Category: Uncategorized

Best of Times, Worst of Times

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

About ten days ago, I started having trouble with my internet connection. Sometimes it would work just fine, the way it was supposed to. Other times, I’d have to fiddle with it, restart the computer, reset the modem, etc, to get it going. Finally, a week ago, it stopped completely and nothing I could do had any effect, so I called the ISP to rectify the problem.

It took a few days before a technician could get here, so my wife and I had a small holiday from the electronic demands of the Internet. Except for the fact that I couldn’t pay bills or juggle the money in my bank account, it didn’t bother me much at all. After the first shock of going ‘cold turkey’, I settled down with a good book (actually a large book of short stories by various authors) and managed to pass the time pleasantly reading. That’s something I haven’t done in a long time.

When the technician showed up yesterday, she swapped out the modem and the radio receiver at the antenna and, voila! Instant gratification again!! Back to the digital drug of looking at anything I want to!!! And my wife is able to view Pinterest at will, which she is happy about.

Nevertheless, I was born before there were computers, grew up with a black box on the wall called a telephone, never knew what the Internet was until the early 90’s, and while I have to admit the advantages of modern technology, I could just as easily go back to a time without all that new-fangled stuff. Being without it was an inconvenience, but it didn’t come anywhere near destroying my life.

If the electricity ever goes out for good, I’ll just start living like the Amish.

Failure of Prohibition: A History and a Prediction

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

There have been times when government tried, but failed, to remove from society certain consumer products.

The Prohibition era began with the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, outlawing all manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic products. Prohibition of such “crimes” began on January 17, 1920 and lasted until December 5th, 1933 when the 21st Amendment repealed the practice. It did not eliminate the consumption or demand for alcohol, however, but only drove the supply out of public sight. Numerous people, otherwise innocent, were prosecuted, fined, jailed, or simply killed outright as a consequence of this policy.

In April, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order outlawing private ownership of gold coins, bullion, and certificates. He prosecuted and punished a few people, using well-publicized methods, to ensure that everyone else got the message and relinquished their holdings. Ultimately, however, all that was accomplished was that privately held gold went underground. Eventually, in 1974, President Gerald R. Ford lifted the ban and allowed gold to circulate freely, as it has done since.

In the 1970’s, President Richard M. Nixon’s administration declared the ‘War on Drugs’ to eliminate all illicit drugs from private ownership and usage. Today, millions of people are in prisons and jails, not because they are criminals, but because they possessed and/or used certain items which the government had disallowed. Like alcohol and gold in the early part of the century, however, illegal drugs did not go out of existence. They simply went underground and disappeared from public view. Currently, marijuana is legal in some form or another in a majority of states throughout the country and will eventually be legal everywhere, probably regulated like alcohol is.

So it will be for guns if private ownership is outlawed, prohibited, or regulated in an extreme manner. Guns, like alcohol, gold and drugs, will not simply disappear from society, instead, they will be driven out of sight. People who own them will be vilified, prosecuted, jailed, and fined, perhaps even killed, not because they used those guns against others violently, but because they possessed an item the government decided they shouldn’t have. If gun control is ever seriously legislated, scores of millions of Americans will be forced to choose between giving up what they consider to be their rightfully owned property or run the risk of heavy-handed punishment, up to and including the loss of their lives and freedom.

Government can regulate any consumer item out of the visible, public market, but it cannot destroy the demand for it. There always will be a market for alcohol, gold, drugs, guns, and many other items, which people consider valuable. The demand for such items is private and individual and can only be eliminated by private, individual choice. It cannot be extirpated from society by collective will or force, but may only be suppressed for an indefinite period of time, during which the relevant demand will be met–illegally, undercover, and quite often, violently.

Diabetes and Gun Violence: The way we treat disease.

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“Focusing on symptoms is not just short-sighted and a waste of energy, but it’s also likely to lead toward more authoritarian solutions and tendencies over time. Misdiagnosing a disease can be as deadly for a civilization as it can be for an individual.”– Michael Krieger

As America grapples with the menace posed by mass shootings and (seemingly) random violence, it is worth noting that the phenomenon can be considered an indication that our society is sick. Sick, getting sicker, with no way to heal the body except for a dramatic transformation in the way we live. This is similar in scope to many physical diseases prevalent today, for instance, diabetes.

Think about the way modern society treats illnesses today. A person gets sick, goes to see a physician, gets a diagnosis, a prescription for a drug, an assurance that this will put her right, and goes home, trusting completely on the pill to cure the problem. Depending on the situation, the drug might or might not restore her to health. Quite often it only masks the symptoms.

In the case of diabetes, she contracts the disease, perhaps as a result of years and years of gorging herself on fast, junk food and a lack of exercise to work off the excess. There may be little or no attempt at all to lose the obesity or a change in diet to bring it under control. In situations like this, the medication is expected only to treat the symptoms by keeping the blood sugar at a tolerable level, but it is not meant to cure the underlying disease. It is essentially nothing more than a bandage over a hemorrhage.

(Note: Diabetes can be contracted by people who are serious about maintaining a healthy lifestyle through strict adherence to diet and exercise. This article is not meant for them. They have my respect and I wish them well.)

The approach to mass shootings is pretty much the same. Feed society on the idea that young men and women can join the military and shoot other people they don’t know. Feed society on Hollywood movies which glorify gun violence as a means of solving problems. Feed society on video games marketed to young children which depict gun violence as a pleasurable game. Feed society on the idea that if you wind up pregnant, you can make the problem go away by killing the unborn child. Feed society on the philosophy that all morality is subjective to the individual person and situation. Feed society on political divisiveness and hatred. Feed society on personal irresponsibility and refusing to teach children about the consequences of their actions or to hold them accountable from an early age.

I could go on, but you get the idea. These things (and many more unmentioned) are the junk food that America gorges itself on daily, year after year, decade after decade. Then, inevitably, when a symptom (mass shootings) shows up, address it by prescribing a treatment (background checks, red flag laws, gun restrictions, etc.) which have the effect of assuring the patient (society) that the disease (violent behavior) is being treated effectively.

This treatment, however, will have as much lasting effect as that of an obese, inactive person taking a pill to counter and control diabetes, while refusing to change her lifestyle in a meaningful, positive way. Modern medicine treats the symptom of the disease, but does not address the cause. So too with modern society.

An obese, inactive person can overcome diabetes by adopting a radical change in lifestyle. It will be difficult, but it can be done. It will require, not only the obvious changes in diet and exercise, but also the attitude of personal change—the idea that unless personal action is taken to correct the problem, nothing at all will change. Nobody else can do it.

So too with America. Because society is composed of individuals acting personally, society can be transformed by individuals changing their attitudes and lifestyles in meaningful and positive ways. It will take time. It will not be obvious immediately, but in the long run, it will be noticeable. And well worth it.

I can’t do anything about the random acts of violence which are perpetrated in society on a regular basis, but I can make the necessary changes to minimize and eliminate violence in my own life. This will require, first of all, a change in the way I think about myself, my relationship to other people, and my relationship to God. After that, it is simply a matter of living it out.

Loans, Bad Loans, and Usury

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I read Zero Hedge on a daily basis. I like to know what’s going on in the world without having to resort to mainstream or social media. Many of the articles are well written. Some aren’t worth the ‘digital paper’ they’re written on. However, this one concerning usury caught my eye today.

Obviously, the author has some experience in finance and did his best to make sense of the definition of usury. Unfortunately, I think all he did was to muddy the waters, so I made a comment, which may have made the matter worse. Who knows? I can’t say that I know exactly what usury is, but this is what I think. Whether it is correct or not is debatable, but many dictionary definitions attribute a moral value to the concept, as do I.

“Usury is a loan when the borrower is subtracting equity.”–Monetary Metals

This statement makes it sound like when you’re making money off the loan, you’re not engaging in usury, but if you lose money, then you are. In reality, this is throwing the unwise borrower under the bus, because it’s his fault that he didn’t make sound business decisions. Or maybe borrowed the money to take his wife on a vacation to Tahiti, with no way to pay it back when he returns. Stupid, yes, but not a legal matter.

No one is forced to borrow money at interest. There is always a time when the borrower can just say no. Borrowing at interest is a voluntary transaction and because of that, there are no limits to the amount of interest which can be charged–as long as the borrower is willing to pay. If he can’t, he suffers the consequences.

My definition of usury is that it is the practice by a lender to loan money at interest to a person who is destitute and desperately in need of help. Think homeless person today. He has no collateral, no property, no job, no income, probably sick and starving, at the end of his rope. We’ve all seen them.

To offer this person a sum of money on the promise that it will be paid back with interest is, biblically speaking (Old Testament) criminal. Any interest at all, even a very low percentage, would be outlawed. In fact, a loan under these conditions would not even be proper or wise since the payback would be impossible for the recipient to fulfill. Instead, the person with the money was expected to simply give the down-and-outer whatever he might need in order to survive–at that moment, but only at that moment. It was not a long-term welfare program. 

There is nothing wrong or immoral about interest in a normal situation, but interest charged to anyone who has nothing except his life (and probably only a tenuous hold on that) is usury. The people who commit usury are those who do not hesitate to squeeze the last drop from anyone who is desperate, so that they can become richer. To put this in modern terms, it would be like requiring the shopping cart, tent, blanket, and the trash bags filled with stuff as collateral and then taking it away in the event of default–all to satisfy a loan with interest added.

The practice of usury is a moral, not a financial issue. What is needed here is compassion and generosity. We can all develop those.

Killing and the Question, Part 2

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

To add to the article I posted yesterday, if you are interested in researching the issue of mass shootings, why they happen, what we can learn from them, and what we can do in the future to prevent them, then check out the following links. Zero Hedge, Lew Rockwell, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Rozeff, Warren Farrel, WND.

Each one of these authors is level-headed and reasonable. You will not find any hysterics here nor any sense of trying to whip the public up into a froth emotionally. Some arguments I agree with wholeheartedly, about some I have my doubts, but I will consider all of them. As should you.

Feminists For Life have a saying that “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.” If this is true in the case of abortion on demand, then a paraphrased version of it would also be true. Mass shootings are a reflection that we have not met the needs of young men. As a society and a culture, we should consider that both these are linked in one inextricable way—both situations exhibit a callous disregard for innocent human life.

We have to figure out a way to meet the needs of both pregnant women and young men. Our world’s survival depends on it.

Killing and the Question

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Within the space of one week, there have been three mass shootings (see here, here, and here) across the United States which have killed more than 30 people and left many more wounded. Shootings like these are a shock to our system, which relies on trust and cooperation in order to function. After all, if you can’t go to a Garlic Festival or a Walmart without worrying about being shot, then there is no place which is safe.

Many people will be clamoring to strengthen and rewrite existing gun laws, with the professed intention of bringing this irrational violence to an end. Will this work? If history is any guide, probably not. Anyway, the argument over guns is a strawman which will have little or no effect on the violence which is playing out in our country and around the world.

People are killed in mass shootings, aggressive wars, the deliberate driving of trucks or delivery vans into crowds at an outdoor cafe, stabbings, gang warfare, police brutality, drug related murders, and abortion on demand, which killed over 600, 000 innocent unborn children last year in the US alone. All of these (and more) have one thing in common–the complete and utter lack of respect and honor for human life.

Jacob Hornberger has attempted to identify a cause of the violence we are learning to live with. His theory is that the war mentality America has inculcated in her citizens over the years is coming home to roost.

“I believe that America’s forever wars, sanctions, embargoes, and assassinations overseas are triggering some sort of mechanism within the minds of people who are bit off kilter mentally, which is causing them to wreak the same sort of violent and deadly mayhem here at home that the U.S. government, specifically the Pentagon and the CIA, is wreaking in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”

Hornberger may be right, but he doesn’t go far enough.

Violence and the use of deadly force is as American as apple pie. It is endemic in our culture. It has been part of America from the very beginning. For those who are doing the slaughtering, human life is worthless. The sanctity of human life means nothing. It spans the spectrum of society from the streets of Chicago to the killing rooms of Planned Parenthood to the callous attitude of Madeline Albright, who, when asked about 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of crippling sanctions imposed by then-president Bill Clinton, responded that she thought the price was worth it. Throw in video games, psychotropic drugs, the Hollywood effect, and many other contributing factors and it’s no surprise that we are seeing individuals randomly acting this way.

The killing (in whatever form it takes) will not stop unless and until we grasp the concept that human life is precious, priceless, and not to be held in contempt. Human life, from the very beginning to the very end, must become something which is esteemed and valued. The lack of respect for it is a primary cause of all killings and, if we are ever going to bring this senseless violence to an end, we must absorb and live the understanding that human life is too valuable to simply destroy.

It won’t do any good to pass more laws or to increase the penalties. Giving the government more power will not help. This is a heart attitude and must be changed there, at the individual level, within the conscience of what is right and what is wrong. It has to begin with me. It has to begin with you.

A Conversation on Socialism

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Missoulian, one of the largest newspapers in western Montana. It is well-written, researched, and reasoned. I answered it. See below.

“All this current agonizing over the concept of “socialism.” Republicans cringe at the word and hold up their crosses to divert the horrors of it.”

“I got curious. What of socialism around the world? According to the United Nations, seven of the 10 happiest countries in 2019 are Finland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand and Canada. FYI: The U.S. ranked 18th.”

“According to the Peerform website, among the 10 most socialistic nations in the world today are Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and New Zealand.”

“Interesting overlap, do you not agree?”

“On thelibertarianrepublic.com website, the blogger listed the most socialist policies of the USA. They were Social Security, the Federal Reserve, endless wars, farm subsidies, public schools, corporate welfare, income taxes, Medicare/Medicaid/Affordable Care Act, public transportation, public security, and the Food and Drug Administration. Allowing for the obvious libertarian leanings in what got included in the list, which of the listed policies would you be willing to give up?”

“Maybe we can all agree on giving up the “endless wars”!”

–Linda Holtom, Missoula

(This is my reply. Note that the links I have posted do not show up in the paper, so the content below is not exactly the same as the version submitted.–RM)

Socialism. Republicans cringe at the word. I agree and consider them to be inconsistent. While they speak against socialism, they advocate for and enact socialist policies, including all the items Linda Holtom listed in a Letter to Editor, Missoulian, 7/28/2019. See here and here for an extended version of my opinion on Republican hypocrisy concerning socialism and government.

It is interesting that the blog post she referred to, Peerform, had a large graphic at the top of the article showing Lenin, Marx, and Engels—all of whom were instrumental in bringing about the ‘worker’s paradise’ known as the former Soviet Union, socialism taken to the extreme. She also neglected to mention that one of the most socialist countries, according to this blog post, is China, with the attendant photo of armed soldiers lined up, ready to enforce compliance with socialist law.

Holtom asked a question. It deserves an answer. I would give up all of them, starting with the FED, which finances every form of socialism in this country. This action, by itself, would inevitably change or eliminate every other item on her list, including the endless wars.

There is only one alternative to socialism—liberty, in which the freedom of people and their property is considered sacred and off limits to government. Everything else is socialist.

End of letter. I expect some pretty harsh criticism, from both the left and the right.

It seems that Holtom has equated socialism with happiness. After all, most of the most socialist countries in the world are also the happiest, at least according to the sources she mentioned. What she never said anything about is that the most socialist countries this world has ever known, the USSR, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Nazi Germany, etc., have also been the unhappiest, filled with an immense amount of human suffering and misery.

All of the countries she listed have a few things in common. There are probably more.

  1. They are small, population-wise.
  2. Many of these populations are indigenous and closely related.
  3. They have no large military expenditures, relying instead on the United States to keep the “bogeyman” away.

One thing which should be obvious is that they are more similar to each other than they are to the US, which has a large, rapidly growing, rapidly diversifying population and is acting as policeman to the world. Apples to oranges. They are not the same.

Consistency: The Winning Factor in Politics and Life

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

I grew up in a conservative Republican home and learned early on that ‘liberal’ was a dirty word. It affected my political viewpoint for many years until the day arrived that I realized this wasn’t the whole story. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it’s pretty hard to throw mud unless you’re right in the middle of the puddle yourself. Or, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one.

There are two major wings of the statist party, Conservative and Liberal, with a third, Progressive, building up steam and set to demolish the Democrat Party. I have no use for any of them, but I do have some grudging respect for both the Liberal and Progressive factions. This shouldn’t be construed to mean that I accept and support their premises (I don’t), but only that, in my opinion, they are consistent with their stated philosophies and, consequently, will probably come out on top in the scramble for government control—at least for a short while until they manage to completely destroy the United States.

It is a known fact that both the liberals and the progressives call for wide-ranging policies which would require massively increasing the size of civil government in order to implement them. It is also known that both are willing and ready to accept this growth and even advocate for it. In this respect, they are honest. They are consistent. They practice what they preach.

Not so the conservatives. They are hypocrites, mouthing one thing, enacting another. They SAY that they are in favor of small government and lower taxes, but push for more all the time. They SAY that they are in favor of outlawing abortion on demand, but never make any concerted effort to end the slaughter when they have the power to do so. They SAY that they are in favor of free trade, but then work out deals which benefit large corporations and the people who control them at the expense of everyone else. They SAY that they support individual freedom, but work to bring everyone under the control of the State.

And on and on and on. I could do this for a long, long time.

George W. Bush was elected President, due partly to the belief among conservative Republicans that he was a decent, devout, Christian man who would do the right thing and Bush encouraged them to think so. He was not shy about professing his Christian faith in public, yet he never hesitated to abandon the principles he espoused when they came into conflict with his political policies. “Love your enemy”, “Do good to those who hate you”, and “Do not bear false witness” are maxims of the Christian faith, but Bush deliberately and repeatedly lied in order to take America to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, killing millions of people in the process.

I have more respect for Adolf Hitler. He knew what he believed in, he said what he believed, and he pursued his beliefs to the end, without conflict between his words and his acts.

Jack Kerwick recently posted an article on Lew Rockwell which said that conservatives could win the political battle against the liberals and progressives, except that they will not fight for what they believe in. He mentions Rush Limbaugh’s immense wealth and says that if that was put to good use, it would have a profound effect on society. This may very well be true, but why would Limbaugh do that? He makes his millions by exploiting the suckers who take his words at face value. Limbaugh and others like him are con men, using the gullibility of their followers as a cash cow to be milked, laughing all the way to the bank.

I don’t agree with Kerwick’s assessment. Conservatives don’t need to “fight” with the liberals and progressives to win. All they need to do is to be consistent, on a regular basis, with what they say they believe. That would be more than enough.

Socialism vs. Liberty and Freedom

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Recently, a Letter to the Editor was printed in the Bitterroot Star by numerous members of the Montana Legislature, all of them Republicans, on the issue of Medicaid expansion and why this is a bad idea. My response is seen below or you can see it online here. And while you’re at it, check out the paper, a small, local rag which does quite well in this area.

Apparently, the authors of the article believe that Medicaid itself is good, because they state that, “Traditional Medicaid was created to lend a hand to our most vulnerable populations.” However, they argue against the “socialist expansion” of the program. Where do they draw the line? And how do they determine when we have stepped over it? And who gets to decide where the line is drawn? 

What is socialism, anyway? 

Socialism is the political practice of bestowing benefits on any certain class of people at the expense of everyone else. Furthermore, it is the belief that the ills of society and culture can be corrected by confiscating money and wealth from certain people and giving it to others. In this respect, every civilization in the world today is socialist because they all rely on taxation and government redistribution to create their own version of socialism. 

I’d be willing to bet that the authors have their own pet projects which they would vigorously defend against attack, all the while claiming that these are NOT socialist in any way, shape, or form. The fact is that EVERY single government program which has ever been created and implemented is socialist to some degree. 

The only alternative to socialism (left, right, or middle) is to leave individual people alone to live out their lives without interference. No government, no taxation, no socialism. In other words, individual liberty and freedom.

Yeah, that’s right. Just leave me alone.

***Update: Shortly after this letter appeared in the Bitterroot Star, a response was printed. You can read it here. It basically said that because I had expressed a desire to be left alone, then I had to stay home, stay off the (our) roads, stay out of the (our) stores, plan to work from home with what I had on hand, stay away from the (our) local medical offices and hospitals, not call the (our) local fire or police departments in an emergency, etc. In other words, completely disassociate myself from any and all local society. All because I said I wanted to be left alone.

I didn’t bother to respond.

Shameless Self-Promotion

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I have been writing this blog off and on for years. My thinking has changed somewhat over this time, so some of these posts may not accurately reflect the way I believe now. That is important, however, since I am where I am now because of the decisions I made in the past. Because my thinking and philosophy change over time, I can honestly say that I believe I am coming ever closer to the truth.

The posts to this blog are sporadic. I have, however, been writing and posting to another blog, To Make a Difference more frequently. To Make A Difference is dedicated solely to the issue of abortion on demand. On that issue, my view will never change.

Check it out if you’d like. I’d be delighted to have you on board.

The Reality of an Unbelievable Doctrine

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

               Sometimes, the theories and postulations of scientists require a great leap of faith to swallow them. Sometimes, they are simply unbelievable.

               Astrophysics, for example, has enjoyed a splendid run on television “infomentaries” (Discovery, History, PBS, etc.), presenting theories about the origin of the universe as if they were gospel. Night after night, there is a constant drumbeat about how the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago, how our own sun lit up a few billion years later, and how Earth came into being 4.68732807 billion years ago, give or take a few million.

               They tell us that all the elements around (and in) us were spat out by exploding mega-stars umpteen billion years ago and, in fact, Earth wouldn’t exist at all were it not for such explosions. Gold deposits around the world and the huge lithium deposits recently found in Afghanistan are here today, compliments of super-novae a long, long time ago and far, far away.

               We are constantly reminded that Earth was once nothing more than a vast cloud of dust and gas. These dust and gas particles eventually started to clump together, by Gravity, and remain inseparable forever, or at least until some outside force split them apart. Over eons of time, more and more particles joined the group until a rock was formed, which clumped together with another rock forming a bigger rock, which…You get the point. Eventually, enough of these rocks were brought together and morphed into a sphere around a core of liquid, molten iron and, Voila!, Earth.

               At some point, the comets arrived bringing the seeds of life and precious, life-sustaining water. (Where the comets got the water from is still a mystery.) From these gifts and the other elements generously sent to us by the stars, Gravity bless them, has evolved all the life forms that have ever existed.

               I am not making this up. I’ve seen it on television and we all know that if it’s on television, it must be true. But wait, as the pitch goes, there’s more. Oh, yes, much more!

               What really blows my mind is the “pinnacle of understanding” as I heard it directly from Stephen Hawking one day. Hawking is a demi-god who is worshipped in the astro-physical universe and, like E.F. Hutton, when he speaks, everyone listens. Anyway, he made the claim that there was a point in time (if time existed at all) where the entire, material universe was condensed, by Gravity, into a spot smaller than the smallest part of an atom. Everything was crammed in. Every constellation, galaxy, star, black hole, planet, gas cloud, was squeezed so small as to become non-existent.

               What really makes this interesting is that the material in the universe we can see and know about makes up only 5-10% of the whole universe, with the balance being made up of so-called dark matter, which we can’t see and know hardly anything about. Hawking believes that this dark matter was also included in the original mix and everything, both the matter we see and the matter we don’t, became one infinitely small amount of 100% pure energy, which simply exploded at the Big Bang and has been expanding, evolving, and creating ever since.

               Imagine, if you will, trying to compress one single tiny grain of sand into a state of virtual non-physicality, pure energy and nothing else. Imagine a force so large that Earth itself could be put into this position. The earth is 7, 926 miles in diameter (at the equator) and the sun is 865, 000 miles in diameter, give or take. Many stars are hundreds or thousands of times larger than our sun. Arcturus, for example, is supposed to have a diameter of 44 million miles.

               We live in a small galaxy called the Milky Way. There are an estimated 100 to 250 billion stars in our galaxy alone, yet there are galaxies out there which are far, far larger. Furthermore, it is estimated that the number of galaxies in the universe total in the hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions. We cannot even comprehend the number of stars this would make, let alone all the planets, black holes, quasars, dust and gas clouds, etc., which comprise the “known” galaxy.

               Multiply this phenomenal, stupendous mass by nine to ascertain the size of the dark matter that we don’t know about and you come up with an incredibly large, unfathomable amount which Hawking expects us to believe was once smaller than the smallest part of an atom.

Hunhhh??? They expect us to believe this????

Evidently they do, because all this is told with a straight face as if it were indisputable fact. Yet, the vast majority of astro-physicists, including Hawking, will tell you they don’t believe in God. How ridiculous is that? On the one hand they promote a theory which completely boggles the mind, which is so grandiose that the average person simply tunes it out, but they ridicule and demean anyone who claims that the universe was created by God and is sustained by His Spirit and rule.

It is, I suppose, theoretically possible that Hawking is right about the physical part of the universe, but he is dead wrong about its origin. I find Hawking’s hypothesis totally unbelievable, simply because I cannot wrap my mind around the logistics of the matter. I cannot comprehend the universe being squeezed so much that it virtually disappears into nothing but energy. This raises the question of where did this energy come from in the first place, but that’s another matter. The universe did not originate from a (non)spot of pure energy.

Scientists of all ilk vehemently defend this theory, but it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe something like this. Truthfully, it is so much easier to believe that God simply spoke—and it was. The Bible tells us that God spoke it into existence. God didn’t start from a spot of energy, He started from nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is what I believe. Who is going to tell me my faith is misplaced?

[Note: The above article was written four or five years ago, but never published. Since then, Stephen Hawking has died. Nothing else, as relates to this article, has changed.]

Venezuela, Putin, and the Order of Things

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

RussiaGate and the lynch mob mentality to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency at any cost have been ongoing for more than two years, with very little to show for it. The main premise is that various members of the administration, both past and present, actively worked with and were directed by Vladimir Putin and Moscow to elect Trump, denying Hillary Clinton the White House. The main tune sung is that Russia “interfered” in and unduly “influenced” the election, thereby giving Trump the win.

Election meddling by foreign powers is improper and should be resisted vigorously. Right? Of course, right!

How, then, do we explain the open, aggressive push to oust Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela and replace him with Juan Guaido, who is a self-appointed wannabe? Is that interference or what?

It does no good to make excuses or try to explain the difference. This is blatant hypocrisy on the part of Washington. It’s a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Whether anything ever comes from RussiaGate or not is debatable, but it is certain that the West is deliberately trying to dictate to the people of Venezuela who their president will be. This is wrong. It needs to stop.

The end of risk (and fun).

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

On November 14, 2018, I watched NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt. One of the “newsworthy” items which aired was about flying motorcycles, which appeared to be very similar to the now ubiquitous drone, but large enough to carry a person. You can have one for the paltry price of $150,000.

What caught my attention, though, was the concern voiced by Holt and the news correspondent, as well as the local anchor in her preview. They all brought up the issue of safety—numerous times. Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe?

Thought #1. Who really cares? It looks like a lot of fun. I wish I had the money to buy one.

Thought #2. Government ought to, in the name of all that is well and good in America, totally ban and outlaw these machines. No matter how well they’re built nor how much demand there is for them, if they can’t be guaranteed 100% safe, then they shouldn’t be built or sold. In fact, any efforts to bring these machines to market should be put on hold until the goal of complete safety can be reached.

Of course, the first thought is my independent, natural inclination (I am, after all, a man), while the second is pure out and out sarcasm. Please understand that.

Evolution and Violence

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Ever since Charles Darwin published “Origin of Species” in 1859, we have been taught that people evolved from lower forms of, well, something. After slithering around in the primordial ooze for millions upon millions of years, eventually our ancestors crawled up on dry ground and started climbing trees, becoming monkeys in the process. Some untold millions of years ago, we decided not to be like those any longer and started to chart our own course in the world, which hasn’t been the same since. This (or some variation of it) has been taught in the State schools for generations and millions upon millions of children have grown up believing this hogwash. My apologies to the hogs!

Think about it this way. If we are taught from the get-go that we are animals, nothing more than animals, and no better nor different than animals, the odds are pretty good that we’re going to act like animals. The question to ask, then, is how do animals act? From the ones I’ve been around and the National Geographic shows I’ve seen on television, I’d say that they are only concerned with four things–food, water, sex, and survival, all of which are tied up in a neat little bundle. Animals everywhere, at all times, fit into this description. You can protest all you want about how your pampered French poodle is different, but I know and can say with certainty that if it gets loose outside by some miracle, within five minutes it will revert back to being a dog and start looking for the nastiest, dirtiest pile of “whatever” to roll in. Regardless of how much it loves you, it is still a dog and will act that way, given the chance.

Animals usually kill other animals for food. Occasionally they kill them during battles to decide which one will get the girl. Sometimes self-defense enters into the picture and once in a while one will go mad with rabies and infect other animals with the disease, resulting in death. I have even seen cats catch mice and play with them for sport before finally issuing the “coup de grace”. This is completely natural for them and cannot be considered as wrong or evil because they are acting instinctively and don’t know any better.

Man, however, is a different story. Regardless as to the origin of man, whether we arrived on the scene via evolution, space aliens, God, or some other means, man knows the difference between right and wrong. One major reason man has survived and prospered over the millennia is because we have known what we could and could not do to our fellow man, and have suppressed the urges that would have killed us off if given free rein. It is because we control ourselves and our “natural” instincts that man has grown stronger, smarter, and more dominant.

Where in the world did this self-control come from? Animals don’t have it. Monkeys, from which we’re supposedly descended, don’t have it. If our “ancestors” didn’t have it and we didn’t receive it from them, then where and how did humans get it? Either we learned it on our own by sheer accident over umpteen millions of years and umpteen billions of failed attempts to get it right, or else it was given to us by someone else, far older and wiser, from outside the species.

Contrary to the evolutionary theory, man was created by God. From the very beginning, God gave man (and man alone) the ability to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. Man was made in God’s Image, animals weren’t. Man knows, animals don’t. It’s that simple. It’s not rocket science, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know without even thinking about it that some things are just plain wrong.

Considering the fact that we’ve been “educated” for over 150 years in Darwinianism and that we’ve been “enlightened” to the idea that God is dead, never existed, or has been removed from Our Presence, is it any wonder that some people act like animals? Perhaps, though, I should rephrase that because animals don’t decide one day to run amuck and kill dozens, scores, hundreds, thousands, or millions of their own species the same way that man does. People alone kill other people without any reason because they want to, not because of self-defense or to gain access to fertile females and the food cache, but simply because they have a desire to. This is evil and it is the suppression of that evil which creates safety and security within society.

Why should we be surprised that Adam Lanza decided one day to kill twenty-seven people, including himself? Why should we react in horror because Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb which destroyed a Federal building and the lives of 168 people in Oklahoma City? Why should we expect that someone like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao would restrain themselves instead of murdering up to 100 million of their fellow men? What’s the big ruckus about abortion on demand anyway, which has resulted in the deaths of upwards of 60 million unborn human beings in the United States alone since January 22nd, 1973. Hey, we’re all just acting out our natural instincts aren’t we, and besides, there really is no right or wrong. Truth is relative. We’re all dead in the long run. Fact is, some of us are dead in the short run, like maybe only five or six years worth as in the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School or less than nine months if you’re brutally ripped from your mother’s womb.

Fact is, as long as we cheapen human life by comparing ourselves to animals and slime, we are going to experience the cheapening of the value of human life. Today, in the minds of many, human life is worthless and some even insist that we need to cleanse the planet of most of the “parasites”, not meaning, of course, the ones who will do the “cleansing”. Of course! The ones who want others to die don’t want to be killed themselves. According to them, someone else has to die so that they can live.

Amazingly, someone else thought of that a long, long time ago, even before the world was created. The Bible tells us that God planned, predestined, and worked it out in history that Jesus Christ would die physically so that we, sinful human beings, could live spiritually. We live today because He died and was resurrected. We don’t live to ourselves, though, because as redeemed, born-again persons made in the Image of God, we have to live with each other peacefully. We restrain ourselves with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to show and model the love that God has shown and modeled for us.

The further we remove ourselves from this model and this love, the more our society self-destructs. It can be seen everywhere across the entire world. If we want to get off the path of gratuitous, self-serving, mindless violence, death, and destruction that modern man seems to be hell-bent on racing down, we have got to come back to the Truth, that man is made in God’s Image, that there are consequences of our individual and collective evil actions, and that we must forsake and abandon them–before it’s too late for us.

God is, according to His Word, a fair judge and more than willing to give us time to change, but His patience does not last forever. Sooner or later, He will act on behalf of righteousness. It would be far better for us if we were to alter our course before that happens.