Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has been mention by others, and me on my Facebook wall. Well one of the things that was brought up about him was a claim of former navy seal Chris Kyle, which he stated on TV interviews of him striking the former governor. Kyle explains the reason for striking for the former governor of Minnesota was that Jesse Ventura was bad mouthing soldiers at their funeral, and he knocked down Ventura with a punch in 2006 at a bar in California in front of people that was known for a hang out of former Navy Seals. A lot of conservatives are applauding Kyle for what he claim he did to Ventura, because they do not Ventura for being outspoken on wars and big government. While conservatives applaud for Kyle's assault on Ventura, I do not think they do a lot of thinking when they hear a story like this to see if it is true. Kyle's claim of assaulting Ventura back in 2006 is hard to believe for many reasons, and that is what this commentary is about.
First reason why Kyle's story of assaulting former Ventura is hard to believe is that he claim it happen in 2006, but it has not been reported until now through him. Second reason why it is hard to believe Kyle's story of assault on Ventura is that he is the only witness of that incident, and for stories to be true they have to have witnesses. If witnesses saw Kyle hit Ventura in 2006, then Kyle's story of assault would have come out a long time ago. And he would have been charged with assault. That statement there brings up the third reason why it is hard to believe in Kyle's claim of hitting Ventura.
If Kyle's claim is true of punching Ventura in front of people at a bar, then why was he not charge with assault. If Kyle did hit Ventura in front of people, then Ventura could have easily responded to Kyle's assault by pressing charges against Kyle. Ventura would have witnesses supporting his claim of Kyle assaulting him, and Kyle would have been in jail. Kyle's story of punching Ventura in 2006 would have been major news, and most people with access to media would have heard Kyle's story by now. And also Kyle's claim of Ventura bad mouthing families of fallen soldiers would have been news as well.
The timing of Kyle making claim he hit Ventura in the face in 2006, lack of witnesses, and him not get ting charged with assault are reasons why Kyle's claim of hitting Ventura is hard to believe. And yet most conservatives believes in Kyle's story without really thinking about to see if it's true, because they do not like Ventura for being in disagreement with their point of views.
Because Kyle hit Ventura, a lot of Conservatives support Kyle's story. Cause of that to me conservatives are just as weak minded as liberals they despise. For an example let's say instead of Kyle hitting Ventura for bad mouthing Navy Seals, he punches "Focus on the Family" founder Dr James Dobson for speaking out against homosexuality. Do you think that conservatives would have supported Kyle for punching Dr Dobson for speaking out against homosexuality? They might have wanted Kyle to be thrown in jail for assault, but since Kyle's claim of assaulting Ventura get's a free pass for them not liking Ventura for not agreeing with their issues.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Friday, December 23, 2011
"Why This World Is So Messed Up?"
Our world is so messed up, because believers rather live like heathen rather than live life like followers of Christ. Believers are like rest of the world to where they know more of the latest gossip from Hollywood, than what is in God’s word. They are too dependent on the pastor, and that is why most of them today are easily deceived by this world. A lot of believers today believe that it is the pastors responsibility to evangelize, and they also believe that discipleship is just filling their needs. Part of believer’s belief is right, but it is also wrong as well. A pastor does have the responsibility in evangelizing, but it is not just him that has that responsibility of evangelizing the world. As believers we are all called to evangelize the world. If you are disciple of Christ, than in His word He tells you to go make disciples that is in His Great Commission.
When it comes to evangelizing, America percentage on that is in the single digits, and that is the pin point of America’s problems. When people come to Christ as their Savior, than they can experience true change, and hope. When they let the blood of Christ change their lives, than that is where a nation begins to change. Here is how. The blood of Christ goes from changing an individual to changing a family. The blood of Christ goes from changing a family to changing a church. The blood of Christ goes from changing a church to changing a community. The blood of Christ goes from changing a community to changing city counsel. The blood of Christ goes from changing city counsel to changing state government. The blood of Christ goes from changing state government to changing the federal government. You have the blood of Christ changing the federal government, than our nation will have hope to change.
For change to happen believers need to get off the sidelines, and they need to get into the battlefield to evangelize the lost that's in this world.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"My Thoughts of Nuclear Weapons"
I have been reading, and listening on topic of nuclear weapons. From doing that I can state that people believe it is America's job to prevent certain people in having Nuclear Weapons, and they use this belief as way reason going into war to prevent them from using it. To me this is an impossible task for any nation, and that includes America to do. It's impossible, because no nation can read the minds of individuals. Their beliefs of certain countries are based upon assumption, that they believe are facts.
Now I do belief there groups, if not countries that want to hurt other countries, and best way to prevent that is through national security. That is protecting their borders, and not invading in other countries. These countries that are invaded from others that do not have probable cause does have a right protect themselves, so that gives them the right to bear nuclear arms. Now what is wrong with topic of nuclear weapons is for other countries to prevent others from having them, because stopping crime that has not been committed will create more long term problems that are not necessary. Here is a made up scenario that could happen to be an example.
Let's say I have a neighbor that acts really crazy towards me and others, but has not done any physical harm towards anyone. That neighbor decides one day to exercise his constitution right by buying a gun, and it not being charged with anything make it easy for it to buy a gun. I some how find this out, and assume that it will harm me. Based upon that assumption I go over its house to attempt to murder it, cause I assume that it will harm men. Is that a right response, and do you think a jury would justify me for doing that? They probably will not, because I do not have probable cause. Probable cause is based upon proven evidence, and not assumption. What my action did was murder an innocent person, but do you think a judge should not punish me for committing a crime without probable cause? What my assumption did was create a big problem, and for it to end a judge would have to sentence me according to the law. If the judge did not do that by letting me go, than my assumption would create a bigger problem. That problem could result in more crime with another murder, by someone else wanting to murder me for not feeling safe. They would respond to murdering me for the same reason that I assume on, but that person would have probable cause on me for murdering someone else.
Now that's a wrong way to handle someone for buying a gun, and a better way for me to handle that scenario is to not worry about it by leaving that person alone. I should think maybe that person buying a gun is that it wants to protect itself, and it is his right. The only way I could know if that person attempted to harm me is if he actually did it, than I would have probable cause to take action in defending myself.
In that scenario that crazy neighbor could represent Iran, and I could be a country that prevents them from buying a gun that represents a nuclear weapon. Only real way to prevent a country from buying a nuclear weapon is not making them, and no country on earth will do that. Next best way for preventing countries from using nuclear weapons is to leave them alone, and not provoke them into using them by invading their country on assumption. For a country to invade another one they would need probable cause, and not having it will give that invaded country a right to defend itself.
Now there is logic for a country to invade another country without probable cause, and that is the invading country knows that it needs to strong national defense for retaliation from that country it is invading. If a country that invades without strong defense could pay dearly for their action from a counteract from the country they invaded, and maybe that is why countries like Iran have not fire their nuclear weapons. By using logic it could maybe let us see that Iran uses nuclear weapons to defend itself just like Americans that buy guns to defend themselves. Also it could let us see that Iran uses verbal threats the same way a person would when another invade its property without invitation.
I believe that when countries stop instigating wars on assumptions, than there will be less threats of countries with nuclear weapons, and less nuclear weapons circulating around. Here's another made up scenario that could happen, but is a good analysis to show how less nuclear weapons could be circulating around. Let's say someone, or a group of people decide to sell guns legally, because they feel selling them would make good money for them. So they end up opening a gun shop, but town they are in does not buy them cause they do not have enough money. So gun shop tries to lower the prices of their guns without losing profit, but still no one buys money. Now they have to sell guns to make money, and no one not buying guns creates alternate scenarios in this example. One alternate scenario would be go to another town, and maybe pick one with a high crime rate to help them sell guns to make profit. Another scenario is to sell something else that could make profit, because there is not enough crime for people to want to buy guns. Another scenario would be alter the way the sell guns like doing it at gun shows, instead at stores, or sell specific ones that people want. Now having less crime would decrease gun from circulating in certain markets, but for guns to be in demand than crime rate would need to be high. Now do you think some gun sellers that are greedy would try to instigate crime to make lots of profit? Now having less crime rate could decrease the sells of some, if not most markets, and could that idea be applied for nuclear weapons on the free market?
Again let's use logic to see if that statement of decrease crime could slow gun sales be applied to sellers, and buyers of nuclear weapons. A person, or group of people do go in the nuclear arm business the same reason another would go into selling any other type of weapon, and that is to make money. They want to find buyers either to sell their products increase their production if there's a demand to make high profits, or they will decrease their production if demand is less. If they increase production during less demand, than they could lead to bankruptcy. So with less instigated war could lead to less demand, and that could decrease nuclear arms being circulated for companies that make them to avoid not making profit. Now there is evidence that companies that make weapons make lots of money, and could that be cause of countries instigating war through false flags operations?
Now I am not against companies making nuclear weapons, because like 2nd amendment I think countries should do all they can to protect themselves. To delay nuclear war is not going to be done through invading countries, but leaving them alone. If war is not instigated, than that may not be a reason for them to buy weapons, and if their not buying weapons than that would slow nuclear weapons from being circulated.
Now I do belief there groups, if not countries that want to hurt other countries, and best way to prevent that is through national security. That is protecting their borders, and not invading in other countries. These countries that are invaded from others that do not have probable cause does have a right protect themselves, so that gives them the right to bear nuclear arms. Now what is wrong with topic of nuclear weapons is for other countries to prevent others from having them, because stopping crime that has not been committed will create more long term problems that are not necessary. Here is a made up scenario that could happen to be an example.
Let's say I have a neighbor that acts really crazy towards me and others, but has not done any physical harm towards anyone. That neighbor decides one day to exercise his constitution right by buying a gun, and it not being charged with anything make it easy for it to buy a gun. I some how find this out, and assume that it will harm me. Based upon that assumption I go over its house to attempt to murder it, cause I assume that it will harm men. Is that a right response, and do you think a jury would justify me for doing that? They probably will not, because I do not have probable cause. Probable cause is based upon proven evidence, and not assumption. What my action did was murder an innocent person, but do you think a judge should not punish me for committing a crime without probable cause? What my assumption did was create a big problem, and for it to end a judge would have to sentence me according to the law. If the judge did not do that by letting me go, than my assumption would create a bigger problem. That problem could result in more crime with another murder, by someone else wanting to murder me for not feeling safe. They would respond to murdering me for the same reason that I assume on, but that person would have probable cause on me for murdering someone else.
Now that's a wrong way to handle someone for buying a gun, and a better way for me to handle that scenario is to not worry about it by leaving that person alone. I should think maybe that person buying a gun is that it wants to protect itself, and it is his right. The only way I could know if that person attempted to harm me is if he actually did it, than I would have probable cause to take action in defending myself.
In that scenario that crazy neighbor could represent Iran, and I could be a country that prevents them from buying a gun that represents a nuclear weapon. Only real way to prevent a country from buying a nuclear weapon is not making them, and no country on earth will do that. Next best way for preventing countries from using nuclear weapons is to leave them alone, and not provoke them into using them by invading their country on assumption. For a country to invade another one they would need probable cause, and not having it will give that invaded country a right to defend itself.
Now there is logic for a country to invade another country without probable cause, and that is the invading country knows that it needs to strong national defense for retaliation from that country it is invading. If a country that invades without strong defense could pay dearly for their action from a counteract from the country they invaded, and maybe that is why countries like Iran have not fire their nuclear weapons. By using logic it could maybe let us see that Iran uses nuclear weapons to defend itself just like Americans that buy guns to defend themselves. Also it could let us see that Iran uses verbal threats the same way a person would when another invade its property without invitation.
I believe that when countries stop instigating wars on assumptions, than there will be less threats of countries with nuclear weapons, and less nuclear weapons circulating around. Here's another made up scenario that could happen, but is a good analysis to show how less nuclear weapons could be circulating around. Let's say someone, or a group of people decide to sell guns legally, because they feel selling them would make good money for them. So they end up opening a gun shop, but town they are in does not buy them cause they do not have enough money. So gun shop tries to lower the prices of their guns without losing profit, but still no one buys money. Now they have to sell guns to make money, and no one not buying guns creates alternate scenarios in this example. One alternate scenario would be go to another town, and maybe pick one with a high crime rate to help them sell guns to make profit. Another scenario is to sell something else that could make profit, because there is not enough crime for people to want to buy guns. Another scenario would be alter the way the sell guns like doing it at gun shows, instead at stores, or sell specific ones that people want. Now having less crime would decrease gun from circulating in certain markets, but for guns to be in demand than crime rate would need to be high. Now do you think some gun sellers that are greedy would try to instigate crime to make lots of profit? Now having less crime rate could decrease the sells of some, if not most markets, and could that idea be applied for nuclear weapons on the free market?
Again let's use logic to see if that statement of decrease crime could slow gun sales be applied to sellers, and buyers of nuclear weapons. A person, or group of people do go in the nuclear arm business the same reason another would go into selling any other type of weapon, and that is to make money. They want to find buyers either to sell their products increase their production if there's a demand to make high profits, or they will decrease their production if demand is less. If they increase production during less demand, than they could lead to bankruptcy. So with less instigated war could lead to less demand, and that could decrease nuclear arms being circulated for companies that make them to avoid not making profit. Now there is evidence that companies that make weapons make lots of money, and could that be cause of countries instigating war through false flags operations?
Now I am not against companies making nuclear weapons, because like 2nd amendment I think countries should do all they can to protect themselves. To delay nuclear war is not going to be done through invading countries, but leaving them alone. If war is not instigated, than that may not be a reason for them to buy weapons, and if their not buying weapons than that would slow nuclear weapons from being circulated.
Monday, October 17, 2011
"Jesus and Ron Paul."
The way Jesus was treated by His people could be compared to the way the establishment treats Ron Paul, and if the establishment could execute Ron Paul like the Romans executed Jesus through the convincing of Jews they would do it in a heart beat.
The ways that Jews treated Jesus can be compared to the way that the establishment treats Ron Paul. For an example Jesus message was the truth that did not change, and it offended Jews the same way Ron Paul's message that's never changes offends a lot of the establishment. I'll go ahead and state difference between Ron Paul's message, and Jesus' message is that it cannot bring people salvation. However Ron Paul's message reflects the vision of our forefathers that believed in happiness, liberty, and right to pursuit happiness without persecution from the government. Through that vision some Americans was able use some of its wealth to tell people of other lands about Jesus' message of eternal salvation. Like that message Ron Paul's message continues to get ignore, but also there masses that carry out his message the same way that church has been carrying out Jesus message. Both messages promote free will, and completely surrendering to Jesus gives that. Through Jesus' free-will His children have been free from the law, because they are righteous. Almost similarity Paul's message wants Americans to be free from the establishment to be responsible for themselves, but like the Pharisees the establishment cannot lose control of the masses. Like the Pharisees that try to twist Jesus' truth by give Him trick questions through Scribes the establishment also does the same thing with Paul's message by stating claims that Ron Paul supports polygamy and drug usage while supporting Romney who's religion believes in polygamy. They also supported Rick Perry that has injected drugs into 6th grade girls, and the establishments pays more attention to them, that could also be compared to Pharisees. The Pharisees claim to uphold the law, but were willing to brake the law by executing Jesus that was innocent. The establishment claims to be fair, but are willing to ignore Paul's victories throughout debates, and straw polls.
Comparing Paul's message, Jesus' message does draw out similarities, but there also differences as well. Again the major differences is that Jesus message to salvation, and Paul's message of liberty does not. Paul's message does not guarantee victory, but Jesus message does. The major similarities of Jesus and Paul are the way they were treated by their establishments of their era.
The ways that Jews treated Jesus can be compared to the way that the establishment treats Ron Paul. For an example Jesus message was the truth that did not change, and it offended Jews the same way Ron Paul's message that's never changes offends a lot of the establishment. I'll go ahead and state difference between Ron Paul's message, and Jesus' message is that it cannot bring people salvation. However Ron Paul's message reflects the vision of our forefathers that believed in happiness, liberty, and right to pursuit happiness without persecution from the government. Through that vision some Americans was able use some of its wealth to tell people of other lands about Jesus' message of eternal salvation. Like that message Ron Paul's message continues to get ignore, but also there masses that carry out his message the same way that church has been carrying out Jesus message. Both messages promote free will, and completely surrendering to Jesus gives that. Through Jesus' free-will His children have been free from the law, because they are righteous. Almost similarity Paul's message wants Americans to be free from the establishment to be responsible for themselves, but like the Pharisees the establishment cannot lose control of the masses. Like the Pharisees that try to twist Jesus' truth by give Him trick questions through Scribes the establishment also does the same thing with Paul's message by stating claims that Ron Paul supports polygamy and drug usage while supporting Romney who's religion believes in polygamy. They also supported Rick Perry that has injected drugs into 6th grade girls, and the establishments pays more attention to them, that could also be compared to Pharisees. The Pharisees claim to uphold the law, but were willing to brake the law by executing Jesus that was innocent. The establishment claims to be fair, but are willing to ignore Paul's victories throughout debates, and straw polls.
Comparing Paul's message, Jesus' message does draw out similarities, but there also differences as well. Again the major differences is that Jesus message to salvation, and Paul's message of liberty does not. Paul's message does not guarantee victory, but Jesus message does. The major similarities of Jesus and Paul are the way they were treated by their establishments of their era.
"My Views of OWS"
The apostle Paul wrote to believers in Rome around 2,000 years ago, and his time was almost like ours with same problems we face today like worldly deception. In verse 2 of chapter 12 Paul encouraged to readers to not conform to the ways of the world, and transform themselves by renewing their mind to know what is truth. In the same century Jesus told the masses that knowing truth will set you free, and absolute view is the only way to set your mind free.
Unfortunately technology has been used to prison the mind, and people think that it set's them free. Through technology, and education relativism is promoted to the millions as way to free themselves when it does in the exact opposite. It imprison their mind into a paradigm to think two ways in either right, or left. These views will give you truth mixed with deception, so either view will end up lying to you. Through "Occupy Wall-street Movement" the establishment could use that to expand their paradigm to still keep people's minds, but they make it look like it is an escape from their paradigm. The only way for their minds to escape is to stop looking at truth through subjective view, and looking at it through objective view that is absolute.
There are some that know truth, but there are many that do not. They are the ones that are being used to move the establishment's agenda, and that's world power to be place in the few to control the masses. They are doing that through "Occupy Wall-street Movement", and to really understand that one must go to at least our constitution. In that it states when government becomes more powerful than the people, than it is the right of the people to decentralize it. Through the federal reserve our federal government, and most of Wall-street has been corrupt. Both of those places are where people our protesting, but most of media attention has been on Wall-street. Again some know what is true, and that is leading them to right places like Federal Reserve locations to protest. While that is happening others that do not know what is true are occupying the right place, but with the wrong message. That message is capitalism is wrong, but message of ending the federal reserves is right.
Regardless of what your opinion is, and where you stand they are both protected under the constitution as well as people that our protesting. Protesting is great way to decentralize government, because it puts elected official's feet to the fire. Now people that view the protest through the media will either know what is true, and others will not know what is truth. They will base their opinions on news commentary, and will not do in-depth research to test it to see rather or not if it is true. Through news commentary people will base their opinions on emotion, rather than reason. Reason will define what is true, and that could help others to get a full view of what is going on with the occupation. That will let them that protestors are exercising free speech, but it no longer becomes free speech when protestors are destroying public property. Seeing that people protesting cause of free speech will hopefully get people asking why are they protesting. Now some people that our deceived will base their reasons through news commentary from either the left side, or right side of paradigm. The left side will support the occupational movement on Wall-street, because they will state it is capitalisms fault on why people our poor. The right side will not support occupational Wall-street, because they will view them as people wanting hand outs from government. They will also classify them as un-American, which to me that does not make sense when our American constitution gives them that right. Now some protestors may not be protesting the right message, because they have been deceive too. But, still they have the right to protest. Again both sides of the paradigm will present truth with wrong facts that people listening to them will buy their lies, and not really understand on what is going on.
To get more of a full view of the "Occupation Wall-street Movement" people need to see the common ground, and understand what divides them. The common grounds of the movement are lack of employment, and income. Now what divides them is their understanding on how employment, and income are created. Some, if not most people, understand that is created through capitalism, and not through government. Some, if not most people, understand it the exact opposite of others in thinking that it is the government's job to give them jobs, and benefits. They think that it is wealthy that is not allowing that to happen, by not paying enough taxes. Both sides understand that taxes are needed, but they differ on the amount. Some believe in less taxes to live independently, while others believe in more taxes to continue to be dependent on the government. They think that way, because of their education being taught at home and school. That term for that is socialism, and is a step away from freedom to totalitarian. Capitalism is that exact opposite where its steps away from totalitarian to freedom, and people that support that our mostly occupying federal reserve sites to where Alex Jones got one of the security to there to admit that it is private property. While that is happening people that our for socialism are mostly at Wall-street, but I think people should give both sides credit for taking a stand in what they believe in. Instead of people criticizing them for it cause of news commentary they should do more in depth research in our constitution, history, and economy to understand protestors more.
I think criticism of Occupy Wall Street should be more on their messages, rather than on the action of protesting. If their action violates the constitution like destroying public party, than their action should be criticize, and penalties need to be carried out.
Understanding free speech, and people doing their own research on what messages our being promoted will give people more of a complete view of what's going on at "Occupational Wall-street Movement", and hopefully people's own research will lead them to truth that will set them free.
My overall view of "Occupational movement at Wall-Street and Federal Reserve sites is that its like the French Revolution, and American Revolution combined. "The People Party" represents the French Revolution, and "The Tea Party" represents the American Revolution.
Unfortunately technology has been used to prison the mind, and people think that it set's them free. Through technology, and education relativism is promoted to the millions as way to free themselves when it does in the exact opposite. It imprison their mind into a paradigm to think two ways in either right, or left. These views will give you truth mixed with deception, so either view will end up lying to you. Through "Occupy Wall-street Movement" the establishment could use that to expand their paradigm to still keep people's minds, but they make it look like it is an escape from their paradigm. The only way for their minds to escape is to stop looking at truth through subjective view, and looking at it through objective view that is absolute.
There are some that know truth, but there are many that do not. They are the ones that are being used to move the establishment's agenda, and that's world power to be place in the few to control the masses. They are doing that through "Occupy Wall-street Movement", and to really understand that one must go to at least our constitution. In that it states when government becomes more powerful than the people, than it is the right of the people to decentralize it. Through the federal reserve our federal government, and most of Wall-street has been corrupt. Both of those places are where people our protesting, but most of media attention has been on Wall-street. Again some know what is true, and that is leading them to right places like Federal Reserve locations to protest. While that is happening others that do not know what is true are occupying the right place, but with the wrong message. That message is capitalism is wrong, but message of ending the federal reserves is right.
Regardless of what your opinion is, and where you stand they are both protected under the constitution as well as people that our protesting. Protesting is great way to decentralize government, because it puts elected official's feet to the fire. Now people that view the protest through the media will either know what is true, and others will not know what is truth. They will base their opinions on news commentary, and will not do in-depth research to test it to see rather or not if it is true. Through news commentary people will base their opinions on emotion, rather than reason. Reason will define what is true, and that could help others to get a full view of what is going on with the occupation. That will let them that protestors are exercising free speech, but it no longer becomes free speech when protestors are destroying public property. Seeing that people protesting cause of free speech will hopefully get people asking why are they protesting. Now some people that our deceived will base their reasons through news commentary from either the left side, or right side of paradigm. The left side will support the occupational movement on Wall-street, because they will state it is capitalisms fault on why people our poor. The right side will not support occupational Wall-street, because they will view them as people wanting hand outs from government. They will also classify them as un-American, which to me that does not make sense when our American constitution gives them that right. Now some protestors may not be protesting the right message, because they have been deceive too. But, still they have the right to protest. Again both sides of the paradigm will present truth with wrong facts that people listening to them will buy their lies, and not really understand on what is going on.
To get more of a full view of the "Occupation Wall-street Movement" people need to see the common ground, and understand what divides them. The common grounds of the movement are lack of employment, and income. Now what divides them is their understanding on how employment, and income are created. Some, if not most people, understand that is created through capitalism, and not through government. Some, if not most people, understand it the exact opposite of others in thinking that it is the government's job to give them jobs, and benefits. They think that it is wealthy that is not allowing that to happen, by not paying enough taxes. Both sides understand that taxes are needed, but they differ on the amount. Some believe in less taxes to live independently, while others believe in more taxes to continue to be dependent on the government. They think that way, because of their education being taught at home and school. That term for that is socialism, and is a step away from freedom to totalitarian. Capitalism is that exact opposite where its steps away from totalitarian to freedom, and people that support that our mostly occupying federal reserve sites to where Alex Jones got one of the security to there to admit that it is private property. While that is happening people that our for socialism are mostly at Wall-street, but I think people should give both sides credit for taking a stand in what they believe in. Instead of people criticizing them for it cause of news commentary they should do more in depth research in our constitution, history, and economy to understand protestors more.
I think criticism of Occupy Wall Street should be more on their messages, rather than on the action of protesting. If their action violates the constitution like destroying public party, than their action should be criticize, and penalties need to be carried out.
Understanding free speech, and people doing their own research on what messages our being promoted will give people more of a complete view of what's going on at "Occupational Wall-street Movement", and hopefully people's own research will lead them to truth that will set them free.
My overall view of "Occupational movement at Wall-Street and Federal Reserve sites is that its like the French Revolution, and American Revolution combined. "The People Party" represents the French Revolution, and "The Tea Party" represents the American Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)