Wolves in sheep's clothing...

In anticipation of the remake thriller of the "Manchurian Candidate", I rented the original version released in 1962 with Frank Sinatra, Angela Lansbury. and so forth. I'd not seen it before, so rather than just watch it as entertainment, I turned on my political filters. The main reason I did that was because Sinatra had kept it locked away for such a long period of time, apparently because of the strong political statements it made and perhaps because of the proximity, time-wise, to the Kennedy assassination.

Without going too much into the plot, it portrayed the hysteria associated with the then prevailing "red scare". What really stood out was one of the opening lines by Lansbury complaining about who her son was going to work for..."That Republican...That communist!", liberally paraphrased. This was a crafted facade to mask that she was a very active communist party member. Another oddity in the film was one of her political enemies had sued her for defamation of character and had contributed all the proceeds to the ACLU, an organization that supposedly had strong ties to the party in the '30's. The other scene that was an epiphany of sorts was when one of the actor's meal was being liberally coated with "Heinz" ketchup. Anyway, given the two conflicting events above, the movie had a little less credibility in terms of an implied agenda.

What sunk in, however, was the opening line of Angela Lansbury and her portrayal of Republicans being communists. We have many groups on the radical left that are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have been using our legal system and mainstream media to spout the conservative attack on human rights and freedom of speech as a diversion to actually suppress both by their actions and long-term agenda. Don't let your guard down!

Why I don't...

I'd recently written about the manipulation of the language at the convenience of those with a specific agenda. So it also goes with concepts and ideas. The rhetoric gets so convoluted that underlying principles are missed. While what I am about to state may be controversial in some circles, nonetheless, I am compelled to add my perspective to the raging topics of the day.

Faith-based initiatives - I am against the current course of faith-based initiatives. Since the definition of "faith" is no longer a common sense understanding in our populous, it will open the doors to funding cults and every other sort of marginal group with support from our legislative bench (not branch) and the ACLU. In business transactions, we try to minimize the impact of middlemen. In governmental transactions, each department our tax money passes through takes more than its unfair share of allocations, handling fees, etc. Why do we have to send our money all the way to Washington to loose ninety cents or more on the dollar (a guess) to have it reallocated back to our faith-based organizations? The solution is to keep the money here in the first place, and this relates back to the need to cut Federal spending in half.
 
Gay marriage amendment - I am against a gay marriage amendment. While I am against gay marriage, the legal wrangling associated with promoting a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage or prohibiting gay marriage would be a total waste of time and money and, in the end, the proponents will lose anyway. It goes back to an old saying of the '60's and '70's, "You can't legislate morals." Look what happened to Prohibition. What is missing is the reference back to The Bible as the moral basis of our society. I realize that there are many forces trying to excise reference to religion at every turn, however, arguments of man are weak against the inspired Word of God. Being a bit silly about the whole thing and looking at Prohibition, the Bible does not explicitly forbid consumption of alcohol, but it gives guidelines and admonishes those that care to consume alcohol not to cause others to stumble through their actions. Demon rum, by its prohibition, caused organized crime to blossom and to what end. The amendment was repealed.

Similarly, there are few solid secular arguments that hold up well against gay marriage. We must ultimately couch our protest in Biblical teaching, and through that, make it very clear the impact this activity will have on children and future generations of humanity...let alone the warning signs in the story of Sodom and Gomorrha.

Abortion - I am pro-choice...not pro-abortion. Again, the legalism and opinion of man has been trumped by God. God gave us free will. Certainly, we need to educate person seeking advice on the long-term implications of abortions and suggest alternatives, of which there are many. Admittedly, I also have a "stealth" pro-life position, but the point of the argument is to make the individual responsible for her action.

On the surface, these positions may not ring well with many religious conservatives, but the more you think about it, all positions are not left or right, there are other directions, as well.

Let me hear your opinions.

Lie or Truth Decoder

Are any of you old enough to remember those "decoder rings" that either came in your favorite cereal box or Cracker Jack box?

Faced with increasing distortions in "scientific" research, news, the Internet, the mainstream media, etc., how can one discern truth from lies (or fiction). A new version of the famous decoder ring has not been introduced yet to assist with this situation, so I will give you three methods I use on a daily basis to sort the wheat from the chaff (A caveat: To become proficient at using these methods, there is a lot of background work you must do and practice on.):

1. Anchor yourself in the Bible. There is no other source that is a better reference for decoding right from wrong, good versus evil, truth versus a lie.

2. Read voraciously. Rely less on TV and visual images than on the written word. Also read material you don't agree with...except that which you are admonished to avoid from Item 1.

3. FOLLOW THE MONEY!! Often, today's "truth" is sold to the highest bidder. Find out who is paying for studies, who is backing an organization, who sponsors a particular candidate. If it is a corporation, determine what they will lose if they don't spend this money. If an individual, probe into his ideology (Most are selfishly motivated because of the corrupting power of excessive wealth.)

An Observation On The Political Milieux

It never ceases to amaze me how persons so set on getting George Bush out of office will so easily sell their soul to the devil to do it (I should put a sarcastic caveat in here that the concept of the devil is foreign, as is the concept of good and evil, to most of the persons involved in this "selling" activity). While the Republican Party has warts on its policies and actions, the alternatives are truly frightening. These days, voters necessarily must vote for the lesser of two evils and for a candidate that only roughly approximates their values or ideals.

While those selling out seem to have their own version of the truth, it is also astounding how many people subscribe to things as true which are out and out lies.

This evening, while listening to Barbara Simpson on the radio, she made a very profound statement about this conundrum. She said that persons caught in this situation accept things as true if it aligns with the way they think things should be, not as they really are. I now see why Michael Savage is so insistent on labeling persons in this realm (primarily radical liberalism with a surprising amount of moderate adherents) as suffering from some sort of mental disease or drug induced hallucinations.

The temper tantrums of Dean, Kennedy, and Gore perhaps are the leading indicators that these manipulators are being finally caught at their game. I truly hope so.

I'd previously written about Goebbels' propaganda techniques about focusing on something and repeating it over and over until it is accepted as the truth. I am also frightened by the number of persons I respect that are starting to mouth some of this dogma, either as a sick joke or with conviction. This is nothing short of mass brainwashing in my opinion.

The San Francisco Comical and the San Jose Murky News are partners in this brainwashing scheme, either knowingly, or victims of the brainwashing themselves. How can one tell? ...Strong focus on political invective and complete or partial deemphasis on real local issues (Gay marriage IS NOT a real local issue, unsolved murders are). In other words, priorities are turned upside-down according to rational and logical thinking.

Another aspect of this "schizophrenia" or brainwashing, whichever tag seems more appropriate, is complete and unquestioning trust in certain sources or persons and a breakdown of trust of old established standards or guidelines. Normally, when the human situation borders on chaos, people tend to go back to their roots or traditions to seek stability. This no longer seems to be the case, which strongly points out that at least one or two generations have not had this anchor position established, be it religion or tradition.

What are those sources of trust? While I take strong issue with the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The LA times, The Washington Post, etc.), sadly, many are taking their cues from Hollywood movie stars or... Jerry Springer-types.

Curiously, persons who think like I do (yes, there are a surprising number that do) are labeled as simplistic, racist, moronic, mean-spirited, hateful, you name it.

What is wrong with this picture?