Posts Tagged ‘freedom’

   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!

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!

I was recently reminded of a pithy little statement I read years ago which says “If your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.” There’s a lot of truth contained in that thought. Just because a tool is ideal for one job does not mean it has utility for any other.

Government has only one tool: FORCE!

Whether we use the term police powers, coercion or military power it all comes down to the same idea. And don’t you find it interesting that force only has meaning in the context of resistance. You see, if everyone always treated others in the way they themselves wish to be treated (sound familiar?) then government would be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the need for government is wholly negative, required in order to restrain those who refuse to recognise and respect what our Founders called “natural rights”ie, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By confining government to that tiny but important sphere the framers of our nation acknowledged a tremendous truth regarding force: it can only be positive when used against a negative. To put it bluntly, the power of government is meant to protect individual freedom by holding individuals responsible. If politicians endeavor to go outside this boundry they become usurpers and oppressors.

President Barack Hussein Obama and his cadre of Progressive Liberals wield the tool of government over more and more of our personal lives promising some kind of undefinable “fairness.” But what they forge are the chains and shackles of slavery meant for us and our children. Now the existence of a slave presupposes the existence of the master. Make no mistake, by exempting themselves Congress and the President reveal that they consider themselves master and you the slave!

Regardless of your political affiliation, using the coercive power of government for any other purpose than securing citizens natural rights is perverse and can only supplant freedom. That, my fellow Americans, is positively a negative!

Thanks for reading.

My wife is a multi-talented woman with charms that still captivate me after twenty-six years of marriage. But of all my bride’s enchantments none is more irresistible than her white chocolate chip cookies. In fact, I have a confession to make. If she bakes them I will eat.

You can safely infer two things from the above: First, the goodies are indeed good! Second, my resolute resistance is, well, pretty much irresolute. Don’t laugh…you couldn’t resist either! But if we fail to resist baked goodies with frightening regularity, what about governmental goodies?

Our system of Representative government was established to safeguard our political, economic and personal freedom. That’s the way it was designed to function. But now we send men and women to Congress to “get our fair share of the pie.” Completely understandable given the existence of such a “pie” but that’s just the problem.

It Should Not Exist!

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville.

Do you and I have the courage to follow truth to logical conclusions? Certainly the politicians don’t. And we can’t really blame them for doing what we ask them to do, that is, getting our “fair share” of pork and entitlements. Such waste of money is absolutely shocking! (In someone else’s state.) The real issue is the pie. If it’s there we will eat it.

The stated goals of many governmental initiatives are good and desirable, at least to someone. But these goals must be philanthropic rather than governmental or they degenerate into political tools. The existence of the pie changes everything including motives and behavior. The pie causes us to lose sight of the long term best in favor of the short term good. The pie makes us believe we really can have something for nothing.

The conclusions are inescapable. The Federal government must stop all programs not specifically mandated (enumerated) by the Constitution. Yes, that means social security too. See what I mean about courage? The only alternative is slavery and tyranny just as de Tocqueville (and so many others) predicted.

Let’s have the courage to at least start the conversation and conduct it in civility.

Thanks for reading.

Nicholas Ballasy over at CNSNews has posted a great article quoting Daniel Akaka saying he’s not aware of the Constitution giving Congress the right to include the individual mandate. Go ahead pick up your jaw; now, before you assume the pride of the Aloha state has flipped his liberal lid, Akaka also says the lack of such authority doesn’t matter. But, then again what Constitutional authority or lack thereof has ever really mattered to these folks anyway?

Regardless, it’s a good piece revealing the state of mind of those supporting ObamaCare and the individual mandate.

When CNSNews.com asked whether the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make Americans buy health insurance, Sen. Akaka said: “I’m not aware of that; let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs, and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible.”

Oh, so it’s about accessibility. Using that defense, Congress should make everyone who is eligible by a car, so those who can’t (or won’t) drive, can ride the bus. I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”.

Wait, what, so it’s about health then. Okay, so everyone should be forced to buy a gym membership, so those who don’t want to work out, can go sit in the sauna at the Y. Again, doesn’t make sense to me either.

“It’s an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it’s all about,” he said. “I don’t look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance.”

Um, uh, hmmm, what?

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

Not a “novel issue,” a Constitutional issue.

See the whole interview here.

In June the SC state legislature authorized the “I Believe” specialized license plate. And of course, within days a so-called separation of church and state group filed suit in Federal Court, citing the plates were discriminatory and unlawful. Yesterday, a federal court agreed.

A federal district court ruled Tuesday that the “I Believe” license plate approved by the South Carolina Legislature violates the constitutional separation of church and state and cannot be issued.

In a summary judgment ruling, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said the plate was based on a discriminatory law. “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular,” Currie said.

Here’s the thing, this plate is one of four dozen other plates drivers can chose from. This is a matter of choice not endorsement of one religion. Private groups in SC have a right to create plates if they paid $4000 or have 400 prepaid applications, Lt. Gov. AndrDe Bauer put up the $4000 from private funds, and again the Circus Court of Appeals dumps on Christianity.  What about this plate, Judge; would there be any issues with this one; or would political correctness win again?

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Where have the liberties gone? Did we ever really have them?

We are legally required to where a seatbelt while driving, we can’t talk on the phone, and my four-year-old son must now be in a booster seat until he’s eight. Okay, perhaps those laws are for my safety, but isn’t my safety my business. How about this, in some areas we can’t fly our own flag, we can’t speak our minds, we can’t where a particular shirt, because we might offend someone. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t being offended a personal thing. When was “unless found to be offensive” added to the First Amendment?! Aren’t I entitled to my opinion? No, not anymore; being offensive is a matter of interpretation, but it’s also apparently illegal.

James Madison said, “It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.“ Do we control the government?

We are being force fed a healthcare bill that at the least is unwanted by the majority of Americans, and at the most unconstitutional; we will be required to carry health insurance or pay a tax! Isn’t that my choice? I seem to remember another tax many years ago that taxed my choice – the poll tax! Oh, but the government cares, it wants to help us, it’s its duty to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Remember Hillary Clinton’s, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Truthfully, it takes a family to raise a child, and a village to raise a village idiot. Government doesn’t want to help us; it wants to rob us. Alright, yes we elect our representatives every so often, and they campaign proposing to represent the electorate, but after taking the oath, it’s not about constituents anymore, it’s about staying in office. We don’t control the government, it controls us!   

Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Wow, would Tommy be mad now. “Spending money to be paid by posterity” is the standard operating procedure for Congress today; everything has a ten or 20 year plan. How does the bill affect the deficit in 10 years; we will balance the budget by 2012; whatever. The problem is that each new session of Congress extends the “posterity.” The national debt is approaching $12 trillion; I would say we’ve been swindled on a large scale. What did Jefferson mean? Borrow it today, pay it back before the next election; anything is else is crooked accounting. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is serving time for crooked accounting.

Thomas Jefferson also said, “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?” I wonder where the “angry [tea party] mob’; the “manufactured outrage” at town hall meetings, and Take Back American got their ideas? And, yet our rise in rebellion was squashed, silenced, or at least ignored by our representation.

John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” It’s obvious to me we don’t live in a republic any more, and the democracy (majority rule) is only in DC. We can all hope that suicide transpires on November 2, 2010.

crossposted at ConservativeNC.

Are we doing this again?! And, why I am not surprised. I remember sending an open letter to the UC-Santa Barbara student body president after 9/11, because he requested the large flag be taken out of the student dining hall. If you’re offended, I hate it. You can try to return the favor with you’re legally protected FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION…

For what it’s worth, we’re still in a war (Obamaniacs want to call it a “legal matter“), and th0se people still want to kill you, even if you don’t fly the flag. (although It’s still time to pick a side.

This from KATU…

An Oregon apartment complex is banning its residents from flying American flags, not only from their dwellings but also their vehicles, KATU in Portland reported.

Residents’ outrage started when Jim Clausen, whose son is in the military and on his way back to Iraq, was told he couldn’t fly an American flag from the back of his motorcycle.

If he didn’t take the flag down, he was told he’d face eviction, the station reported.

“It floored me,” Clausen told the station. “I can’t believe she was saying what she was saying. It [the flag] stands for the people that can no longer stand – who died in wars. That’s why I fly the flag.”

Sharron White, a long-time resident, was told by management to take down the flag she’s flown on her car for eight years because “someone might get offended.”

“I just said to her, ‘They’ll just have to get over it,’” White told the station.

The ban also applies to flag stickers on cars, as well as sports flags.

KATU attempted to contact management at the apartment complex, but no one returned their calls.