Story #1.
At the Q & A session afterward, someone posed the question, “What is your opinion regarding returning ancient works of art to its historical country?” His answer–as most of the rest of his talk–was deep. And caused me to think. And this does go to World Peace, if you track with me just a little bit:

He said, in many cases, how exactly can you determine the country of history? Not that you don’t know where it was made; but really, where is the history? For one example, he talked about a famous piece in Italy. And the Italians are very protective of it. Except that it was brought to Italy centuries earlier, (if I remember correctly) having been removed from it’s original country during the Crusades.

In another example, a like piece now resides in London’s Museum of Art, also having come from some other area of the world, centuries earlier. So where does it belong, is the postulate? Although created elsewhere, London found this piece many years ago, in the process of being systematically destroyed by tourists taking piece after piece off of it. And preserved it. And this is the point: Where is the history? It’s all history. Created here; almost lost there. Transported who knows where in between. Yet, each event had a hand in it’s history.

Story #2.
Around the mid-1980’s there was a devastating fire in Yellowstone National Park, destroying a significant number of the trees throughout. A roommate had planned a trip across country to see the park, and had mused how unfortunate the chosen timing to see the park this way. I thought for a second and responded, “On the contrary.. This is actually one of the rarest times to see the park: Forests have cycles of growth, and then fire, to clear away all the years of dead growth on the forest floor. All part of the natural cycle. And, this was actually an opportunity to see a part of that cycle that wouldn’t be seen for another hundred years. An opportunity of a lifetime.”

To return to the Philippe de Montebello story, his words made me think as I drove home, relative to our current social/political situation. I personally believe–and often dwell on–the reality that we’re in some very dark times socially. Although I am a bit of a political animal, I’ll try and keep it out of this blog, at least on this post. But I believe that the times we’re in will get significantly darker yet—as a storm that’s only beginning to form. But this one is well past the horizon: People of political viewpoint are almost at blows with whomever represents another belief. Destructive and uncivil stuff. There is no reasoning any longer with a disparate viewpoint: Simply express yours, and get bludgeoned. This is wrong, and there will be no—world peace—if we continue to move apart and not together in discussion. And if not, the end of this gets dark, indeed.

And all of this, for some time, has troubled me deeply. Until I contemplated Montebello’s words. This is history. If you believe Scripture, this will get much darker. But this is that rare period that must be passed through—the burning off of the trees.

No one likes to see the blaze. And no one even likes to see the aftermath. But whether this artwork (or political problem) was created here or there, really is insignificant. It’s what happens to it along the way. It’s what will be recorded in history.

And if that doesn’t upset you enough, take a look at what Congress insisted on adding into this bill (in pork) before they “saddled” us taxpayers with the below items adding an additional 150 billion, to the already 700 BILLION dollar bill: (As if that already wasn’t enough.)

Sec. 211. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for a motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.

Yeah, these are related to the crisis.

Come November, all these rats should be thrown out of the ship.

Subject: Beware of Change

(July 7, 2008)
Beware of Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’
Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America? Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr.
Sandy Hook, VA

For many more years than just the few, we have been divided by strong political differences — largely along “party” lines. We euphemistically now call these divisions “conservative” and/or “liberal.” However, in this writer’s observation, it’s more correctly described as conservative and socialistic. You see, if we were to call what we now label “liberal” by the name socialist, it would have few takers. And perhaps that’s pointedly why it’s not called that.

And that’s the purpose of this blog: to be a forum to discuss exactly what are the various viewpoints and, with some good honest discussion, hopefully arrive at a greater understanding of what the good and noble course of action should be.

One who is not a liberal in his youth has no heart, and who is not a conservative in his maturity has no mind.

–unknown author, possibly Voltaire — although commonly but falsely attributed to Churchill

In theory, each perspective has something to add: Conservative, earn what you eat; and Liberal, care for the weak. And there should be a common ground somewhere encompassing both viewpoints. However what theoretically began here as social concern has gravitated into socialism — a very virulent form of government. And, as if we’ve not seen enough in history to know that this form of government does not work: It disincents the hard-working from their industry, and incents the indolent to work no more. And what’s worse, those that accept this “handout” become more and more violently demanding. ..But now I digress.

My point in this blog is that, for decades now, we have been systematically attacked and undermined by those who desire to make us a Socialist government. And now, “we have seen the enemy, and it is us.” Nonetheless, clear thinking may help to recognize it for what it’s worth. (And perhaps my digression earlier is quite to the point.) There are those who, under the guise of “help the lesser,” are really–and now openly–advocating “take from the rich, and give to the poor.” This works for Robin Hood; but not in reality. The rich in that case were unjust; in the case of our society, are simply trying to make a better lives for themselves — by themselves. And again, historically, any “handout” tends to weaken, not strengthen.

When Barack Obama said to “Joe the Plumber” that he desired to “spread the wealth around,” Joe would have done well to respond, “Yeah, but it’s my wealth that you’re desiring to spread around.”

But to the point, in my opinion, this move to what is Socialism is no accident. It began perhaps forty years ago in the late 60′s, and hasn’t stopped pressing to this day to undermine us. And, if you look, is succeeding.

However, while we remain to be free, it’s up to us to choose and chart the right course, based on where it will go. Make your choice where we will go — because we will end up there. But choose wisely. Consider the possibilities, in the cold light of objective thought. Do you really think a “giveaway state” will strengthen or weaken a man’s industry? Did Nationalized Medicine actually make Canada’s healthcare better or worse than our own? (If you don’t know, they’re coming across the border to stay alive, where their system requires 6 months for a cat scan for a brain tumor.)

It is in the heart of man, to do less, and have more. And such it was in the early colonies, when those hardworking people had, within their community, those who would eat at the evening dinner table, but would not work during the day. The governor, in arbitration, sald “I will seek counsel from Scripture. And whatever It says, we will do.” and subsequently advised the Colonists (according to Scripture) “If a man will not work, he will not eat.” As they imposed this upon the lazy, they resisted — until they got hungry. At which point, every member of society now became productive. And which was the better? ..For all their sakes?

But once again, to return my purpose, as we choose… (and choose we must,) we must choose as if what we pick, we will get. But don’t be taken in by empty promises. Just because it sounds good, it may either be good, or possibly be very much the most self-serving lie, whose purpose is ultimately to put you under control. You think it out.

That’s what the first quote is for.

Remember back for a minute to the time of our invasion of Iraq. We had warned them openly to desist WMD, or to be invaded — and there was obviously no surprise to the invasion when it finally happened. In fact, if you remember, all our troops were stationed at the borders for about a week before we went in. There were no surprises.

Well, about a month or so after we went in, I did a Yahoo news search for “WMD” — and came across a most fascinating article. –With the only thing surprising me more is the fact that it never came to light. But remains there for the research, for anyone with the resources and interest to do it.

The article was not a blog, or web-opinion, but a guest editorial in one of the two Washington DC newspapers — which one, I forget. The author was stated to be the “highest ranking defector to the US, from Communist Secret Service” — second in command of Romanian Secret Service. In this article, the gentleman stated the following (in my paraphrase:)

It would be fruitless to search for WMD. You will not find weapons of mass destruction. There was a long-standing plan in place in Iraq, dubbed the “Russian Plan” that, if Iraq was ever imminently about to be invaded, they were to destroy the weapons of mass destruction — but to carefully save and hide everything to microfiche, should the opportunity ever arise again to reconstitute the program.

Further, he went on, three days before we went in there were a contingent of Russian Military there, as “inspecting advisors.” They, he surmised, were not ‘inspecting’ — there were there to assist in the destruction of the existing weapons of mass destruction. No, we were not going to find any — by design.

Again, we were already amassed on the borders for several days before the advisors even arrived. Did they expect that we were going to do invasion? I’m sure they knew it; and I believe that they were therefore meticulously destroying what was there. And so did this most informed gentleman.

So, to me, the question is begged, why did this never come to light? It was in the editorial section of the Washington (Times or Post)! And even the Bush Administration conceeds that there was nothing there. I can see the Democrats hammering this falsehood, for political expedience and power; but the very Administration? Does no one read the local newspaper?

All this is readily researched by anyone in a Washington DC library with newspaper microfiche: sometime between invasion, and about two weeks afterwards (I do believe it was about seven days after) simply look up the editorial sections of those two newspapers. It’s only fourteen days.

And would be a significant turn-about for the understanding and affairs in this country.

Editor’s note (Nov 2, 2008): I have found this article, although I’ll need to research it again. And one day, perhaps soon, I’ll do a little re-write to this post. The article was in (I believe) the Washington Times; and it was about three weeks afterwards – in the Editorial section. (I give that above about a 95% chance of accuracy; but will re-research it.)

The one question I posed above, “Why in the world has the Bush Administration itself denied what is now believed to be fact — that they were there.” The answer, in my best guess and reading is this: The Russians were involved. But, needing a partner in the worldwide fight against Islamic terror; George Bush did not want to embarrass the Russians — whom he very much needed in a partnership to fight terrorism. In one external writer’s opinion of this, he stated: “This was a good move diplomatically, but a bad move politically.” I think we have clearly seen the latter. However, in my own personal opinion, the Russians are not worthy of this honor, as they are thick in this. And to placate them in this way probably does us more harm than good. The Russians themselves (as with most countries) are very much a self-serving nation. And worse, are themselves very much a partner with the terrorism; not fighters against it. George Bush’s (suspected) decision did more harm than good, in this writer’s opinion.

I personally believe it will soon be expounded that the primary agent of temperature change is not greenhouse gases, but sunspot activity: storms on the surface of the sun that have the effect of increasing solar output. Sunspot activity creates a protective “solar wind” that deflects inbound cosmic rays, which are known to create cloud cover. And, obviously enough, planetary cloud cover affects global cooling. So, in a period of low sunspot activity, the skies cloud and the planet cools. And in periods of high sunspot activity (such as we are in now) clouds diminish, and the planet warms.

[Ed. note: This article was first written in late 2007. Since that time, we have now already begun the period where sunspot activity is diminished, and the planet is beginning to cool.]

These overlapping periods of sunspot activity are cyclical and well known: for example, an 11-year “Schwabe” cycle, a 75-90-year “Gleissberg Cycle,” a 200-500-year “Suess Cycle,” and 1,100-1,500-year “Bond Cycle.” Solar scientists now predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth; and one that may extend well beyond one 11-year cycle. Such an event did precisely happen in the middle of the 17th to the early 18th century — a period now known as the Little Ice Age.

In this writer’s belief, it is therefore possibly that global cooling, not warming, will be found to be the more major climate threat to the world. And greenhouse gases just might in fact be a Divine gift to help us get through that coming period of crop-related climate challenges.

Write to us, and advise us; and we’ll change your status to “contributor.”