The definition of true insanity is expecting those around us to always act with sanity.
Leave a CommentThe works of Author C.L. Harmon
The definition of true insanity is expecting those around us to always act with sanity.
Leave a CommentEquality is not a question of race or religion, but a choice to treat others as we wish to be treated. Division between ourselves is not caused by natural barriers but by man’s flawed perceptions that inequality is natural.
~C.L. Harmon
Leave a CommentVision is not about what you see but about what you will see. Faith is not about what you believe but what you know. Morality is not an ideal but a life-long pursuit practiced every day.
Leave a CommentMost of us never give a thought to the incredible intricacy of the environment which surrounds us. We squash bugs, cut down trees and countless other actions which destroy or disrupt the awesome phenomenon all around us.
We perform these actions as though we have the power to undo what we’ve done if we choose. The truth is…we can’t. We don’t have the power to bring back what we destroy. What we take from nature, ourselves and others are gone forever from this plane of existence.
The only real power any of us have is the ability to create and only then with the help of the Supreme Creator who made us. When we cultivate a relationship, build a dream, plant a tree or even step to the side in an effort to avoid stepping on a bug then we have become aware of the true significance.
The value of life, whether it be a relationship which is born into life when two come together or the smallest creature in the forest muddling through the dirt, is only valuable because it is irreplaceable and the lack of power to replace it is the only power we have to learn how valuable we are to each other and our environment is to us.
Leave a CommentThe right to speak, to be informed, to be heard and to understand are not free, nor are
they easily attainable or kept. They represent the very essence of self and the expression associated
with identity. A sense of self and one’s belief to expression is an enemy to authority.Control and
freedom can only co-exist within a society when both are respective of the role the other plays and its
importance in maintaining the balance that is necessary for harmony. Although there can be harmony,
one must always be dominant. We can choose to be free with limits of control or we can choose to be
controlled with limited freedom. We cannot have both.People of every nation must choose for
themselves which it is they wish to be. They must not ask their governments or other nations to choose
for them because it is individuals who desire freedoms and liberties, not governments. Authority by
definition is control and it is rarely in the nature of authority to grant the freedom that limits or
abolishes that control.In order to be free, we must act as free. Control desires nothing more than a
willingness not to act by people for it to rule.
BY C.L. HARMON
Many times we hear that we need to choose a side, pick a team, know where we stand and not stand in the middle of the road. Perhaps though, it is in the middle of the road where we should all strive to walk the path of life.
Now consider the best vantage point to see both sides of any issue. Wouldn’t the middle be the best location in which to not only step away and see the ideas more clearly, but also to give us the view to get a better understanding of the side in which we find disagreement? Does not standing firm in the middle show that we believe in compromise and humanity’s ability to find peaceful solutions? Does it not allow us to approach either side without hostility and be welcomed as we are not considered an enemy?
By walking the central path between issues does not compromise our values or moral convictions because those should be with us no matter where we stand. But it does allow to know that where we stand can always be a place where opposing sides can approach us and be heard with an open mind and heart. And the middle is and has always been the place where people meet to become the only side.
1 CommentBy C.L. Harmon
The SD organization in Nazi Germany was the country’s intelligence and security branch. Heinrich Himmler, the most feared man in Nazi Germany next to Hitler, described the SD’s function as this: “The SD will discover the enemies of the National Socialist concepts and it will initiate counter-measures through the official police authorities.” It’s interesting that if we replace “National Socialist” with the word Democratic then this very sentiment has become acceptable reasoning in the US and many other countries around the world in their plight to fight terrorism. I should note that the SD was deemed an illegal organization by the judges of the Nuremberg Trials where high ranking Nazi officials were tried and convicted for crimes against humanity following WWII.
The Mission Statement for Homeland Security reads: “Missions include preventing terrorism and enhancing security; managing our borders; administering immigration laws; securing cyberspace; and ensuring disaster resilience.” Since Homeland Security was brought about as a direct result of an act of terrorism, according to its website, I thought it might be interesting to look back at another act of terrorism in history and see what was done to combat it and the consequences that followed regarding what was done. Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag. (Parliament) building, what he considered an act of terrorism against the “Fatherland” by a deranged Dutchman, to declare a “war on terrorism.”
“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. Does this remind us of George Bush standing at ground zero on September 14, 2001? “This fire,” Hitler said, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their “evil” deeds in their religion.
Does this not sound familiar with our current enemies of terrorism? Within a year of that terrorist attack, Hitler coordinated the administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, including those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist sympathizers in his opinion. He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Fatherland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single powerful leadership. This would become the SS organization of the Nazi regime under the control of Himmler.
Now the US Department of Homeland Security does not control all of the policing agencies, but it does have a good start. The Secretary of Homeland Security leads the third largest Department of the U.S. government, with a workforce of 229,000 employees and 22 components including TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service.
What needs to be recognized most I feel when we look at the actions of the past is the difference between fear and reasonable national security and which one that we actually have. Are the same actions today repeating themselves from Nazi Germany? Is what we currently possess freedom or fascism in sheep’s clothing? Should we be concerned that each of us are searched and questioned at our airports? Does this not conjure up the scenes of Nazi check points in WWII movies?
Each nation’s people and government have a responsibility to protect citizens. However, it does not have a right to trade its people’s civil liberties in its efforts to bring about that protection. Especially in the manner in which Hitler did. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Is the Constitution of the United States still the governing doctrine of this land from which all other laws are built upon? If so, when did it become acceptable to ignore this doctrine and under whose authority?
So this begs the question, how does travelling on an airplane justify probable cause to be searched and then to have a bottle of shampoo or water confiscated? We are not free if we are under guard but only free if we are guarded against those who deprive us of our liberties. Liberty is defined by the dictionary as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. So with this in mind, it simply boils down to the question of what is most important to us. Is having liberty more or less important than the belief in protection we have by depriving us of liberty?
Following the 9/11 attacks, President George Bush said’ “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” But is this what happened? Is it not apparent that change has not only come about, but done so in a very intrusive manner as is apparent each time we venture through airport security?
What about the belief that we are being watched through electronic surveillance? Is it real? Surveillance agencies, such as the DHS and the position of Director of National Intelligence have exponentially escalated mass surveillance since 2001. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed programs and techniques employed by the US intelligence community using advances in computer and information technology to allow the creation of huge national databases that facilitate mass surveillance in the United States by DHS managed Fusion centers, the CIA’s Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) program, and the FBI’s TSDB.
Being watched and searched without our consent is simply the absence of freedom, not the protection of it. Freedom is taken from countless people because they allow it to be taken. Hitler initiated his war on terrorism and used the cause of protection for the people to garner its support. However, he did not ask the people if they even wanted his idea of protection or offer to divulge what such protection would cost to millions of people who committed no crimes. Freedom is seldom lost in the actions of battle, but almost always taken by the lack of action from those who believe their right to freedom it is not their battle to fight.
2 CommentsBy C.L. Harmon
Some people carry the Cross.
Some people build the Cross.
Some people burn the Cross.
Life is about deciding which of these people we will be.
Leave a CommentPerspectives change depending on where one is standing.
Convictions however, stands regardless of where one’s perspectives may change.
~C.L. Harmon
Leave a Comment