Thom Hartman today was talking about “Classic liberalism”. What passes for liberal among people like Hillary and Jesse Jackson isn’t classic liberalism at all. Both the classic conservatives and these “neo-libs” see human nature as inherently evil and needing to be corrected by government. In the case of a conservative, it’s being under the thumb of some all powerful dictator. In the case of a liberal it’s being under the sway of an all powerful government beaurocracy, which strangles all your efforts. At any case they don’t trust you as far as they can throw you. On some issues such as smoking and diet these two extremes might even come together. Cigarettes are “bad” and the reason doesn’t particular matter why. Either they are sinful or else they are unhealthful. But there is an area where the liberal is superior to the conservative. Liberals believe in spreading the light of education to the masses. They believe that the more "enlightenment" you have, the better. The Orion Federation goes so far as to say that failure to spread one's enlightenment that he has to others is a "sin against nature". I think it's in our nature to want to sway others to our point of view. To say that ignorance is good is to think in Orwellian terms. Gene Scott once said, "I know that women are smarter than men and it's up to me to insure that they never find it out". This is shovenisum carried to a quintessential level. I believe "The Prime directive" as portrayed in StarTrek is immoral. There was one little girl named Sarjenka who said at her ham microphone "Is anybody out there?" and Mr. Data said "Yes". She was asking for help for her planet. But after a while the idea was come up with to proform brain surgery on her so she didn't remember the encounter or carry away anything from it. I do find it a curious fact that most of the highly educated people in the world seem to be liberals. But some liberals, and I just talked to one last night, can be downright fasciestic in their world view and way of thinking and generalizations they make about people. Classic liberalisum does not make sweeping generalizations about people. They view each person on their merits. Neo liberalisum makes all sorts of generalizations about people and believe there is a whole "set of beliefs" and if you sray on one belief you're probably guilty on straying on others. Classic liberalisum believes in promotion by merit and not by class or some other reason. Classic liberalisum sees slavery as a conspiricy to keep certain races and sexes down by keeping them superstitious, compliant and ignorant. It would be Star Trek's belief that the reason why "warp drive" technology hasn't been shared with us is that someone wants to keep all the technology for themselves. If someone is ignorant, they are easier to control. I hope I have clarified this issue for you a little.

Chuck Hagel will probably be announcing for President today. He is the anti war Republican candidate and I wish him well. I will probably vote for him. There are two candidates declairing today. The other one is Fred Thompson the one time actor turned Senator, and he is a social conservative, which I also happen to be. I know I don't sound like it in this blog but I'm against gay marriage and want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and I'd like to see second amendment rights respected. They say between Rudy and "Newt the Brute" there are enough wives to field a whole basketball team and have a spare left over.

In order to judge something it has to be at least somewhat similar to you. We don't cast moral judgements on the ebola virus even though it could kill millions. We don't morally judge a mad, rabid dog that attacks someone; we destroy the dog and move on. The more different a life form is from you the less bound it is to your (our) karmic realities. In a sense it's impossible to sin against God as one would a man because being a God is like being in a whole other dimension. I need to explain something we said around June 1st. I believe in "Skeletons from the Closet". I said that Howard had led an attack against the Centaurians but that the Federation was now pulling him off and stopping the attack. Since it's humans more than the Federation itself that is adversely affected by Centaurian activity, then it needs to be a human being who is the one to redress the activity. So, Howard needs to become human. I can't explain it better than that; it's one of those karmic laws. Even a virus has to adopt similar DNA before it can attack another cell. An invading computer needs to know how to "speak the language" in order to do damage. Most space civilizations, (so I'm told) don't bother each other but co exist nicely. If we don't get the warp drive in the next hundred years we may be little farther along in space exploration then than we are now. Perhaps you don't believe there is "anybody out there" at least as close as portrayed in my writings of only six hundred light years or even much less. Well, I guess we'll find out but even "finding out" could take a long time.

The thing is that the liberal sees good and evil as universal factors. It’s the conservative that says “Sin is sin only if someone says it is”. They are the ones who come up with dyspensationalisum and situation ethics. To explain, this view does not see morals and morality as absolute entities unto themselves but only certain modes of conduct arbitrated by God, and that God arbitrates different morals at different times, or sometimes designates a set of morals only for one specific person (such as Jim Jones). They say that karma like gravity is not universal. I always have believed there are laws we are all ruled by and can’t escape. A fish might regard water presence as universal but even as a kid I came to the conclusion that gravity was universal anywhere in the universe. However some people believe you can “cheat” by removing a graviton particle from an atom so that you aren’t subject to gravity. Drug users try all the time to “cheat” their body chemistry into thinking things are well with them when they are not. In a startrek episode they had some sort of a gambling table they were able to rig to change the peramiters of the games played on it. This sort of cheating is what Gene Scott alludes to by the statement, “I never bet except on a sure thing”. It’s not called “betting” at that point but cheating. (Selah) I believe in the Startrek episode this contraversey over the “Jondoc table” was the source of a fist fight. As an illustration of this on a moral plane, most theologians teach original sin as universal for all mankind. However the Apostle Paul contradicts this in saying “Once I was alive apart from the law but then (I learned morals) and sin came alive in me and I died. The implication of this is that there is in the Apostle’s eyes no inherent evil or consequence in sin. This is contradicted by Hebrew scripture which speaks of Real and Known consequences to unknown past sin. Conservatives are big fans of grace or “The Free Pass”. At one time the Catholic Church even sold “indulgences” to sin. In this same vein many regard a possible military draft as something which by all rights should be universal among the able bodied and not something you can bargain your way out of. Catholics today regard it immoral to sacrifice an innocent (as some sort of karmic barter) so that another may be spared the consequences of sin. Even is said conduct is voluntary some, including me, would still regard it as immpral. A moral person should specifically want the Guilty to be punished and not just “somebody”. I guess Gingrich thinks he had a free pass when he was cheating on his wife, as so many Republicans have, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, which many viewed as a referendum on morality. The Prager doctrine says basically it’s a moral duty for a parent to be a hypocrite and to hold their children to high standards they never had to endure. This “Mrs. Hennicy” doctrine is popular among conservatives who like to throw stones from glass houses. But conservative hypocricy as we have oft stated is carried to a more perverted dimension because even if you could show that next to them you look pure as the driven snow, they would come back with “all human (alias unsaved) virtue is worthless”. In Jesus’s day they had a kosher tag they placed on animals that were truly “fit” to be sacrificed and you could buy one with money. But with conservatives they hate you not for what you do but who you are Born be it black or psychic or homosexual. As such there isn’t enough money (or patience) to buy their Approval. (Selah) Of course I have brought up this “Federation” stuff where some constellation societies are more vulnerable to the karmic gravity of Alcyonne than are other star systems. In karmic law there too is such a thing as “domain” and “jourisdiction” of karma. The Orion and the Leo constellations are subject to Alcyonne karmic laws. One looking at word from an a-karmic or relitivitistic or “law of the jungle” frame might see no blame in attacking anyone who would come against you no matter what their justification. Under their own “karmic gravity” no inherent sin is incurred. You might call karma the “brother” doctrine. Since he is your brother you owe him certain golden rule considerations you might not be so quick to grant a space alien. Some Christians such as Walter Martin say “The doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man is a hericy and only people who are Saved deserved the consideration of “Brothers” Since I’m higher in the ratings now I need to be more careful what and when I just happen to bring up these spur of the moment enlightenments.