Light Listening

This debate is clearly black and white, or rather, one side is good and the other side is not. There is no clearer indication of this fact than realizing that when the pro-choice side gets their way the result is the premeditated murder of innocent life, (which is why I call this side the pro-death side), and when their opponents get their way the resulting outcome is the protected preservation of innocent life. One side acknowledges the rights of one while removing the rights of the other sighting level of development, inconvenience and personal desire. While the other side recognizes the sovereign right to human life for all those possessing life no matter their level of development or the personal whims of others. The fact that there are even two sides is a stark illustration of the progressive societal collapse we now find gnawing at the neck of a nation that used to prioritize an objective moral compass. Certainly, historically, we fell short, but at least we were asking the question, “is this moral?” That prevailing question led to the abolition of slavery, which is, if nothing else, morally reprehensible. Look how far we’ve descended. Not only have some abandoned the question all together, these morally corrupt individuals believe that asking the question itself is immoral. Let me put this in perspective for you, in 2023 alone there was an estimated 1,026,700 abortions. And in spite of the fears of the pro-choice advocates following Roe v. Wade, that’s the highest annual number reached in over a decade. It is said that heart disease is the number one killer of Americans taking 928,741 in 2020. This is a false equivalent. Mathematically speaking, it is abortion not heart disease that is the number one killer - the only difference being that one is a medical morbidity while the other is mass murder.       

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/arizona-democrats-attempt-to-repeal-the-states-19th-century-abortion-ban?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023

How helpful is it to tell someone that is clearly in mental distress, believing they were born into the wrong body, that they are right? How is it compassionate to tell them that they are a mistake and the only way to fix that mistake is to surgically and pharmaceutically alter their appearance to fit their delusion while at the same time punishing any and everyone who is reluctant and confused by the mandate to acquiesce to this altered theatrical presentation? The truth is, everybody loses and that was the goal from the start. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/united-states/new-federal-rule-bars-transgender-school-bathroom-bans-but-it-likely-isnt-the-final-word/article_ddb29db2-6397-5e65-b930-eb31d9745ede.html?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

Freedom of speech acknowledges the sovereignty of one’s own mind. Without it, you cannot be free. When you are told what you can say and what you can’t, you are essentially being forced to live at another’s whim other than your own. Those who are freedom’s adversaries will convolute the issue as if it were a nuanced grey area worthy of further discussion. This cannot be further from the truth. It isn’t difficult to distinguish where unlawful behavior begins and where freedom of speech ends. Those who claim otherwise, subjectively criticize speech based on how it makes them feel regardless of its authenticity and/or lawfulness. Any weapon that is utilized to extinguish a piece of freedom, will be the same weapon used to extinguish the remaining whole.   

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Generally speaking, when one lies, it is for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. It is essentially, ‘THEIR TRUTH’, which could also be interpreted as a lie for you. Of course I’m not referring to an individual conveying their own lived experience, but when you call that lived experience truth, it is by definition not objective. Since it is impossible to guarantee that people will not lie to you, the best you can do is protect yourself with objectivity. In order to do that you have to value and prioritize the truth no matter how it makes you or anyone else feel. You also must implement an information verification procedure undergird by objective reality. If you can do this, not only will you be able to protect your mind and heart from the enemies at the gates, you will also become a shining example to others that they too can break free from this cycle of self destructive propaganda. You cannot build a better world on a foundation of lies. It’s been tried before and it’s being tried right now. Is this world better yet? Oh! I know - we are just one lie away from that utopian society, right?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/21/us/oklahoma-double-murder-plot/index.html

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. James 4:1-3 ESV

Objective observation has revealed the following to be true; Mr. Obama is a cultural marxist, Mr. Obama is anti-American, Mr. Obama is a globalist, and Mr. Obama is a very accomplished con-man. His hate for the principles our country was founded on is hidden behind soft smiles and compelling, although divisive, words garnished with verifiable lies. America was bamboozled into handing their lives over to a harbinger of chaos and now the foolish are confused as to why their lives are in chaos. He wasn’t the first, he was just the most efficient. His Neo-Marxist strategy to hide his malicious intentions behind the hue of his skin is what allowed him to rise above the ground work laid by his predecessors. I did not vote for him. It was obvious to me that when you trade white hoods for black hoods you still get burning crosses on the front lawns of who they deem their societal enemies. Despite what Mr. Obama, as a Cultural Marxist would have you believe, evil is not inherent to any particular ethnic origin, but dwells in the hard hearts of mankind itself. Elected leaders are the direct reflection of the prevailing national culture. With this in mind, historically speaking, we have consistently elected leaders that choose not to represent the interests of the American people, but instead further their own interests by serving the elite class that ironically Marx claimed to oppose. Marx’s ideology was never meant to create a classless society, but instead was a brilliant vehicle to convince the proletariat to relegate themselves into a slave class and willingly except the domination of the high-born where he planned to reside. Mr. Obama stands as the culmination of decades upon decades of experimentation and in the end the Frankenstein monster that was unleashed upon our country did what he was created to do - burn the United States to the ground. 

Let me begin by saying this in hopes that you understand me clearly, “no matter what they say their goal is not to keep you safe.” As the great Thomas Sowell says and I’m paraphrasing, “the best society can achieve are trade-offs.” Meaning, perfection, or a utopian society is out of reach to imperfect people. We must always strive to ensure that the trade-offs produce the greatest good for our populace as a whole; a net positive if you will. Our first and second amendments are excellent examples of a net positive trade-off. But to illustrate this point better let me show you how removing either of these amendments would present a net negative trade-off as this trade-off would produce the same result. Let’s say you don’t like what another citizen has to say so you empower a government body to punish that citizen if they continue to speak in a way you deem offensive. Now let’s say that you notice your neighbor owns a firearm and even though he has done nothing wrong to you, him being in possession of a firearm makes you feel uncomfortable. Because of this uneasiness you vote to empower that same government body to come to his home and remove any and all firearms, by force if necessary, so that you can alleviate your fears. In both of these scenarios the trade-off was liberty for safety. Unfortunately for you, historically speaking, this trade-off has always produced a net negative result; it’s always been a matter of time. In striving for your own subjective safe space, you’ve given power, to an institution outside of yourself, to silence speech and disarm law abiding citizens. Sure, this time, they did it for you, but what’s to stop them from doing it for themselves now that you’ve given them the power to do so? The irony is the two things that would have kept them in check, speaking your mind freely no matter who’s offended and possessing the most effective tool for self defense, were the very things you traded to feel safer. Our forefathers, having liberated themselves from the heel of tyranny, knew this and in their wisdom crafted our constitution fully aware that individual liberty can never be compromised for any reason, period. Guided by divine providence, they took it a step further, inscribing that no government has the power to remove what God has given. Being the land of free you are not guaranteed safety which is why this is also the home of the brave - because it takes courage to live free.  

https://time.com/6550026/prague-mass-shooting-gun-laws-czech-republic/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/europe/prague-university-shooting-intl/index.html

Sweden

https://www.barrons.com/news/sweden-tops-europe-in-fatal-shootings-report-shows-01622034913

https://www.lifeinsweden.net/sweden-gun-laws/

Gun Death by Country

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country/

https://news.sky.com/story/police-to-get-powers-to-seize-and-destroy-machetes-and-zombie-knives-in-further-crackdown-12950418

The prevailing tyrannical question has always been, “how do we control effectively control the populace”? That’s it, in a nutshell, that’s all there is to it. They begin with kindness, then bribery and when that doesn’t yield the desired results, they slide right into force without hesitation. History teaches us that this tactic has never worked in the long run and, in fact, has precipitated every empirical collapse without exception. However, being students of authoritarianism somehow precludes one from being a student of history and ultimately they end up falling into the same trappings as their historical predecessors. It would be comical if this repeated process didn’t also cost the lives of untold millions of innocents while the most deserving of consequence seldom suffer the fruits of their own tyranny.  

At some point we are all faced with a choice, of which there are only two: have the courage to seek truth no matter the outcome or live in fear of the truth and continue to hide in a subjective reality that offers us the illusion of justice. One choice will unify while the other will divide and conquer. One choice will empower individual sovereignty while the other will leave you a hollowed out slave to the whims of the influential. One choice will assure a prosperous future through the trials and tribulations of life, while the other will only lead to extinction. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12844341/Texas-Supreme-Court-temporarily-HALTS-lower-court-ruling-allowing-pregnant-mother-31-abortion-20-weeks-learned-fetus-fatal-condition.html

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/trisomy-disorders

What is your objective moral standard? This simple question is the most important question we all need to ask ourselves. Moral standards exist as a framework for the bonds of our civilization. They can determine what is collectively or individually accepted as right and wrong. Every conversation, every interaction, and the consequences thereof, are all dictated by moral standards. Our moral standards can unify or our moral standards can divide. Our laws and justice systems, are at their base, institutionalized moral standards. Moral standards can offer salvation or our moral standards can facilitate chaos. What is right? What is wrong? With a subjective moral standard these questions are answered by the individual and are as diverse as we are many. To you stealing is wrong, but to a thief taking what you want from others is fine. To me murder is wrong, but to an abortionist it is healthcare. To the violated, rape is unforgivable, but to the rapist it was a good time had by all involved. Brutalizing Jews should be seen by all as unacceptable, but to Hamas it is a righteous crusade against infidels. This is the world of the subjective moral standard. This is chaos and you cannot build a healthy, secure, prosperous society on a subjective foundation that can shift on the whims of an individual or group of individuals. Where’s the fun in playing a game whose rules change to advantage one side over another? How is it justice to condemn a man because you feel strongly that he’s guilty? How can leaders effectively represent the people without adhering to strict and uncompromising objective moral standards? For answers to these questions all one need do is look, without bias, at the current state of our world: violent conflict, mental illness, rising crime, economic disparity, poor leadership, division, discrimination, drug addiction, unsustainable public health infrastructure, and societal regression. We are embroiled in an unprecedented spiritual war with only two possible outcomes; survival or extinction.