. When interviewed Gaylor called the national day of prayer "un-American" then added: "we should not let the Christian right hijack our constitution; but wait it says: "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" the national day of prayer does neither.

Furthermore, the agenda of the (FFRF) was clearly stated in her interview, when she said "we should not let the Christian right hijack our Constitution" illustrating that her animosity is toward the Christian right and not prayer because the national day of prayer, calls people of all faiths to supplication; demonstrating that in this case the 1st amendment was a tool for-which the (FFRF) would use to attack Christianity.

On Mar 1, 2010 U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb stated that the lawsuit filed by (FFRF) could proceed because "the plaintiffs had shown that they suffered 'concrete injury' that can potentially be remedied by judicial action;" and on April 15, 2010 U.S. District Judge Crabb, appointed by Jimmy Carter --another progressive internationalist-- determined the 1952 statute regarding the national day of prayer was "unconstitutional" as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." Demonstrating, in my opinion another milestone in the efforts of activist judges and anti-religion organizations as they wage a war on Christianity.

In 1822 James Madison had this to say regarding the subject: "There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship."

In my opinion, religion is an integral part of a free society, providing citizens with a strong moral foundation, for acceptable behavior in a society that requires the governance of one's self; without which crime, covetousness and individual lust would make such a society ungovernable by the people.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: Josephpetepickle/@ flickr.com

America's 'Myth-Illogical' War: Part I: The New Deal

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-07T01:17:00Z

Preface: The purpose of this series of articles is to analyze some of
the defining moments of the American progressive left, as they wage
war on the civil and economic liberties of the American people,
and to identify some of the fundamental shifts in American society
as American liberalism issues an assault on our constitution
from all four fronts.

In 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of economic programs that collectively formed the "New Deal" these programs were said to be in response to the "Great Depression" (a time of historical economic hardship in America.) The implementation of President Roosevelt's "New Deal" would span from 1933 to his re-election in 1937 giving the federal government unprecedented power to manipulate the private economy and called for the reformation of privately owned enterprises including banking, farming and industry; it would also be responsible for the implementation of the "social security act."

On January 6, 1941, in his State of the Union Address, President Roosevelt articulated his proposal of "Four Freedoms" asserting four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy; these freedoms included: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The inclusion of the latter two freedoms continued Roosevelt's eight year long --all out-- assault on the US Constitution as ratified by it's founders, while producing two central tenets of modern American liberalism: an individual's 'right' to economic security and an 'internationalist' view of foreign policy; anticipating what would decades later become known as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development.

Franklin D. Roosevelt would serve 12 years from March 4, 1933 until his death on April 12, 1945, but during that time Americans witnessed a fundamental shift in American social policy; a shift that favored government intervention over individual civil and economic liberty.

During the two decades following the death of President Roosevelt, The national poverty level would climb to 19% in 1964, leading President Lyndon B. Johnson to deliver the "war on poverty" speech during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. The speech would lead to the passage of the "Economic Opportunity Act" by congress and the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) charged with local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.

This legislation would produce countless bureaucracies and greatly increase government involvement inside the lives of American families, shifting government's role from economic assistance to meeting the "emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological" needs of American children.

These two presidents would grossly enlarge the size and scope of the federal government, they would advance the progressive agenda of "social justice" and introduce a European philosophy to the governance of the United States of America.

In my opinion: both of these presidents used the economic uncertainty of the American people, as political leverage to forge an ideological agenda that would fundamentally change the relationship of "the people" and their government.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by:nostri-imago/@flickr.com

Independent Thought

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-04T19:57:00Z

America has become a society of great division; a nation polarized, split into two distinct and converse groups. No longer do we have the party of democrats or the party of republicans; now it is simply liberal vs. conservative, and within both groups are a variety of sub-groups that are only concerned with propelling an agenda; usually a closed minded, self-serving agenda that does little or nothing to advance the greatness of the American society.

Somewhere along the way Americans have lost their most defining trait: the ability to think freely; to set aside their political persuasion, ethnicity, background, and the social leaning of their formal education to identify problems at the root and seek logical, rational solutions that do not advance any one body's control nor impede the rights of individuals to live free, and advance their own religious, economic, and intellectual pursuits.

Surely in a nation of such diverse and rich culture, we should not be defined in one of only two categories; yet, through the efforts of our political leadership, the "free" press and sadly, many of our educational institutions this is precisely what has taken place.

I'm not exactly sure when we as a people began considering other Americans on the opposite side of the political spectrum as "the enemy" nor when we reduced intellectual debate to it's lowest common denominator of fallacious accusation and vicious slandering; but here we are.

No longer do we debate topics on the merits of a given proposal; we do not seek the best likely outcome, we look only to remain balanced upon a partisan tight-rope and avoid the very thing that made us a nation: the willingness -the duty (in fact)- to question authority, to abstain from partisan lines, to think freely, and to not only value but celebrate individualism.

To what end, have we adopted this ridiculous notion that motive and opinion can be defined by ethnic religious or cultural persuasion? When we can clearly see that independent thought and individual emotion breaches every one of these boundaries.

We have lowered our entire intellectual discourse to one that consist of only race and religion; making it impossible to seek logical solutions to contemporary issues for fear of someone being offended, making our society not one of laws and equality but one of emotionalism and relative truths.

There is a passage in the Bible that states simply: "you shall know them by their fruit" despite what rhetoric maybe coming out of their mouths, despite what they contend are their motives; it is the result of their policies that must be judged, not the people themselves.

I would like to share with you the thoughts of a man that I believe is not encumbered by ideology, but has an uncanny ability for reason, outside of emotional or cultural biases.

Dr. Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Anointed:

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by: scazon/@flickr.com

An Assault on America's Foundation

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-01T03:31:00Z

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

Where's My Compass?

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-05-01T01:49:00Z

John Adams once said: " Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In those few words I believe John Adams vividly described the battle Americans would face 184 years after his death. John Adams like many of our forefathers knew: it is impossible for a government that was established upon the morals that accompany religion to survive if those morals are abandoned.

Our constitution is dependent upon man's ability for self-government and self-reliance. It's not equipped to support corruption at any level of it's government; the citizens under a constitution that values civil liberty over legislative power, must elect men of strong character and with a solid moral foundation.

For too long we have accepted the lies of those seeking to represent us, dismissing their lies with new age slogans like "campaign rhetoric." However, lies define the character of those men and should not be taken lightly.

The simple truths that permeate the heart through faith cannot be discarded to satisfy the appetite of ungodly men; justice and liberty are the calling cards of freedom and cannot be infringed upon for the ambition of political leaders.

The righteous intent of our founders does not seem to reside in the hearts of modern day politicians; corruption and personal gain rule their thoughts and guide their actions.

We have repackaged and renamed the immoral cancer plaguing this nation; we give acceptable titles to unacceptable legislation and blindly we surrender our freedoms. We give names like "patriot act" to legislation that robs the American people of their Fundamental rights, and policy that denies citizens of their right to privacy, we call: "freedom of information act."

This is deeply deceptive; yet, it's common practice inside the sacred halls of our Capitol. The American people no longer demand honesty, and integrity from elected officials; it seems we are content with allowing our politicians to undermine the values this nation was founded upon; we even cheer when the dishonest tactics of our candidate out schemes their dishonest opponent; it truly is the lesser of two evils and sadly, we celebrate it.

America has lost her compass, her politicians have allowed their hearts to become covetous, and the churches that have not fallen prey to the same evil, can muster no more than a silent protest.

Our generation must shoulder this burden and deliver to our children the promises of liberty's past; knowing in our hearts that America's hope for survival, lies at the soul of her founding; always honoring the fervent and continuous prayers of the righteous, and understanding that, now more than ever, we must look to the heavens for her salvation.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.
Photo by:nostri-imago/@flickr.com

R.A.C.E in the U.S.A

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-04-28T21:46:00Z

I can't help but wonder if the new Arizona immigration law has more to do with politics than law enforcement; if in fact this was a political move by Arizona law-makers, it was brilliant. Arizona's new law has done more to highlight the federal government's complete failure on this issue, than any of the violence or crime, that accompanies illegal border crossing could have possibly achieved; in addition it has halted several other priorities in the Obama agenda.

Hot on the trail of this story is none other than Al Sharpton --who as we know, sees even a bowl of cornflakes through a prism of Race-- and you guessed it: he believes this is a Race issue.

In the gleaming minds of America's civil-rights leaders this measure couldn't possibly have anything to do with the epidemic of drugs, violence and abduction that plagues the CITIZENS of Arizona; of course not, this is pure unadulterated Racism; yet, the good Reverend Al Sharpton doesn't know what part of the bill he disagrees with.

Likewise, President Obama has not missed his opportunity to undermine the Arizona legislature, though he and Janet Napolitano has done nothing to alleviate the constant flow of Illegal immigrants into Arizona. I struggle to understand how the -President of the United States of America- could possibly take the side of criminals over his own citizens.

It seems everybody in this debate has lost sight of what's at stake here; this is not a civil rights issue, it's a national security issue and anyone placing their own political posture over the security of this nation is bordering on treason.

I know it's outside the bounds of "political correctness" to actually judge a matter on the principles involved without first running it through the "fairness" gestapo and far be it from me to point out that Sharpton is a Race-Baiter and a bigot; that he uses Race as a means of monetary gain; that he strives to sabotage ethnic unity in this nation, or that places himself above the security of our citizens.

However, I think this nation has grown tired of these divisive and immoral tactics, and believe that we as AMERICANS need to confront the issues of our day and seek rational solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, we live in a nation where it's leaders praise the courage of international criminals; yet venomously attack and ridicule ordinary Americans for exercising their right to a peaceful protest.

Make no mistake about it, this new landscape of American politics is dangerous to our way of life, our constitution, and the rule of law.

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo By:marriageequality/@flickr.com

Desperate Measures

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-04-27T00:28:00Z

This is President Obama's you tube address encouraging Minorities, Women and Young people to get out and vote in this election cycle. He contends those are the groups that spurred his victory in 2008, and asks they do their part in November to ensure continued Democrat control in both houses of congress.

National Security: No Big Deal

lannis@wellroundedpeople.com (Lannis Mock) — 2010-04-26T20:41:00Z

Recently Arizona lawmakers passed a sweeping new immigration bill, empowering law-enforcement in the state to stop anyone suspected of being there illegally. The measure that undermines the "politically correct" atmosphere surrounding immigration issues garnered the support of Arizona governor, Jan Brewer who signed the bill into law just hours after President Obama gave a speech condemning the bill; calling it mis-guided.

The desperation of Arizona lawmakers is understandable; their state is being invaded by illegal immigrants, and the federal government has done nothing to fix the problem; leaving them with no alternative but, take it upon themselves to control the situation.

I hold strongly to my belief that no more laws should be passed that increases government power over it's citizens, and I will make no exception in this matter.

However, I believe this recent controversy under-scores a problem that is deeply rooted and far more destructive than Arizona's desperate attempt to reign in illegal immigration.

We must set politics aside, and find solutions to the problems facing our nation. Any rational minded American should by now be asking, why the federal government is over-stepping it's constitutional abilities, in health care and financial reform; yet seems incapable of performing even the most fundamental of it's responsibilities?

The media has made this a left versus right issue, when it obviously has nothing to do with either; the polarization of this nation along party lines has made both the media and the government (at all levels) inept and useless to the American people.

The federal government has chosen a course of inaction; the state of Arizona has chosen a course of invasive government, and the mainstream media has used this as an opportunity to bark out, the now tiresome and ridiculous term "tea-bagger" --which 'outside of Racist and Homophobe' seem to be the only words left in their vocabulary.--

If even one of these entities had the common sense given a chimpanzee, we wouldn't be in this mess and practical solutions could be found; instead I'm sure they'll all just continue blaming someone other than themselves, and use this opportunity to even further polarize this country politically.

Now we have the federal government promising a 'comprehensive' immigration bill, that I can assure you will only expand the scope and reach of government, while doing nothing to solve the real issue.

Why don't we try securing our borders and enforcing the immigration laws already in existence? Nothing 'comprehensive about that; however, I'll bet it to be very effective. The very rationality of this method seems to be enough to stop government from attempting it. I mean why solve the problem when we can use it to increase our power and posture ourselves for the next election cycle?

Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.

Photo by:firefly7834/@flickr.com