In the wake of Facebook's News Feeds, we have this! AND IT'S AN OLD STORY.

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWS?

From Business Insider's Pamela Engle, Oct 21 2014.
News outlets like CNN and ABC News might have the biggest audiences, but they're not the most trusted across-the-board in America.

The most trusted news outlets in America, according to a new study from Pew Research Center, are actually British.

BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group, while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.

Conservative-leaning news outlets seem to be the least trusted among those with a mixed political ideology. Liberal-leaning outlets like Mother Jones and ThinkProgress also rank lower than major media players like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The news outlets that are considered trustworthy by every ideological group don't equate to the most popular outlets, however.
Americans say they get most of their political news from local TV, Facebook, and major networks like CNN and Fox News.
CNN and Fox News both had a high trust rating overall, but there is more of a dispute between ideological groups about whether they're trustworthy. For example, 88% of consistent conservatives said they trust Fox News, but only 14% said they trust CNN.
For the study, Pew surveyed a representative sample of randomly selected Americans.

DON'T BE BLUE

“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

Famous words from the past that still deserves an answer that we won’t accept.

“The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear,” Thiel said Monday.
“If you don’t conform (to their ideology), then you don’t count as diverse, no matter what your personal background.”

So are we talking about RELIGION, RACIAL ETHNICITY, HERITAGE or WHAT?

Immigration reform is more than just installing a "religious test" for immigration, like banning Muslims. It's about looking for extremists regardless of religion.

It's not about keeping individuals from certain countries or religions out, but about looking at why they come here and what they do here.

It's about putting those who want to legally immigrate and go through the proper steps in front of those that don’t. Those that do go through the proper procedures, should be given preference to be allowed to live here and accept the more vigorous scrutiny of their circumstances. It's about if they should be allowed to live here. If they want to live here, they should want to belong here. They should want to assimilate into the society of law-abiding citizens that live here. They should want to accept our culture, even if it interferes with theirs. They should be allowed to bring in those parts of their culture that don't interfere with ours. They should want to speak our language and help us to understand theirs.

Not everyone who is here illegally is a bad person who has a violent or criminal behavior; many are hardworking individuals with a moral upbringing. They aren't all into theft, drugs, and violence, but the good ones should not be given preference over those who legally go through the proper procedures, and those who are born here should only be given citizenship if one of the parents is already a citizen.

It appears that the many religions have the same view of God, but differ in interpretations of the words of God. It's interesting that the words and ideals attributed to God are essentially the same, before religious inflection is applied to them.

I think I heard that God will accept anyone in heaven if they repent, but I could be wrong about that, it may depend on which religious leader I ask.

What's most interesting is that if you convert from one religion to another, it doesn't make a difference which one, you most likely aren't going to Heaven, but it might keep you out of Hell and at least with one religion it may keep you from being killed.

Are we teaching our children to respect authority or reject authority? Is that a biblical teaching regardless of which religious tome you read?

It’s ok to question authority, but if your only action when confronted with those in authority is to provoke a reaction to a perception, either real or imagined, by causing a violent act in defiance of authority, then who was your teacher and what were they teaching?

We can’t all get along together if we don’t try to get along together and not act like a thug or criminal and disrespect any act of authority.

If you want to be treated like a law-abiding person you have to act like a law-abiding person and let those who are videotaping the action help to prove the action was right or wrong.

In God We Trust; religion or amoral activism, not so much.

DON'T BE BLUE

Top 25 Radio Hosts

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican. Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist. Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Here's the kicker. Liberal radio stations don't want to be called "Liberal", they call themselves "Progressive"?

NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts and I've listened to most of these at sometime and I doubt I've listened to more than 15 minutes of any one of these, they usually get to ranting about something after 10 minutes.

1. Rush Limbaugh is more than America’s most widely listened-to talk-radio host (“the most listened-to radio host on the planet,” he likes to say).
Take almost anything he says with a shot of JD, about 15% of anything he says is worth listening to and if he gets on a rant, which will usually happen about 2 minutes into a topic, change the station.

2. Bill O’Reilly has established himself as one of the nation’s top media personalities. Every week he finds occasions to agree with something a prominent Democratic politician has said, although O’Reilly has also remarked that “the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left.”
By that standard he will say something "Nice" about something from a Democrat about one in 5 times, again about 20%, but for the most part I consider about 40% of anything he says as worth listening to, until the ego trip.

3. Don Imus is the most curmudgeonly of America’s major talk hosts. Although "slightly" liberal, Imus’s sharp tongue slashes Republican and Democratic politicians alike.
He likes to rant a lot, which means I will change the station after about 5 minutes. Maybe 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

4. Michael Savage is individualistic, iconoclastic, and eclectic; a passionate populist who sometimes sounds like a shock jock.
He yells a lot and may even start off in a rant about something which I don't care about! I usually can't listen to him for more than 5 minutes. Again about 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

5. Sean Hannity is a talk host with a pugilistic demeanor who polarizes issues into contests between good guys in white hats and bad guys in black.
I can usually listen to him longer than others, I may have listened to him for more than 15 minutes at any one time, but not often. About 30% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

6. Laura Ingraham, whose insider knowledge of government, droll humor, and feisty, fervent conservatism keeps her at the top of Conservative Talk Radio.
I can listen to her for about 15 minutes, or until she goes on a rant about her views on abortion. I can sometimes stand her for more than 15 minutes, but only about 20% of anything she talks about is worth listening to.

7. Glenn Beck’s relentless good humor can make important topics seem less urgent.
He can get into a "holier than thou" attitude, then it's change the station. I even have one of his books, about a Christmas Sweater. Again, usually 15 minutes is about all I can take, but about 25% of anything he talks about is worth listening to for me, until the God rant starts - and sometimes he starts with it.

8. Dr. Laura Schlesinger is seen as a cultural and political talk host because she — sin of sins — judgmentally asserts that some politically correct behaviors are wrong.
I think I've listened to her for more than 20 minutes and think about 30% of her topics are worth listening to.

9. Neal Boortz, “the talk master,” is America’s most popular Libertarian talk-show host.
I can take maybe about 2 minutes and less than 10% of what he talks about is worth listening to.

10. Al Franken, the brightest star of Air America Radio, is the left’s latest attempt to create its own Limbaugh.
They admit it's a Leftist radio station and host, not just liberal, which means right away it's over the top and extremely bent. Let's see, Minnesota had Jesse Ventura (R) as a governor and decided to tip the scales back to center with Al Franken (D) as a Representative in Congress. They overtipped. As soon as I hear his voice, I know about 2% of his topics would be worth listening to, for maybe 30 seconds.

11. Mike Gallagher a talk host in the Hannity style who sees right vs. left as right vs. wrong,
and as far as extreme views go, he's half right. I can actually stand him for about 20 minutes and think about 30% of his topics are worth listening to.

12. Erich “Mancow” Muller is known for his wild behavior. His show features a large cast of characters, adolescent pranks.
Not a serious show, so unless you really want to screw up your head, don't bother unless you're an airhead.

13. Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed “king of all media,” is a talk-radio superstar whose audience once rivaled Limbaugh’s.
A real shock jock with nothing worth listening to, again don't bother unless you're an airhead. 
OK, here's the deal, when is the last time you actually ate at a restaurant with a "B" rating? And Howard is a "C", at best.

14. Bill Bennett’s radio show, Morning in America, was launched in April 2004. On the air he often exhibits the patience and certitude of a priest.
5 minutes, tops, then that's it and about 10% worth listening to, if you can get past 5 minutes.

15. Opie & Anthony epitomize radio’s new “cringe” shock jocks.
Airheads only, couldn't get past 30 seconds.

16. Ed Schultz a converted “moderate” Republican is now a “progressive liberal.” Schultz describes himself as a “gun-totin’, red meat-eatin’ lefty” out to slay the “right-wing radio dragon.”
So, by his own definition, about 5% of his topics are worth listening to, for maybe 2 minutes, before he goes on a rant.

17. Michael Medved the self-described “cultural crusader on politics and culture” has always enjoyed debating politics.
Good for maybe 20 to 25 minutes max, about 25% of his topics are worth listening to.

18. Randi Rhodes is the main “hit man” at Air America Radio, the liberal network. She has been described as, “a chain-smoking bottle blonde. The Miami Herald says she's mostly, rude, crude, loud, brazen, gleefully scatological.”
Less credible than Al Franken or Keith Olbermann. 30 seconds max and nothing worth listening to.

19. Jim Bohannon describes himself as “a militant moderate”, soft-edged liberal.
Apparently he's retiring anyway.

20. G. Gordon Liddy has brought unique insights about government and the world, and convicted in the Watergate scandal.
I can actually listen to him and Oliver North for longer than most pundits.

21. Diane Rehm is one of the more moderate voices empowered by taxpayer-supported NPR.
But then again, NPR is 100% liberal, if not tipping too far to the left, so I don't listen to them.

22. Larry Elder is America’s pre-eminent libertarian-conservative African-American radio talk show host. He coined the term “Victicrat” to describe those who seek political power by claiming to represent victims of racism or poverty.
I can listen to him for 20 minutes or more and about 45% of his topics are worth listening to.

23. Michael Reagan’s radio show is a forum where Republican voices and conservative values come together.
The son of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, he has a large legacy to live up to. He's also good for about 20 minutes.

24. Tammy Bruce is living with one foot at each end of the political spectrum, she has both conservative and liberal critics. She describes herself as “a pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, openly gay, voted-for-President-Reagan progressive feminist Democrat”.
If she can stay on topic for 5 minutes, without the ego trip, I can listen to about 15% of her topics.

25. Tom Leykis, the poor man’s Howard Stern, used to focus on politics and boasted that his was the only radio show “not hosted by a right-wing wacko or a convicted felon".
Any reference to Howard would make me change the station, but I can actually take him for about 15 minutes on about 20% of his topics.

It's all about the business.

"Some of the progressive or liberal shows had just been sold to Al Jazeera. it's clear that the progressive community and its political leaders have simply not supported the format in the same way that the (conservative format) has. As someone who took substantial personal risk in syndication and station ownership, I can tell you that progressive talk has not panned out as a viable business. Air America's parade of management blunders produced the downward spiral that brought us to this tipping point for progressive talk radio, and most station owners, rightly or wrongly, see that failure as an indication that audiences won't support liberal talk radio."

 Peter B Collins, Truthout

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14355-an-insiders-view-of-the-progressive-talk-radio-devolution

DON'T BE BLUE

The 50 most popular liberal websites

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.
Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.
Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.
These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

 All 50 websites are listed with their Alexa rank following their link. So for example, a “1” would mean the page was the most popular website on the net. A “100,000” would mean the 100,000th most popular page on the net. With that being said, let’s go ahead and take a look at the rankings.
The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.

1)  CNN: 52
2)  The Huffington Post: 393
3)  Time: 553
4)  NPR: 1,524
5)  Slate: 1,569
6)  Newsweek: 1,690
7)   U.S. News & World Report: 2,408
8)  Politico: 2,470
9)  Salon: 2,455
12) The Atlantic: 8,538
13) The Village Voice: 8,922
16) New Yorker: 12,429
17) The Daily Beast: 12,512
23) MoveOn: 21,786
24) Mother Jones: 22,277
25) Amnesty International: 23,807
27) The Nation: 24,552
28) Antiwar: 24,799
32) Planned Parenthood: 28,207
33) Information Clearing House: 28,605
37) Political Wire: 34,698
39) ACLU: 37,195
40) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 37,494
41) Media Matters: 37,650
44) Drudge Retort: 41,472
45) The American Prospect: 42,082
46) Harper’s Magazine: 42,659
47) Firedoglake: 42,836
48) TruthDig: 44,389
49) Wonkette: 45,704
50) AmericaBlog: 45,195

Honorable Mentions

51) FiveThirtyEight: 46,521
52) The Washington Monthly: 48,238
53) Michael Moore 48,918
55) Air America: 54,928
58) Center for American Progress: 58,713
59) The Brookings Institute: 61,302
60) Zmag: 65,741
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/#ixzz43mb7ZOOy

DON'T BE BLUE

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy has been going around for quite a while. It represents an idea that creates much opposition from the extreme ends of the spectrum. On one side you have the people who want to place limitations on recent events affecting society, or even past events. On the other you have people who do not want any limitations on those aspects of society affected by the events. Both can be right or wrong, depending on which side you are standing.

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy goes something like this.
Someone says that you can have a whole bag of M&Ms, not a small bag, but the big party bag with 1000 M&Ms in it, but warns you that 1% of them are poisoned. Do you want to still have the free bag of M&Ms? (the actual scenario used 10%, but I feel that's much too high)

The analogy usually refers to something that is certainly meant to stir the emotions when it is referring to a minority of ideologies, like race, religion, ethnicity or any other defining notion.

There's the side believes that treating them all as suspect is validated by not wanting to eat an M&M from a bag were some of them are poisonous. The other side believes it can be used to prop up any kind of harmful stereotype about groups, such as genders, ethnicities, religious and political communities without having to engage the objections to unfair generalizations.

So we should just do away with all of the laws we've made in the past because they are unfair to people who want to commit a crime against innocent people.

The bottom line is this.
We have laws for a reason and the underlying reason is that a minutely small number of a given population has performed an unjust act on the rest of the population with something harmful, like death, in the beginning. It escalated to other less offensive acts that may not have killed anyone, but hurt the physically or financially. If we knew who they were, we wouldn't need the law, but they are hidden among us and acting like us and society is forced be reactive instead of proactive.

Now we are back to the Poisonous M&M Analogy. What if half of the poisonous ones were green, but only about 40% of them. Now you could throw out all of the green ones, but still have .5% poisonous, that’s about 4 out of say 800.

Here's the part they didn't tell you. If you do eat one of the poisonous ones, everyone standing next to you would also die and everyone within 10 feet of you would end up in the hospital, kind of like a virus. Now you have the bag of M&Ms, what do you do with them?

Of course all of the Skittles are free to eat, but what about the green ones?

DON'T BE BLUE

Have we learned nothing about the damned Human Race?

excerpts from a Mark Twain essay - 1905

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning.
In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scottish Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping.

Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.


Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.
He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France for a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light.................. he is at it today, in Crete, occasioned by the battles between Christians and Muslims.

He will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.


Who is the Higher Life Form?
The difference between an man and an animal is that the man is cruel and the animal isn’t; and that the man wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the animal doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the animal was not descended from the man. It also seemed to suggest that the man was descended from the animal and had lost a great deal in the translation.
There is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.
Among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.


Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no harm is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster.


Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity–these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed.  Man is the only animal that blushes.

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses, except to obtain food. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. Animals are territorial and will gather in mass to expell an intruder, but the animals will abandon the task once the intruder has left. Man will continue beyound his territory to hunt them down for no good reason.


Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country–takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.
Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another, for wages, service, nobility or ancestry.


Man is the only animal with the "Moral Sense". The ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it. And man will try to explain it away as an animal instinct or an insaine act like an animal who doesn't know right from wrong.


So....It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.


The Damned Human Race – Mark Twain Essay, published in 1905
http://www.zengardner.com/the-damned-human-race-mark-twain-essay/
DON'T BE BLUE

to the United States Congress

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ------- is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke, among others.

The future of Presidential Elections in America.

In the future, all presidents will be elected by minorities, entitlements will be the law of the land, and entrepreneurship will be a thing of the past.

Obama and the Democrats believe demography is on their side. Census 2010 made abundantly clear that racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics, are dominating national growth and will for decades to come. The Democratic agenda— favoring broader federal support for medical care, housing, and education seems designed to curry the favor of these groups, which played a huge role in tipping the balance in his favor in several key swing states.

In 2010, minorities were 26 percent of the electorate. Yesterday (Nov 7, 2012), 28 percent. A 2 percent bigger slice of the pie doesn't sound like much, but in a tight election it's everything. If conservatives want to win, we must broaden our appeal. But that doesn't mean abandoning our core principles. Assuming the country can survive another four years of Obama, Tuesday's loss might actually be good for the long-term health of the GOP, and thus, the nation. A victory would have allowed Republicans to sweep their problems under the rug — and postpone taking that long, hard look in the mirror. But let's face facts: Republicans simply must confront the fact that, at minimum, they need a makeover.
By next year, 500,000 more Latinos will have turned 18 in our country — and every year after that for the next two decades.
The irony, for those Republican primary voters who demanded tough stances on immigration, is that this is one problem Obama has inadvertently solved. The economy is so lousy under his stewardship that immigrants have stopped coming.

The Census Bureau also makes projections of the future population based on fertility rates, family size, immigration and other factors. Its latest estimate projects that by 2030 the black and Asian populations will be about unchanged in percentage terms, but the Hispanic population will rise sharply from 16 percent to 22 percent. On the question of whether they favor bigger government or smaller government, Hispanics favor big government by a 75 percent to 19 percent margin.

We must also address the issue of birthright citizenship or we will continue to have illegal immigration as far as the eye can see. Without changes in birthright citizenship, we will have future waves of illegal immigration looking to take advantage of the soon to be implemented plea for amnesty. The 14th amendment in its current form ensures birthright citizenship, automatic citizen status to anyone born or "naturalized" on American soil. Changing the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are not documented citizens is the solution Graham and many in his party are advocating for.
The bill for the Social Security and Medicare alone will be over 500 trillion ANNUALLY, once amnesty is given to ILLEGAL immigrants.

The worst part is that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge the word ILLEGAL, since it can not even be found in any dictionary used by the Democratic Party.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/01-race-elections-frey
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/236006/what-the-election-means-for-minorities-the-supreme-court-the-gop-and-more
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/latinos-minorities-obama-win-election-article-1.1198477
http://www.hacer.org/usa/?p=1799



 DON'T BE BLUE 

The Mathematics of Religion: One God, but whose?

Updated 3/31/2017

The Mathematics of Religion

.....between religion and arithmetic, other things are not equal. You use arithmetic, but you are religious. Arithmetic of course enters into your nature, so far as that nature involves a multiplicity of things. But it is there as a necessary condition, and not as a transforming agency. 

No one is invariably "justified" by his faith in the multiplication table. But in some sense or other, justification is the basis of all religion. Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity.

In the long run your character and your conduct of life depend upon your intimate convictions. Life is an internal fact for its own sake, before it is an external fact relating itself to others.

Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life and strife of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.

Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion. Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, houses of worship, rituals, religious tomes, and codes of religious behavior, are the trappings of religion, in its passing forms.

Accordingly, what should emerge from religion is individual worth of character. But worth is positive or negative, good or bad. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil. The fact of evil, interwoven with the texture of the world, shows that in the nature of things there remains effectiveness for degradation. In some the religious experience the God with whom you have made terms, may be the God of destruction, the God who leaves in his wake the loss of the greater reality. 

For those that say, "God is everywhere, all around us." Your God, nor mine, may not be everywhere.
He was not in that café in Kabul that was just blown up by a terrorist, at least not my God!
He was not in that store or building that was terrorized by some crazed person with a gun that shot those innocent people, at least not my God.


Do you believe in GOD!
A question that frequently emerges from people who are deeply religious, but unfortunately what they are really referring to is..............Do you believe in THEIR God?
Believing in God is, in the long run, not as important as living your life as if you believed in God and even more importantly extolling the attributes of a good, kind, and just God.


When asked that question I usually would reply, which God is that? Is your God a tolerant God? Does your God say that only those who follow your religion, will be welcome into Heaven, and there are many religions? Will your God accept everyone who lives their life not only in acceptance of other's beliefs but also condemning people who practice evil in the name of God?


If you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan, the God of evil. Where God is the semblance of creating order out of chaos, Satan is the opposite, striving to create chaos out of order. Those who practice harm to innocent people, in the name of God, are worshiping Satan.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers. Any terrorist who wages war for their god has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.


Pity the Atheist, which they vehemently deny is also their religion, Atheism, but it speaks to the act of being tolerant of others beliefs, which Atheists are not. They say they only believe in science. They are so arrogant that they say they would not believe in God if he came down and stood before them. Otherwise you're just an agnostic, in wolf's clothing.


Atheists have no history of being or doing good or living your life as a person who rejects evil for the sake of being a good, kind, and just person. They force their beliefs upon others, just as all religions do, but demand you denounce what goodness any religion preaches. If they were tolerant of others, they would not be so demanding and they would be encouraging goodness over evil.




In considering religion, we should not be obsessed by the idea of its necessary goodness. This is a dangerous delusion. The point to notice is its transcendent importance; and the fact of this importance is abundantly made evident by the appeal to history. All religions have defectors that still claim allegiance to their religion, be they Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or whatever. The deeper they go into harming not only those outside their religion, in the name of God, but even those believers in the same religion, the closer they come to actually worshiping Satan. Satan worshipers revel in dominating the many by the few.




So ask yourself again, WHO IS MY GOD!

You are the sum total of all you have experienced, learned, thought, felt, believed and acted upon. 
What you are -- is inside of you, influenced by external forces, both good and bad. 
You are -- what you believe, based on who taught you and how you interpreted their ideology. 

My God lives and can only live, inside of me, guiding me.

Excerpts from:

Religion in the Making by Alfred North Whitehead (1926)

http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/ritm1.htm

Suggested reading:

The Psychological Origin and the Nature of Religion by James H. Leuba

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39511/39511.txt

 DON'T BE BLUE 

Consequences => Choices

When I was learning to take tests, one of the benchmarks of taking tests was that anything with "All" in it, was false. Not so when it comes to the choices you make and the consequences that result. All choices have consequences!

Choices have 6 stages, related to the 5 senses plus one, which really could be plus 2 if you insert intuition.
Any or all of these could be involved in the consequences of the choices you make.
The first is just thinking about it. The more you just think about it, the more likely one of the 5 senses will come into play. But just thinking about it could be the point of no return in regards to the consequences that could result. Part of thinking about a choice could be effected by your intuition about the consequences, but intuition may not become cognizant until one of the 5 senses kicks in.

Any of the 5 senses could be the trigger to making the choice.
Smell and sight could be the first stage depending on which one becomes the one which jolts your mind, or hearing the known or unknown sound, or even the lack of sound.
A reflex action of touching something, the interaction of taste and smell because taste is largely dependent on smell.

The consequences though are time insensitive. The consequences of the choice you make could be instantaneous or not realized until after you die.
The quicker consequences are realized as being either good or bad or neither, the easier it is to change or reverse them if desired. The longer it takes to determine if it is good or bad, the less likely they can be changed or reversed. Most people just learn to live with consequences that don't cause them physical harm.

The point of No Return is the defining point of consequences. The point of no return doesn't usually start in an instant, it builds until turning back has escaped the thought process or the consequence has reached the tipping point of disaster and good consequences don't have a tipping point, they just are. Beyond the point of no return lies truth and the understanding that the sign posts along the way were missed.

I know you'll come back home Dorothy, when your return from OZ.




 DON'T BE BLUE 

Do we really need gun control? GET SERIOUS!

Do we really need gun control? 
YES, to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

No, Really, REGULATE THE BULLETS! 

We can and should regulate the sale of ammunition and the tools to make ammunition. 

One box per month per household! 

Seriously, if you need more than a half dozen rounds to bag that deer, moose, duck, pheasant or any other BIG game you are shooting at, you are a very poor shot. 
If you need to practice, go to a shooting range, which should be the only place you can buy more ammunition. Use it there, because you can't take it home.  You should have to turn in all of your spent shells in order to buy any more, that way you can't horde them.
Why do you need 5000 rounds of ammunition to protect your home? 
If you can't protect it with just a few rounds, MOVE!

And it should be against the law to send guns and/or ammunition through the mail, 

NO ONLINE ORDERS ALLOWED.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/
It's already illegal to send explosives through the mail and bullets are explosives, we should be enforcing that law.

Every citizen has near instant access to firearms and ammunition trough the Internet!
The United States is so saturated with guns that seeking to control them is futile. People own and use guns made in the early 1800s; guns made last month are on sale in stores now. We have a centuries-old accumulation of armaments that shows no sign of evaporating.

But there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: 

the gun and the ammunition.

Well, ok, actually three, but let's take the uncontrollable human out of the equation. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don't we focus on the bullets? A gun can be made from any number of common household objects, they can even be made by 3D printers.
But making bullets is much, much trickier.

 Bullets are so easy to come by that that huge stockpiles exist throughout the country. But unlike guns, bullets are single use. While attempts to remove guns from the streets would either be incalculably slow or require heavy-handed, dangerous government action, curbing the ability to buy ammunition would mean a natural diminishment of the arsenal that remains. Every time a bullet is fired, that bullet is rendered useless forever.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a single thing about 
THE RIGHT TO OWN BULLETS!

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable & secure nation.

This bears repeating:
Do we really need gun control? 
Yes to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH......

IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO.....

NOTHING!"

Which is exactly what the United States Congress is doing----------NOTHING!

 DON'T BE BLUE 

The new $10 Dollar, US, Note, will have a woman's portrait on it.

Treasury officials say Alexander Hamilton no longer fits the bill for the $10 note, we need to replace it and plan to replace him with the face of an American woman or women. No one has been picked, so here is a list of prospects.
Sacagawea and Susan B. Anthony are on the list, but they've already been used on US Currency, so we should give someone else a chance.

Here's my My SHORT LIST.

1754-1832
Molly Pitcher - Patriotism in battle
At the Battle of Monmouth, she brought water to Continental soldiers, attended the wounded and also replaced her fallen husband at a gun.

1811-1896
Harriet Beecher Stowe - Antislavery, fiction
Famous for her controversial novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, an antislavery story based on her experiences. Also spoke against slavery.

1860-1926
Annie Oakley - Sharp-shooting and entertainment
Gifted with uncanny marksmanship and star of Buffalo Bill's Wild West show, she established herself as a famous western folk legend.

1897-1937
Amelia Earhart - Aviation
Famous for flying across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. She attempted to fly around the world, then disappeared July 2, 1937.

1929-1994
Jacqueline Kennedy - As first lady, Jackie Kennedy became an international icon of style and sophistication, and dedicated great effort to restoring the White House with historic furnishings and art.

1929-2006
Coretta Scott King - civil rights, music
Known as the First Lady of civil rights, Coretta carried on the dreams of her husband, Martin Luther King Jr.

AND some others I think that are likely to make the final cut.

1744-1818
Abigail Adams - Politics and writing
She wrote lucidly about her life and time in letters, and exerted political influence over her famous president husband John, and son, John Quincy.

1752-1836
Betsy Ross
supposedly made the first American flag

1821-1912
Clara Barton - Aid to soldiers and free education
Organized and delivered important aid to Union and Confederate soldiers. Started the American Red Cross. Started a free school in New Jersey.

1837-1930
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones - American Labor Movement
“Mother” Jones was present as a labor organizer and speaker at many significant labor struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries.

1880-1968
Helen Keller - Social reform, writing and lecturing
Deafened and blinded by a childhood disease, she overcame her disabilities, then worked for the blind and numerous progressive causes.

1928-
Shirley Temple Black - Diplomacy, acting
Becoming a diplomat later in life, Shirley Temple was perhaps the most famous child star in history.

Click this link for the big list so far.

Who's on your list?


DON'T BE BLUE

Those squirrels are onto something and George Washington Carver.

That’s what new research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology has found. For the study, researchers analyzed the nut and peanut butter intake of more than 120,000 adults aged 55-69 in the Netherlands, as well as their mortality rates years later.

They discovered that people who ate tree nuts (such as almonds, cashews, and walnuts) as well as peanuts, had a lower risk of dying from cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and neurodegenerative diseases — essentially all the major causes of death — during the time period of the study. The results were the same for men and women.

Participants needed to eat at least 10 grams of nuts or peanuts a day to see the benefits, researchers found. Luckily, it’s not hard to eat that amount daily.

While peanuts typically aren’t touted for their health benefits as much as tree nuts, researchers discovered that they were just as effective as other types of nuts at lowering a person’s risk.

Nuts are amazing, they're packed with fiber, have a form of omega-3 fatty acid that can help lower the risk of developing heart disease and can help lower cholesterol, and they contain flavonoids.

Peanut Butter? (best to make your own)
But while researchers found a link between living a longer life and nuts, they couldn’t say the same for peanut butter. The process of getting peanut butter from peanuts (which involves high temperatures) can destroy some of its health-boosting amino acids, and possibly some of the fatty acids. And unfortunately, it’s the same for natural peanut butter as well as sugar-added versions.

If you want the same benefits in Peanut Butter, you have to make your own. I make mine in a micro food processor and I find it best to use five different nut varieties with no peanuts. 

But just using peanuts is also fantastic. 

Keep them refrigerated.

It only takes a small amount to get the health benefits, an ounce of nuts is a serving, and all you should need on a daily basis.

George Washington Carver was born into slavery in Diamond, Missouri, around 1864. The exact year and date of his birth are unknown. He was a prominent African-American scientist and inventor. Carver is best known for the many uses he devised for the peanut. Carver went on to become one of the most prominent scientists and inventors of his time, as well as a teacher at the Tuskegee Institute.

Carver devised over 100 products using one of these crops—the peanut—including dyes, plastics, gasoline  --- and --- PEANUT BUTTER.

DON'T BE BLUE

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Hanging by your tongue on a telephone wire…

http://lifeslittleinspirations.com/liar-liar-pants-on-fire by Wendi Kelly

When I was a youngster, this little jump rope chat could be heard daily on the playground as little girls gathered in groups to skip to the beat of the rope. There were other versions too, “Liar, liar, pants on fire, Hanging by a telephone wire!” and “Liar, liar, pants on fire, Your belt’s hanging on the telephone wire!”  are two that I still can recall. Every now and then, when someone is not quite as truthful as I expected, I still hear the little chant inside my head, forever imprinted there.
Liar, liar, pant’s on fire…


Sadly…every now and then, I have to say it to myself.

Not because I have told somebody a lie ( I try REALLY hard never to do that). But because I told one to myself. I don't MEAN to tell a lie. They just sometimes fall out of my thoughts.
Like the famous, “Today, I’m not eating a single bit of white flour or bread. I don’t eat that stuff.” (Liar, liar…I've been scarfing it down for a week now,)
Or, how about, “I’m going to bed early tonight, my sleep is important to me.” (Oh yeah? So why did the clock strike pumpkin time before I ever saw my sheets? Liar, liar…)
I make my shoulders slump. I feel like I let myself down. I feel like a fraud. It creates pot shots in my self-esteem. I question my personal integrity.



Does this ever happen to you?
If you are human, it probably does. So then, if everyone is doing it, no harm done right? We can just chalk it up to being part of the human race and accept that the things we say to ourselves just don't matter.



Except that this is the biggest lie of them all.

The truth is, that when we let ourselves down, it digs a hole. When we make ourselves promises that we don't keep, we feel untrustworthy. We begin to doubt our personal integrity, our motivation, our will power and our ability to make our dreams come true. We begin to look toward outside influences for our accountability because we can't trust ourselves to be accountable to our own internal being.



Does that mean you have to be perfect?
You won’t be. You can’t be. Perfection isn't of this world, we call that place heaven. But what you can be is accountable. You can take stock of what you are saying to yourself, sit down and ask yourself,” Hey Self, What’s up with this?”
Get to the bottom of why you are not accountable to your personal word to yourself. There are probably really good, fixable reasons. Here are a few of the most common.



A Few Reasons We Lie To Ourselves
The Goal isn't really important to us. It’s important to somebody else, but secretly, we really don't care. We are people-pleasing all over ourselves and our inner being isn't buying into the program. First available chance and our subconscious mind whispers, “Just kidding! Never had any intention of waking up early to exercise!" And we are more than happy to fall back asleep. We never wanted to get up in the first place!


The Goal is overwhelming. We bit off so much that we are choking and our subconscious is talking back through the ginormous bites screaming that this is unsustainable so why even bother?



The Goal is no match for our fatigue. When we are exhausted, there is very little that can keep us on task and motivated without considerable effort. It’s easy to break promises when we have no energy. In order to have more personal integrity, we need to take better physical care of ourselves. In order to take better physical care of ourselves, we need better personal integrity. It’s a tricky one and the trick is this. Establish a bare minimum, no matter what threshold, that keeps you honest. That way when you are feeling run down, you can institute Personal Pampering Day, and get by on your bare minimum without breaking your integrity. But at least you are doing something!



The Goal is not part of your routine. Out of sight, out of mind. Routines and systems help us to keep our personal integrity by making habits automatic. The more automatic a habit is, the less time the Liar and excuses voices can sit on your shoulder and tempt you to quit.
Here is a tip. Link your new habit to an existing habit so that your brain will accept it more readily and not argue.

Let’s face it, none of us want to be liars.
Here's another tip. Avoid it. If you don't want it, don't get it, if you have it, throw it away.
Here's another tip. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Start by doing. The hardest step to take is the first one, once taken others follow, willingly.
We all want to have integrity, faith in ourselves and great self-esteem. It isn't like we are TRYING to sabotage ourselves with excuses, lies and broken promises.


When it does happen, be kind. Recover with grace and forgiveness to your struggling self and see if you can implement a few systems or ideas to help your poor self out.
Yourself will thank you for it!



DON'T BE BLUE

Are you leaving holes in your fence?

NAILS IN THE FENCE
There once was a little boy who had a bad temper...  His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence...  Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.  He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.  Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all.

He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.

The days and weeks passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence.  He said, 'You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence.  The fence will never be the same.  When you say things in anger, they leave a scar, just like this one.  You can put a knife in a man and draw it out.  But It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound will still be there.  A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.

Remember that friends are very rare jewels indeed. They make you smile and encourage you to succeed; They lend an ear, they share words of praise and they always want to open their hearts to us.

Please forgive me if I have ever left a hole in your fence!

The next time you get angry with someone and are about to speak, ask yourself if there was a way to say what you want to say with neutral words. Picture the holes in your fence.
Often the habit of reacting angrily is just that - a habit you learned when you were young and haven´t questioned since. You might have become blind to the effect it has on your life.

It is really so that the world reflects back your own attitude. If you constantly wonder why people are angry at you, perhaps it is you who treated them with anger first? Listen to the words and tone of voice you use. And try, really try to speak neutrally to someone who are angry with. If you know it will be difficult, write the words down first. Rehearse it in your mind. Decide on a prize you will give to yourself if you succeed.

Teach your mind intentionally to use respectful words. And you just might find that life begins to feel a lot nicer - because people aren´t angry at you anymore.




DON'T BE BLUE

Media news bias is ratings driven

Just another reason I rarely watch "Prime Time News" or nationally syndicated news shows like 60 minutes, they bend the news to drive up ratings, in some cases they will just make it up.

Why are the major media outlets content to manufacture or bend the hot news stories in order to drive up ratings?
It's because of the mentality of the old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"! Unfortunately the bastardized news stories last for days or weeks, if not months, and the asking for forgiveness by broadcast media never happens, or in the case of printed news, it's relegated to the back pages or a footnote.

Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be lying mute in an underground box at the age of 17. Nobody does. He committed no offense to warrant such a fate. He was simply returning from the convenience store and chatting on his cell phone with his girlfriend , a scene that could be replicated a million times across America on any given evening. http://themoderatevoice.com/142893/pictures-and-prejudice-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Here’s all we know for certain about the killing of Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman noticed the black teen wearing a hoodie while within the confines of the gated community, tailed him as a suspicious character, stepped out of his car to challenge him (despite instructions from police to keep on moving), exchanged words with Martin and they both ended up on the ground. Someone moaned for help around the moment that the gun went off, and Martin died on the spot.

Was the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman out for blood or just taking his job a little too seriously? 

Why was the only picture used by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and every other major newspaper, from when Trayvon Martin was only 14 years old?
The contrasting photos of cute Trayvon and nasty George undoubtedly contributed to the call for vengeance.
Was the exposure on Zimmerman’s photo altered in some versions to make the half-Hispanic killer look “whiter”?
George Zimmerman is multi-racial. In fact, it’s been said that he has black relatives.

For most of the black community and the left-of-center crowd, it’s an open-and-shut case of a light-skinned racist murdering an innocent African American kid for the crime of “walking while being black.” The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up to make racial politics, just to add fuel to the fire. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has catapulted that essential item of hip-hop apparel to unprecedented glory as a political symbol of unjustly maligned black youth. By now, every Trayvon Martin sympathizer and his brother has been photographed wearing a hoodie. Congressman Bobby Rush was even kicked out of a congressional hearing because he showed up wearing a hoodie. He was kicked out because he did not adhere to the dress code for appearing before congress. Dress code? 'That' is a subject for another day.

NBC altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it seem as if Zimmerman was race obsessed, and every news story used it as part of their coverage. 

Photographs, videos, and recordings can be indispensable clues, but our biases, conscious or not, have a way of tampering with the evidence.
Neither man was all saint or all villain. Both should be given an equal chance to be vindicated or judged by proper authorities.

NBC News has since fired the producer who was involved in the production of a misleading taped segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. On April 6th, 39 days after the maelstrom, it appeared as a blip in the news, but not on any prime time news broadcast.

The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

Of course the damage has been done in the wake of a rioting public driven to the media frenzy,
 just as they wanted.

Sometimes you just can't help but be BLUE!