What Happened To America?
It's time that we understand why we are in the current financial, social, political situation in this great nation. Just as important is to understand what we can do about it. Because only we can bring about the change that is needed to free us from the loss of freedom and liberties that has enslaved us since around the end of WWII.
The information I provide is not my opinion. It is fact based. Wherever I can, I will provide you with the sources for the information. I encourage you to check out everything for yourself. If you disagree with me, I encourage you to provide facts and sources. Personal attacks will not serve any of us.
Before I get started, it might be helpful to know some of my background so that you understand that I am not being political in the information I provide. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Although, at times, I have been a registered voter in each of these parties and I have voted for Democratic and Republican candidates. However, during the last 20 or more years, I have been an independent.
Most of my wake-up occurred when Ross Perot came on the political stage. As a result, I became the co-founder of United We Stand America of New York. Later, when I moved to New Jersey, I became the Chairman of the Reform Party for that state.
What is the most important lesson I learned from Mr. Perot? As he said, "Look under the hood". By this metaphor, he suggested to look into our government and see what is really going on. I did just that by aiding a whistle blower by investigating activities related to Monticello Racetrack and bringing Pro Se lawsuits against the county government where I lived in New York state.
I've basically "retired" from this kind of activism. However, I still seek the truth about what is going on with our federal government. That's the information I will be bringing to you. You decide what, if anything, you want to do with this information. I've decided it's time for me to spread this information to you.
Since I've written so much by way of introduction, I will simply throw out an idea for you to look at until my next letter.
Remember the Trojan horse that allowed the Greeks to enter and conquer the city of Troy. Around the time of WWII (long before Obama ever became President), could a "Trojan horse" strategy have been implemented that allowed someone to infiltrate the federal government, form specialized government agencies to control the masses, direct plans that killed at least thousands of innocent people and sign key executive orders against freedom and liberty ?
Who could that be?
Unlike Religionists who continue to make their puerile thoughts personal by attacking the messenger, rather than the message, I will try to continue to keep my responses impersonal by dealing with the superstitious ideas and absurd beliefs in the supernatural supported by nothing more than begging the question and making incorrect assumptions based on their feelings. What peaks my curiosity about these personal attacks, other than the fact they present no proof whatsoever for the existence of their god or any logical reason to believe in it, is the statement that these believers or many of them, could care less what I think. They could care less, however more than one of them took the time to write a tedious rebuttal, albeit full of pretzel logic and suppositions totally bereft of any facts or science.
I take it as a compliment to the logic of Atheism that any Religionist is bothered enough to respond, even if they do it sans facts or any reasonable argument to support their inconceivable and untenable position that a god might exist and therefore ought to be groveled at or to, just in case. A belief based of faith is not a fact, it is merely a feeling about something. Sometimes feelings are true and at other times, they are merely nothing but gooey emotions trying to be taken seriously, they are without substance. Religion is that gooey kind of thing.
Who am I to say these things about religion? I'm just a guy who is tired of seeing absurd religious claims about the end of the world or that prayer is our only hope and any other number of baseless assertions based on feelings derived from dubious source material and a fear of death. This 'small town newspaper' publishes letters, Religionists write some and, it seems, I ought not to be allowed to respond because I disagree heartily and present my disagreement with facts, something Religionists do not have in their favor or repertoire and therefore, they must resort to attacking the messenger with convoluted logic and make believe. After all, religion can only make promises without substance and support them with threats. Science has never needed to force compliance to its laws, they can always be proved.
When one assumes that god is real, an assumption with no factual basis, that is to say, no existing evidence for that claim other than the gooey kind of feelings, those gooey feelings fog the mind and prevent orderly thinking and reasoning. I am making no "philosophical" argument, I am making statements based on history and science, sometimes called facts by we ranters. For anyone to make the assumption that without a belief in a god, that there is no reason to believe in anything at all is beyond feebleminded but, I'll admit, normal for arguments supporting the existence of a god because supporters have no facts. Clouding the issue with gibberish about my position being "philosophical" is simply wrong, my position is factual and scientifically based whereas all religious opinions based on the supernatural are most likely based on psychological fears of the unknown. If I have presented Historical or Factual inaccuracies, as claimed, why are they not part of any critique about my thoughts on religion? The reason is simple, Religionists have no factual basis for their beliefs, so they use intimation that Atheism is wrong because it denies the "truth", and that "truth" is the existence of a god, and the supernatural.
I am pleased to know that at least some of Atheism's detractors have read a book and I suppose it must be a point of pride, since religion prays on the less informed for its support and tends to dismiss education and knowledge as the devils work.
Religionists consistently want to claim that their superstitious beliefs are truth, transcendent truth, truth beyond denial and that to deny these unfounded claims is silly and foolish and wrong. They say that these "special" religious truths can't be invented, but in fact, that is exactly what Religionists have done. They have invented their gods, demigods, demons, angels, saints, ghosts and a myriad of other superbeings to be worshiped, groveled before and feared by the thousands, for thousands of years... each supernatural being was as real as a sunrise and yet, each fell into oblivion. These are facts, not beliefs. If only Religionists could present some facts to support their claims of a supernatural reality where we all (or some of us) hang out and sing happy hosannas for eternity while intimating that to disagree with the empty promises, the unknowable and the unlikely is not reasonable or acceptable.
Have I made a claim to know everything? If so, I apologize, what I have contended was that there is no Easter Bunny, no Santa, and no supernatural being who loves humanity or takes any interest in us at all. Those who can't understand this simple concept based on all observable information are doomed to grovel and snivel for no purpose other than to enrich the religion of their choice.
What is truth? Truth is that which can be proved, the real state of things. Truth can be imagined, as can falsehoods, but real truth must have supporting proof or it is just less than a theory like believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny or a god.
What is the truth about all religions? There is no truth in any religion if it is based on a belief in an invisible supernatural being, there is only stubbornness based on denial and ignorance of fact, wishful thinking, fear and belief, and sadly for Religionists, belief or faith is not proof of any supernatural beings existence no matter how much the beg to be believed. That is my conviction.