When engaging in discussion and debate it can be to one’s advantage to “side track” the opposition, to get them off subject so as to avoid a dangerous or out right damaging point. Another handy tactic is to avoid substantiating premises. If the opposition does not challenge your basic premise then the whole argument will follow, more or less, along lines of your design.

These, and other tricks of the trade, are masterfully applied by so called Liberals and Progressives and are woefully effective in detouring so called Conservatives. What follows are but a few of the side tracking tricks and fallacious premises which prove to be detrimental for Freedom-Loving people.

A Negative Cannot Be Proven

I list this first because in forgetting this most basic fundamental of logic so called Conservatives have all but handed their opponents a magic weapon, against which there is no defense. Consider one example: if you are accused of being a bigot, or racial prejudiced it is logically impossible to “prove” that you are not. The onus ought to be on the accuser to prove the accusation, not the other way round. It’s hard to imagine a more effect way to start your opponent chasing their own tail than by inducing them to prove a negative.

Businesses Cannot “Pay” Taxes, Only Collect Them

President Barack Hussein Obama, and his ilk, regularly demonize “business” as taking advantage of “us” with out ever spelling out just how that’s accomplished. Success is characterized as evil which must be atoned for through “fair” taxation. By failing to challenge this ridiculous premise (business take from rather than trade with consumers) we allow the discussion to be fatally skewed. The truth is that, unless a business is printing money, it can only act as an unpaid tax collector. Politicians know the advantages of using business as a scapegoat.

Social Security Is Not Insurance

The manor in which FDR foisted this colossal lie on the American people is beyond shameful. Social Security is a welfare transfer payment, period. It always has been. Insurance is a binding contract between two parties. Social Security is not a contract. Social Security is not a system of accounts where your contributions are kept. Calling Social Security “insurance” is word perversion at best. More honestly, it’s just a lie. We cannot pretend otherwise and serve America truthfully.

People Respond To Incentive and Rebel Against Coercion

It is insulting and degrading to law-abiding citizens to have their freedoms abridged through coercion. The fact is Liberals and Progressives believe government ought to coerce and force citizens to act in ways they deem “good” for certain groups. Too bad for the groups they don’t favor, too bad for liberty. We must trumpet the truth that exaltation of so called “group rights” can only result in individual rights disappearing.

Thanks for Reading!

A hostage situation is dramatically tense and dangerous, a true crises for all involved. Everyone recognize the malevolent intent of the perpetrator. The hostage taker means to coerce by threat of violence and force their desire on the unwilling. The whole scenario is fraught with confusion, fear and guilt.

“The law is reason free from passion.” Aristotle

The state of American society today is one where objective reason and common sense are held hostage by subjective passions and indefinable standards of “fairness.” Like any other hostage situation this one is engrossed in confusion, fear and guilt.

CONFUSION

Practically speaking Law and Justice are inseparably linked in the mind and soul of humanity. So when Law is divorced from Justice, a common sense understanding of right and wrong, a creeping confusion casts doubtful shadows across the land. The Rule of Law is jeopardized.

Morally conscientious individuals continue to act morally but in doing what is Just they automatically become easy prey for the unscrupulous who eagerly seize Law divorced from Justice and fashion it into a weapon. It is manifestly criminal for one individual to rob another of property, but if we pass a law sanctioning the “transfer” then injustice becomes “legal.” Victims of the so called law are no less victimized and the whole of society grows more confused as to how gross unfairness can be legal. The Rule of Law is destroyed.

FEAR

Hostage takers typically do not recognize outside constraints, they have already demonstrated readiness and willingness to exercise illegitimate power. One who exercises this type of illegitimate control is called a Tyrant. Tyrants incite fear through vicious unpredictability, violence is ever a possibility.

Citizens of the United States of America today live under constant threat of violent plunder by their government. But terms like theft and plunder are far too descriptive so we use other words instead. Stealing we call “taxes”, dispossessing individuals of their land we call “eminent domain”, extortion becomes “regulation” and rewarding sloth and immorality we call “redistribution.”

When good people are afraid to do good the self-serving and the criminal are emboldened.

GUILT

Guilt is what makes all of what I have described possible. We have been taught and conditioned to subject reality to our emotions, in effect to hold reason hostage to passion.

Divorcing Justice from Law is an attempt to divorce responsibility from freedom. You see it’s not the success of the diligent or the brilliant but rather the personal implications for us that cause us to bristle. Old fashioned envy is the source of the cry “unfair!” Life is unfair but punishing achievement cannot change that.

Instead of holding reality hostage to the way we feel about it let’s face it together as free and responsible citizens dedicated to a purpose we can attain, namely, protecting the natural rights of individuals. Refusing to live objectively only serves to perpetuate crises and promotes confusion, fear and guilt.

Thanks for reading

Question: Why are electrical power lines always made inaccessible either by being strung far over head or by being buried beneath the ground?

Answer: Power is inherently dangerous! One inescapable fact of power is that when there is sufficient power available to do anything meaningful, there is power enough to destroy, even kill.

Political power is every bit as dangerous, in fact statistically it is overwhelmingly more perilous. You will search in vain to find numbers of people injured or killed by electrical, pneumatic or mechanical power that approach the hundreds of millions of people murdered by political power. Professor Rudolph Rummel, as well as other scholars and researchers have provided ample evidence of the danger of political power.

The Two-Party Trap

Democrats and Republicans make up the majority of American voters. And, of course, power is necessary in order to “accomplish” political aims. There’s the problem, the power problem. By granting power to our favored party leaders we inevitable grant power to party we do not favor. In other words, political power doesn’t disappear, doesn’t goes away or abate when our party is voted out. This fact of politics should give us pause to carefully consider enthusiastically granting any power to politicians, any politicians!

Asking The Question

Before demanding the current administration have some new authority, create some new bureau or assume power over new areas of personal life, ask yourself if you would want the other party to have the same authority. I believe we all instinctively know the answer, regardless of our political affiliations. At some point in the not-too-distant future the other party will have the power you are clamoring for now.

Keeping Power Out Of Reach

The reason power lines are kept out of reach provides us with a simple, yet powerfully graphic parallel illustrating why we must keep political power out of reach of fallible men and women. By the way, the fallible people category includes you and me, the whole of mankind. The Constitution was created to provide a means of establishing and maintaining a government of limited, narrowly defined power because as Jefferson said…”Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”

Thanks for Reading.

963/2889
The above fraction might be slightly intimidating to those of us out of mathematical practice. But in reality it’s just over complicated. Simplified it looks like…
1/3
Simplifying reveals that what appeared to be something quite complex wasn’t. This is precisely what’s happening regarding the issue of illegal immigration. Let’s simplify, shall we?

It’s Not About Race
Let’s be very clear. Believing you are somehow superior or deserving of special treatment because you happen to be Latino is bigotry. The same goes for Caucasian, Oriental or Black, etc. Making an issue of “race” is ridiculous because there is only one race, the human race. We need to turn on the light of truth and let the racially prejudiced scatter.

It’s Not About Enforcement
Illegal immigration certainly makes it harder on law enforcement officials and we can sympathize if not empathize, but they cannot address the root cause of the difficulty. Law enforcement is by design reactive. (When it becomes proactive it goes by another name, Totalitarianism.)

It’s Not About Politics
Like any other emotionally charged issue, illegal immigration is Grade “A” grist for the political mill. More than anything else politicians need an “issue” (read excuse) to be elected or reelected. The unscrupulous would use this problem to push their agenda, or to further a particular special interest.

IT’S ALL ABOUT INCINTIVE!!!
All people respond to the incentives presented to them in the most personally logical way. The people who happen to be south of the border are absolutely no different in this all important regard than the people north of the border. Focusing on race or law enforcement or political considerations only serves to cloud the reality and vitality of what actually matters, INCINTIVE!

Reason And Responsibility
There can be no doubt as to what provides incentive to illegally enter the U.S. Free education, free health care, de facto citizenship privileges such as driver licensure and the prospects of employment all provide abundant incentive to do something radical and potentially dangerous. The welfare entitlement culture created by implementing Liberal and Progressive ideology gets the credit, or the blame, which ever you prefer.

You and I would respond no differently than our fellow humans south of the border given the same incentives. So let’s stop complicating the issue and face the simple, albeit painful, reality. The only way to effectively deal with illegal immigration, while maintaining human dignity and rights, is to remove the incentive. It sure would have been a lot easier to simply stick to the Constitution.

Thanks for reading.

   In my college dormatory there resided a young man whose penchant for sleeping late brought him into ill favor with many professors. It was, however, his loud snoring which his roommates found intolerable. One fine spring morning he awoke to find himself in the middle of a commonly walked thourghfare surrounded by bemused students. While most people would have been angred at being the butt of such a sophomoric prank he was nonpulsed and simply asked “How did I get here?”
That is a very good question, one that this article will attempt to explore.
   No matter where you are, physically or philosophically, you started from somewhere. There is a base from which you came. My thesis is this: Politics and Religion are inseperable. To assert that political ideas can be formed apart from a basic understanding of reality, a basic world view, is patently absurd. You got here from somewhere! That, of course, begs the question “from where?”
   Most people never answer the question because they never ask the question. Forming opinions about important matters without first understanding your philosophical base (world view) is utterly and dangerously subjective. You can’t begin to comprehend how you arrived “here” if you don’t know from where it is you began.
Here is a brief and very personal example.
   God exists and has revealed Himself through creation, human personality and Scripture. The point at which these three objectively converge is reality, regardless of subjective opinion. From this basic understanding is logically and reasonably infered all we refer to as human rights, law as a means to secure these rights and the solely defensive nature of law enforcement to protect these rights.
   To claim to affirm the above-mentioned principles and then to cast a vote for a candidate opposed to them is to be guilty of a disingenuous disconnect. Belief and action are inseperable. The one follows the other and it cannot be otherwise.
   On the other hand, if you reject God’s existance and revelation, it’s hard to imagine a basis from which to conjure up the concept of human rights. In fact centuries of philosophical contortions have failed to produce anything truly satisfying. So what does it say about a world view when it is compelled to commandeer a concept which naturally follows from a world view which it rejects? Is that not a disingenuous disconnect of a rather more serious nature?

Thanks for reading and for thinking.

   Bowing in worship before an object of wood, stone or metal is almost universally understood as imbecelic and idolatrous. What could be more pathetic and futile than attempting to ascribe the attributes of Diety to that which is not diety? If idloatry is sad religiously and philosophically, then historically it is nothing short of horrible, resulting in untold suffering and evil. Yet, as a nation, we are given over to it in spirit and in practice.
   What is it mankind seeks from a god? Is it not at the most basic level security, shelter and sustainance? The presence of evil gives rise to our need for security. A formitable and sometimes harsh environment means we need shelter. Our bodies have need for energy provided by our sustanance. None of these exist in and of themselves and so we must turn outside ourselves to some One, or some Thing possesing the power to provide us our needs.

Read the rest of this entry »

   At times it can be difficult to avoid coming across as accusatory when drawing conclusions. Even when presenting objectively verifiable fact the tendency is to project our subjective “take” on matters. This is especially true when attempting to ascertain motive. I fear that possibility with the material I now present and can only assure that I do not intend to judge/condemn motive. Caveo Lector!

   Finding a thread of commonality among apparently vastly differing groups of people is remarkable. That’s all it is if we are considering mere trivialities. But when we are dealing with matters of life and death the remarkable becomes profoundly serious. The commonality I present can hardly be called a thread; it is more of a rope or steel cable. Here it is presented as a question.

What do the following groups have in common?
Slave owners of the antebellum South?
The Turk empire of the early 1900’s?
The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia?
The Weimar Republic of Germany?

   Admittedly, there may be many things shared in common between these groups but what if we add one more group to the list, say…American Liberals and Progressives?
The disturbing commonality of these diverse groups is their dedication to disarming the citizen.

   This is objectively verifiable fact and is disturbing because of what resulted in the cases where citizens were actually disarmed: Genocide and wholesale murder! Consider the following;
One million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Turks.
Two million Cambodians were butchered by the Khmer Rouge.
Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis.
Slavery inflicted untold human suffering in America.

   Please note that no causality is here implied. I merely make the observation that an unarmed population presents little deterrent to the tyrannical, the maniacal, the evil-doer. That is the only conclusion I wish to point out here.

   Americans who believe that the right to defend themselves is God-given and, therefore, inalienable and that the second amendment to the Constitution is an instrument guaranteeing that right are not on the lunatic fringe. They are, in point of fact, on solid logical, philosophical and moral ground.

   So…rather than jump to conclusions about why Liberals and Progressives try to somehow interpret this individual right collectively let’s let them explain for themselves.
Why do you support the abridgement of the fundamental right of every person to self defense?

Thanks for reading!

“Two plus two equals five!” the student said confidently.
“I’m afraid that’s not right” the teacher replied and for the next several minutes tried to explain the correct answer. Nothing seemed to be getting through. Then she hit upon an idea.
“Please get two crayons” she asked the student. Then she also got two crayons and laid them all neatly in a row.
“Now” she smiled “count the crayons.”
“One, two, three, four…” he hesitated, finally looking up and admitting “I see what you mean.”
This story illustrates a vitally important truth…

That which is false cannot be demonstrated.

A short demonstration did what no amount of persuasion could. With this in mind I have three simple, yet profound questions for you.

1) Who Are You?
This is ultimately a question of personhood and involves at least three areas.
Physical – body, health, etc.
Emotional – consider how a favorite song moves you, or how unexpected bad news makes you feel.
Volitional – meaning our will, our choices. It is the most important and most neglected aspect of life.
So…Who Are You? What does it mean to be a person? To be You?

2) Why Are You Here?
This question turns out to be one of purpose. A sense of purpose is absolutely vital. Without it life is unfulfilling and pointless. Human beings can withstand hardship and even injustice when they have a sense of purpose.
So…Why Are You Here? What’s your purpose?

3) Where Are You Going?
On the surface this question seems to be about direction. But I believe it to be more about polarization. Polarization simply means something is either up or down, right or wrong, one way or the other. More than anything else this question brings the first two into sharp focus and causes us to choose. It also brings us to face another fundamental truth…

Choices have consequences.

“Wait a second!” you might be thinking “What does all this have to do with me here and now?” Good question. Here’s the short answer…everything! The way you approach and answer these questions shapes your entire life personally, professionally and politically! The problem may be that most people never ponder these questions and by ignoring them answer by default.

Remember the story at the beginning of the article? Here’s where it ties in.

What are your life choices demonstrating? Are you pleased with the results or frustrated? If you find yourself discouraged with the way things just don’t add up could it be that you are living as if two plus two equals Five?
Think about it.

Thanks for reading,

B Calvert

Well folks, it’s once again that time when I prayerfully consider the opportunities available to share the love of Jesus Christ with the people of the United States and the World. As children of God, we are all called to minister to our neighborhoods, our cities, our nations, etc. And, my home church, Englewood Baptist Church, has been a long supporter of stateside and international mission trips.

In the past, there have been many opportunities for me to serve, but the timing was never right. However, I now find myself with ample time and freedom. But this opportunity, while coming with a blessing, also came with a henderance – an unfortunate lack of funds. So, I am doing something I have never done before: appealing to you, the great readership of Desperate State for a little help.

The first trip, Toledo, OH , is relatively inexpensive by trip standards, only $210, but it’s $210 I don’t have.  I started a “Chip-In” on the right side on this page. If you want to share a little love, please click on “Chip-In” and donate what you can.

If you would like more information about what our team will be doing in the Toledo area, email me, and I’ll be glad to fill you in.

Thank you in advance for your help.

The racial reality is that there is only one race, the human race!

Any law, policy or administrative directive based on skin color (race) is manifestly unfair and utterly ridiculous. There can be no other logical, reasoned conclusion because there is only one race: the human race.

Yet we find an entire system encompasing education, welfare, health and a slew of other issues where decisions are made based primarily on the color of a person’s skin. What makes the situation even more disturbing is that the system has all the authority and coercive power of government.

There was another time in this nation when decisions about a person’s educational opportunities, access to health care and other personal matters were made based on skin color. The system was called slavery.

So it would seem we have not come as far as we might have once hoped. We have, it seems, traded a privite system for a public one. How sad, how sad!

Conclusion:
If it was morally reprehensable for a member of the human race to have personal opportunity systematically determined by skin color in the past then merely tranfering the system to government does not make it any less reprehensable. The only result is the continual fomenting of hard feelings based entirely on somethin as utterly inconsequetial as…skin color.

Thanks for reading!