One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?

Everyone should be familiar with they saying "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back". I assume that most of us have felt that, at some time or another, this is how are lives are operating. But are they? Is this phrase a reality or an ill conceived mantra?

While not a catchy a phrase, I argue here that a more accurate and possibly mentally healthier phrase would be: "One Step Forward, and I can see my next two steps more clearly now." Or perhaps, "One step at a time", is a short and sweet recognition of reality.

Certainly, after we take a step forward on any adventure or undertaking the next steps become more clear. And, as our idea moves from the unseen into our physical reality, additional constraints that were not imagined may appear. But when they do, is this really two steps back? I don't think so. In fact, I think many of us are too quick to proclaim disheartening things. Some of these phrases seem to pop out of our mouths before we even take a moment to think about what we are about to say.

Before blindly pronouncing negative comments into your life, I urge you to take a good look at your current circumstances. Are your words in alignment with your idea of what your reality should be? If everything that came out of your mouth was like a wish from a genie, would you better guard what you say? The road may be longer than it first appeared, but you have none the less started the journey and have one step behind you.

It may seem like just a foolish game with words, but what we think and what we say impact our realities. This fact has been taught by many of the great wisdom teachings of the world. Some say that ultimately it is thought that shapes our physical reality from the quantum field into our Newtonian space. For others this is pure fantasy. As with most things, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle ground. It is clear enough that everyone isn't magically popping things into and out of existence with every whim. Yet, too, I have seen perpetually miserable people reinforcing their current state of affairs, as well as positive-thinkers perpetuating prosperity. If we all have the ability to create with our thoughts and words, perhaps there is some sort of averaging effect.

Even many of the self-proclaimed realists understand that there is something to all of this. Many successful athletes, for example, meditate on, or visualize winning. If our ideas are only in our heads and have no bearing on the physical reality that surounds us, why would such individuals choose to spend time in meditation that could otherwise go towards physical training or some other physically necessary pursuit?

We can see the Judeo-Christian emphasis on the power of the words we speak in The Book of Proverbs:

"From the fruitage of a man's mouth his belly will be satisfied; he will be satisfied even with the produce of his lips.

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and he that is loving it will eat its fruitage." (Proverbs 18:20-21)

In the above quotes from Proverbs, we see that there is some power ascribed to a man's words. If the writers of this Proverb aren't talking about words coming forth from one's mouth, I'm not sure what else they could be talking about. While some scriptures can be argued to have different meanings, this one seems to be pretty cut and dry, even if puzzling to the uninitiated.

If we are willing to concede the similarity of something being in your heart to being on or in your mind, we could also look at Jesus' assertion in the Gospel of Matthew for a notion of the alignment of thought and spoken word:

"...For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34)

But, in the twelfth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is saying more than just what is in your heart will come out of your mouth. You need to read the whole chapter, but at least the verses that follow 30. To paraphrase, and try to sum up Jesus' teaching here we have to read and re-read these sections to piece it all together.

Jesus says that "the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven." He then goes on to provide an example regarding the difference between speaking a word against the Son of man and speaking against the holy spirit, the former being forgiven, and the latter - not so much.

What exactly is the spirit? What is the holy spirit? I've been "educated" in what these things are - but from a tradition of "because I said so", not from scripture. If God is a personal God, and The Holy Spirit is a part of God, then it too must be of some sort of personal nature.

Let us continue to try and piece this all together. Jesus also says in this part of Matthew that we can either "make the tree and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten." That sounds like free will. But then he says, "Offspring of vipers, how can YOU speak good things, when YOU are wicked?" Now, that sounds like pre-determination. But the core of the message seems to be: "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." I don't think the message has as much to do with free will versus predestination, as much as it is about what we speak about, we bring about. There does seem to be a choice here though. Each of us has a choice regarding the tree that Jesus speaks of, and its fruit. Somehow, this all has to do with what we say and what we do.

"I tell you that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgement Day; for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:36)

It would seem that we can get away with saying an awful lot of things, yet speaking against the holy spirit is unforgivable. There must be a good reason for this. I was taught to fear God, and out of this fear there came a "respect". This seemed to all be based upon the Law of God. But, Jesus makes no bones about breaking "the Law". In fact Chapter 12 starts with an account him defending his disciples for plucking and eating heads of grain on the sabbath. So, I don't think that Jesus is telling us we had better not speak against the Holy Spirit because he said so, or that it is a new law. There must be some practical reason for it.

He is saying blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. He is telling us that we can make a tree and its fruit good. He is telling us that what is in our hearts we will speak. Then he says, "The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things." So this isn't just about what we are saying (although it is all clearly connected), it is also about the things we are sending out into the world. What is in our hearts, and what we are speaking, becomes real in the things we send out of us into this world. So, it would seem that Jesus is saying that what we speak about, we bring about.

Approximately five-hundred years before Jesus came to Earth, the Buddha gave us Four Noble Truths, and an Eight-Fold Path to lead to enlightenment and the end of suffering. I personally find many similarities between what I've learned Jesus has said, and what the Buddha proclaimed. I have also seen perversions in the form of Religions both by so called Christians and so called Buddhists. No one is perfect, including your's truly. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for perfection. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't work towards a greater understanding of the seen and unseen.

Very briefly, the Four Noble Truths can be summarized as:

1. To the unenlightened mind, the experience of life is characterized by discontent.
2. Dissatisfaction with life arises from desiring to have what cannot be had, or desiring to avoid what cannot be avoided.
3. Because causes always generate results, and effects always follow causes, it is possible to overcome the discontented life orientation.
4. The way to overcome dissatisfaction with life is to follow The Eight-fold Path.

The Eight-fold Path can be briefly outlined as follows:

1. Proper View
2. Proper Thought
3. Proper Speech
4. Proper Action
5. Proper Livelihood
6. Proper Effort
7. Proper Mindfulness
8. Proper Concentration

Each of these items could be entire chapters in a book, if not entire books in and of themselves. But you should notice that we can see what some refer to as "the three secrets" in the eight-fold path. The three secrets are the alignment of your "thoughts", "words", and "deeds" to effectuate the change you want to see in the world.

All of this talk about the power of thoughts and words may seem trivial to some of you. The idea that what you are saying can impact your existence and your happiness may be more than you are willing to consider at this stage in your life. But I offer for your consideration the man who starts out only having one beer a day, until one day he finds that a good portion of his life has passed him by in an alcoholic haze. I offer for your consideration the little girl who wanted to learn to dance, but put off dance lessons one day at a time until one day she found herself an old woman who never learned to dance. The thoughts each of these individuals had, set the stage for the play that became their lives.

Our lives are created by us - moment by moment. In all of those moments we are thinking. In some of those moments we are pronouncing words. In others we are performing actions. All of these accumulated moments can be witnessed as our current state of being. Are you where you want to be? Are you able to consciously respond to the events in your life (i.e. responsible), or are you seemingly at the whim of the world? How many thoughts contradict your desires? How many spoken words proclaim the truth that is yours?

What do you think? What do you say?

Happy Holidays!

God: who owns the trademark?

Quite a few different groups use the term GOD as a pointer to that entity which is ultimately beyond our ken. Atheists have certainly benefitted from the consolidation of all the world's deities into a simple three letter word. Imagine how much more cumbersome the phrase, "I don't believe in God", would become if not for our sparse nomenclature regarding the super-unknown.

While there is common ground between the different religions of the world, the variances have been punctuated by less than cordial discourse and even bloodshed. Surely this points to a debate over who's God is really God. Will the real God please stand up?

Perhaps if we had a more accepted set of terms, we would be able to come together on more points. While this seems an unlikely occurrence, I feel strongly that the idea should be written.

Such a discourse would fill at least one book. And, since you didn't surf to this weblog to read a book, I'll keep my comments as brief as I can (today).

In this short post, I'd like to begin to take a look at what keeps people out of the "God Camp". By this, I mean to convey the notion that there are those who say they don't believe in God, when actually they just have a different notion of God from what they may have heard others say or perhaps what they were taught.

I'd like to start with the assertion that no one owns the trademark on God. Although, I have seen a trucking company that owns the trademark (I believe) of "G.O.D.". That is a separate issue. If in your mind you have a notion of something that is beyond our understanding or ability to measure, and this thing embodies intelligence and impacts or has impacted our world - I believe you have the right to call that God, if you want. (note: this is a very quick and off the cuff definition. It may in fact be too rigid or not encompass enough.)

You might decide to call the thing you speak of as "Goontee Gabba Hey Hey" (or simply "Hey Hey" for short), but it doesn't matter. If you speak about him/her/it long enough, others will label your mind creation God.

As a self-proclaimed atheist in my teens and early twenties, I can say that the decision to not believe in God takes a toll socially. It even has political and economic ramifications. For example, to stay true to my belief as a radical teen-ager I considered boycotting the US Dollar because of the words "In God We Trust". Thankfully (or unfortunately) the desire for 7-11 Big Gulps won that inner conflict. Even deeper within our framework we see the overall premise of our "natural rights" as stemming from God. If one has zero belief in God, where do one's rights stem from? If your rights stem from society, and a "social contract", then society can take them away from you. If your rights stem from God, only God can take them away. That is a pretty powerful belief.

Although living as an atheist for some years, the reality was I had been caught in a war of words. I did believe in "something". I just didn't know what that something was. I knew it wasn't a grey bearded man sitting on a cloud using the earth as his private Sim City (a computer game). Because my idea didn't match up with what I had been taught God was, I backed off. I chose to go into a personal place of rebellion against the word: God.

Some might wish I had stayed there. But instead I continued to learn and observe the differences I mentioned earlier all around the world. I saw that while there was conflict, no one was outright saying they had a trademark on God. As it turned out, at least from my perspective, most people didn't really know much about what their "something" was. It seemed to me, suddenly, that I too had a right to God, if I wanted it.

So, in conclusion, I'd like to assert that you don't have to be a member of any particular club or suicide bombing radical faction in order to believe in God. You can start your own club or radical faction - or you can be completely solitary in your beliefs. I think we are meant to share things with others, but that is my view. I think that is how we grow. I heard a preacher say once that God put our tear ducts in our eyes, so that we could look one another in the eyes when we cry. In this way we could share our pain and sorrow, and through the sharing heal each other. He asserted that if it was supposed to be a personal, secretive, or solitary thing, God would have put our tear ducts in our arm-pits.

The literal image of those words makes me think of that grey-bearded man sitting on his cloud, this time with a Mr. Potato Head (a DIY doll). While I don't agree with that image, I do agree with the message. In the end, isn't that what it is all about?

The Health Care Bill and our U.S. Constitution

As I noted recently, I received my pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the mail from the Heritage Foundation. I have it here with me as I write this post. If you don't already have yours, you can get it free from The Heritage Foundation.

Today's news was bombarded with reports about the House of Representatives' narrow (220-215) passage of the Health Care Bill, and the battle that lies ahead in the Senate.

It seems, however, that the debate over which Health Care Bill should be adopted may be a bit premature. Try as I did, I couldn't find anywhere within the United States Constitution that actually gives our National Government the power or authority to "overhaul" healthcare.

As you may or may not know, our Constitution is very clear about what the Government can and cannot do. Because our Founders were intelligent students of History, they knew that if left unchecked, the government would grow in power to the point of turning into something other than the Republic that it was created to be. In order to form a union of sovereign States which would be resilient against tyrants, our founders enumerated the things the national government could do. To make it perfectly clear, they listed the things the government could do, and reserved all other rights to the States.

Interestingly, governing the Health Care Industry is not an "enumerated" power of the government. Therefore, such power is, and should be, reserved for the States to decided if, how, when, and why they might impose regulations on Health Care within their own limits.

Now, some might argue that there is a part of the Constitution that is a "catch all" phrase. I'm talking about the well known "General Welfare" clause, which has been more misused than a three-dollar bill. While it has been used as a popular argument to expand the role of government, it is simply not an accurate interpretation of that portion of the Constitution.

The clear fact is that there is no hidden reservoir of power within the Constitution. All of the Powers were clearly listed in black and white, so there would be no need to wonder what was meant. In fact, the only people who choose to make "alternative" interpretations, are those who are trying to mis-quote and mis-use the Constitution for their own benefit. We've seen this sort of thing happen with the Bible as well. Some folks are very quick to ignore clear facts when they get in the way of their self-serving rogue interpretations.

This makes perfect sense, so if I've confused anyone, let me give you an example. For those of you following along with your handy pocket Constitution, I'm on page 19. Lets take a look at the beginning of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution where the Congress if given the power to tax:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

We can simplify this even more, to help us focus. The simple logical statement that we want to look at here is:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States..."

First, let us be clear that this enumerated power is the power to tax. It is not the power to provide for the general welfare. It is, in fact, the power to lay and collect taxes. All that follows the power to tax are high level examples of what the intended taxes are to be used for. If we interpret this clause to mean that the government can do anything it wants as long as it believes or can state that it is in the general welfare of the country, then we really don't need the rest of the Constitution. We could stop right here.

However, what we have next is not the end of Congress' enumerated "super power", but the next of a series of named powers to follow the power to tax. Our Founding Fathers clearly list everything that Congress has the power to do. And, all of these other enumerated powers are in fact for the general Welfare of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson had an important rule of interpretation that, if you will allow me to paraphrase, went like this: If any interpretation of any one part of the Constitution would in effect negate the need for rest of the document, that interpretation is incorrect.

Why would the framers enumerate that congress has the power to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish naturalization rules, coin money, establish post offices, declare war, etc. - if the "general Welfare" clause already covered everything? They wouldn't.

The fact is that for several generations the average American citizen has been asleep at the helm. We are responsible for ensuring that our liberties don't get taken away. Brick by brick we lay a foundation wall. Step by step we walk farther down a dark path. It is time to wake up and take responsibility for what is happening right now. There is still time to return to our core values, but we must act.

It seems sometimes people who are in power promote public apathy through over-complication of topics. If any one issue is so complex that it makes your head swim, you just might decide this isn't worth dealing with.

You could pick up a pen and paper and write a letter to your representatives informing them of your awakening to their unconstitutional shenanigans, but you will probably just grab the remote and a bag of chips. You could head out to the next Tea Party, but you'll probably just head for the couch and the safety of simple sound-bytes that obscure the true simplicity of Constitutionality. I hope you prove me wrong. I have hope that you do care.

You and I must act, if we hope to pass on a stronger Republic to the next generation. Blind delegation, ignorance, and apathy have gotten us to where we stand. The easy path is fraught with hand-outs and dependence. But the path to restore our liberty demands Independence and responsible action. Engage!

Pocket Constitution

I got my Pocket Constitution in the mail yesterday!

Thank you Heritage Foundation!

Now I can be prepared for the tough questions about what is Constitutional, and what is not. This pocket Constitution will no doubt prove useful when dispelling the demons of ignorance.

This pocket Constitution is rumored to act against socialists and fascists like a cross to a vampire.

Our liberties are being eroded because of public ignorance and apathy. Don't be a part of the problem, get yourself a free pocket Constitution today. Ummm - then read it! ;)

If you don't educate yourself and do something about eroding liberties, you'll have no one to blame but yourself. And, since I'm doing everything I can to increase awareness and vote in representatives that vow to uphold the constitution, I'll blame you too. ;)

If more people had pocket constitutions in the NY 23rd Congressional District, we might have been saved from spoiling our long standing tradition of not voting for Democrats. These days, Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. We can no longer blindly vote for the party of our choice. We can no longer allow vocal opposition for or against the latest "issue" to force our hands to vote one way or the other. We need to evaluate our representatives and executive leaders based upon their willingness to adhere to the rules established in our Constitution. Every year, it seems, the Executive branch is taking more and more authority away from the Legislative Branch. We need strong legislative representatives who will stand up to such advances. We need to restore our currency to its former glory by removing the men, women, and institutions that uphold our current fiat monetary system.

I hope you support Ron Paul's effort to Audit the Federal Reserve. This will be the first step in taking back our country. Let's return to the ways of responsibility and accountability that allowed us to achieve all that we have. Please sign the petition, and help spread the word by checking out the social networking links at the bottom of the page.

Politics and Labels - New York's Fighting 23rd

Here in the 23rd US Congressional District of New York, we have an interesting race for our representative in The House.

It seems, in order to try and shake things up, Obama has appointed our would-have-been nine-term-incumbent Republican representative, John McHugh to the post of secretary of the Army. While I didn't get to speak with Mr. McHugh, his staffers and I were becoming fast friends through my phone calls and letters regarding the "Cap and Tax" and "Audit the Fed" bills.

Somehow, the Republican party was in the process of running a candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who was in favor of the stimulus package, among other less than conservative positions. As a member of the Campaign for Liberty, and a local coordinator, I've been trying to help educate everyone I can about our Constitution, and just how far we have strayed from its roots. It seems I wasn't the only one (thankfully). Scozzafava dropped out of the race this past weekend, and decided to show her true colors by backing the running Democrat.

Doug Hoffman, a local conservative received the Republican blessing and the race is on. Not a particularly eloquent speaker, Hoffman's big line is "Vote row D, for Doug". He is a CPA who decided to run for office, because he cares about conservative values. He looks pretty lame on television, but I don't care. I'm not voting for a movie star - I want someone who is going to vote for auditing the Federal Reserve. I want someone who is going to vote to end our attempted police occupation of the world. I want someone who will help put an end to fiat money. I want someone who is going to return us to the values and checks and balances established within our Constitution. I hope Dough Hoffman will be that man. He's getting my vote today.

Perhaps more interesting than the race for office, is the way that the well-funded media news organizations are characterizing this whole thing. If I were to believe CNN, for example, it would seem that Sara Palin and Rush Limbaugh chose Doug Hoffman from on-high, because there is "no room for moderates" in the Republican party. While those two demagogues did push this story on to the national stage, they actually have little to do with the grass-roots organizations moving throughout all of Upstate New York. So, it would seem these major news stations are attacking Hoffman's candidacy through trying to discredit the Republican Party for being radical extremists.

Another attack on Doug Hoffman's candidacy comes as a criticism being made about his place of residency. Although Mr. Hoffman grew up in the 23rd Congressional District, and has several business offices currently in the 23rd, he doesn't actually live in the 23rd today. Why not? Because he was "gerrymandered" out of it some time ago. Most of the news organizations I've heard report on this, leave that fact out. They are just saying, "he doesn't even live in the 23rd District". Sometimes, what they fail to report is more important than what they do report. Doug Hoffman is an Upstate New York Business Man. I can think of no better representative who will have what it takes to help restore our Upstate economy.

I have only lived in the 23rd Congressional District for just under a year now; but as I understand it, we haven't had a Democrat as a representative since the times of our Revolutionary War. I hope we continue our conservative voting tendencies, and I pray that we continue to spread the word about sound money and Constitutional ideals. I'm voting for Doug Hoffman today, and if you are a neighbor of mine, I encourage you to do the same.

Ken Walling