Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Thursday, April 29, 2010

To Be or Not to Be (an Organ Donor)

I’ll start by saying I’m an organ donor, and have been since I got my Drivers License over 30 years ago. I ride motorcycles, so both the chance of me needing an organ, and being able to donate an organ is a little higher than most. This is a choice I made concerning my body. The question is do I own my body or is it the States?

The State of New York is losing productive citizens by the thousands who are moving to states with less taxes and regulations. Fundamentally the newly proposed law by Assemblyman Brodsky, is the heart of why people are leaving NY and in general why the left doesn’t appreciate middle American values. Assemblyman Brodsky introduced a bill that would give state the right to decide if you are an organ donor or not. The law would make everybody an organ donor unless they opted out. Right now hospitals and the State have a hard time keeping track of those who voluntarily donate their organs. If this law passes they can assume you are, harvest your organs, even if you’ve opted out, and say it was a screw up later (how is your family going to get them back once transplanted?) Brodsky believes that because enough people don’t volunteer to be organ donors that the State has a right to your body parts, but should offer individuals a way to opt out.

This is typical liberal thought, if people don’t make the choices that liberals think then use government to force people to make the “right” choice. The FDA’s war on salt is typical. The FDA without direction or law passed by congress is proposing rules that would force food manufacturers to cut salt from processed foods. Voluntary reduction in salt has not been as successful as the government would have hoped. The problem is when people are given a choice between saltier foods and less salty foods they vote with their wallets for food that tastes good (salty). The FDA (hence the government) feels that they must dictate to people what they can and cannot eat. This is a fundamental shift in thinking. By what right does the federal government have in dictating what a person can and cannot eat?

If you believe that it is the purpose of government to take care of the sick, the poor, the needy, and decide what’s best for the people then you are very wrong, and may want to find another country to live in. The purpose of our government is clearly not to provide for its citizens needs but protect their rights. Again I will call on you to examine the purpose of our government as so clearly stated in our founding document the Declaration of Independence; “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Now obviously NY isn’t the federal government, but how a law that assumes the State has a right to people’s body parts unless they actively protest meets the purpose of government is beyond me.

Notice how because they powers that be in the Obama administration cannot get the laws they want passed through congress, are dictating rules (which carry the weight of law) through bureaucratic agencies like the FDA. Clearly rules that dictate the salt content of food do not serve the stated purpose of our government, and worse yet, because it is enacted and enforced by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people, the proposed salt rules are not at the consent of the governed. Laws like Obamacare, clearly enacted against the will of the people; the placement of unelected Czars, who are not approved by the senate, the dissolution of the rule of law for political purposes are all the actions of despotic rule, not a republic, and are typical of Obama’s first year in office. This kind of arbitrary tyranny, over a few decades is exactly what lead to the Revolutionary War. Since history, specifically the reasons and actions of a tyrannical government which did not want or accept the wishes of the governed, are no longer taught in our public schools, we may be forced to repeat history again. Where the people threw off the yoke of tyranny from a government that was destructive to the purpose for which it was established. In fact when a government’s actions are destructive to the purpose for which it was established it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Our long and established government should not be changed for light and transient causes; experience has shown that we are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security.

I sincerely hope that: a dramatic change will be seen in our next election; That the oligarchy that is our “two party” system will the thrown out; That the tea party voters will put principled temporary citizen leaders into office like Libertarian Senate Candidate Alex Snitker; and That the despotic statist actions of the past few years can be turned back. I fear that if the despotic statists remain in power and continue to ignore the will of the people, the Russian analysts who’ve predicted the breakup of this great nation may be right, and because the socialist overcrowded urban areas of this country cannot survive without the productive minority of flyover country it may get ugly.

It’s your body not the states and nobody has the right to it, not even its parts when you die. Since it is your body not the governments, what you choose to put into it is your business not the theirs. I urge you to eat healthy because it’s good for you, but I also urge you to be vocal and fight against any government actions which try to control what you put into your body, which is your ultimate property. Please become an organ donor, because it is a good thing to do for your fellow man, but be vocal and fight against any government actions that tries to force you to do so.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Morality Vs. Bigotry

mo•ral•i•ty
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

big•ot•ry
n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Since Bigotry is defined by the Bigot:

big•ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The left in general, and specifically leftist woman’s groups and leftist homosexual groups, have successfully created a campaign to change society by falsely equating traditional morality with bigotry. This practice is doing more than just eroding the unalienable rights of “We the People”. The result of falsely equating morality with bigotry will be the criminalization of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, The Boy Scouts, and the dissolution of the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Case before the Supreme Court heard on April 19, The University of California Hastings College of the Law is denying recognition to a Christian Legal Society campus chapter because it does not allow atheists or homosexuals as officers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said “Are you suggesting that if a group wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all other forms of discrimination a group wants to practice, that a school has to accept that group and recognize it, give it funds, and otherwise lend it space?” implying that a college club that upholds rules about sexual morality and faith is racist or sexist.

How are faith and ideas about morality either racist or sexist? Those ideas transcend both sex and race. Justice Sotomayor seems to be saying that colleges shouldn’t be able to fund Greek Sororities, Greek Fraternities, NOW, the LGBT alliance, or any organization that requires membership based on any standard.

Imagine a university chapter of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) meeting. A typical university PETA chapter has a dozen or so people show up for regular meetings. Now imagine if a group 20 or so college aged hunters showed up to the PETA meeting; join; elected hunters as officers; vote into place pro-NRA, pro-hunting platform to the local PETA chapter’s bylaws; close each meeting with a wild game BBQ; and have a Ted Nugent concert as a fund raiser (you know he love to play that gig).

Saying that a campus Christian group must accept atheists as members and officers, is the same as saying PETA must accept hunters as members and officers, or that the Black Congressional Caucus in congress must accept white congressmen, or that NAMBLA must accept Catholic Priests as members (sorry that’s a bad example they do that already).

In Canada it is now illegal to publish or preach on certain sections of the Bible. Canadian law has criminalized the monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, since all three call homosexuality and abomination and morally corrupt. As a good libertarian, I firmly believe that all consenting adults should be free to do as they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another, so there should be no laws against homosexuality, or any number of activities that don’t infringe upon another person’s rights. That does not mean that those activities are moral or even socially acceptable, just not illegal. I would fight any criminalization of how consenting adults choose to tickle their orifices, but just as ardently protect the right of others to voice their opinion that certain sexual acts like homosexuality are amoral, abnormal, and an abomination. Such beliefs are not intolerant, bigoted or sexist, they’re just based on traditional morality.

Once morality has been criminalized, it will take very little effort to erode all our rights. If the left succeeds in criminalizing speech (of any kind), and is able to force associations, or criminalize associations, then no rights are valid and the Statist can and will end rule that is based on the consent of the governed, and institute arbitrary tyranny based on the will of whomever is in office. When the government argues that it can dictate who people must accept and can determine what groups are allowed or not allowed, clearly it no longer accepts the pretense of the Constitution or its limitations, and is arguing against the very purpose of our government.

When looking at a law or enforcement of a law, remember the purpose of our government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Any rule or law or enforcement of such, which goes contrary to the stated purpose of our government, should rightly be discarded.

Monday, April 26, 2010

AN OPEN LETTER TO MITT ROMNEY

AN OPEN LETTER TO MITT ROMNEY
March 10th, 2010
Mr. Romney,

I saw you speak on NewsMax about the tea party movement and tea party candidates who are running outside the Republican Party. I do not think you understand the tea party movement, so allow me to educate you.

This movement was started because politicians like you failed the American people. The Republican platform seems to be less about protecting the liberty of individual Americans, and more about regaining power at all costs. Regular Americans are turning to tea parties as an alternative to politicians like you, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee. Regular Americans are running for public office as third-party candidates, not because of a lust for power, but because of a sense of duty to preserve liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Your focus of late has been to blame Obama for taking us down the wrong path. He may be taking us more quickly, but both the Republicans and Democrats have blazed the trail.

As you pointed out, the bailouts (TARP 1) were started under a Republican president. It was the Republicans that delivered one of the greatest blows to the 4th Amendment in the form of the PATRIOT Act. It was Republicans who spent roughly $700-billion on Medicare expansion.

You have dismissed the rise of the true Constitutional conservatives (libertarians) in your party. You imply that libertarians just do as they are told, and show up when summoned. You could not be further from the truth. I believe your attempt to marginalize the tea party movement is an extension of the deep concern you have for its implications.

Americans are beginning to vote principle before party. Republicans shoulder much of the blame for our problems, and a growing number of Americans no longer trust the GOP to do the right thing.

Your party does have some good candidates that should be supported. In races that the best Constitutional conservative is running as a Republican, the people should vote for that candidate. By the same token, in races where the best Constitutional conservative is running as a third-party candidate, the people should vote for a third party. Voting for the lesser of two evils put us in the position we are in today.

Sincerely,

Alexander Snitker
Libertarian for U.S. Senate, Florida
http://snitker2010.com

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Concensus My Ass

The Science is settled, man made global warming is a scam. There is no consensus, and there are not a few peer reviewed papers that disagree, but an huge number that managed to get published despite the concerted and factually proven effort of AGW proponents to hide/suppress/discredit those who disagree with them.

HERE is a partial list of around 700 peer reviewed papers than are skeptical of global warming. The list isn't all inclusive but it is substantial enough to clearly cast doubt on AGW theory.

The Global Warming scare is based on bad science, lies, and deception (go google up "Climate Gate". The whole purpose of the global warming scare is about power not science.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Democracy Denied



For details and better explanations, click on the chart

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Why?

Tax Day, a perfect day to review the well reasoned letter by Col Davy Crockett, explaining exactly why "entitlements" aren't the job of our government and why we pay way too much in taxes.

Enjoy


Not Yours To Give
by Col. Davy Crockett




One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him."


APPROPRIATE: To set apart for, or assign for a particular use, in exclusion of all other uses; as, a spot of ground is appropriated for a garden. [Webster?s 1828]

MONEY: 1) Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. 2) Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it.If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money. [Webster?s 1828]

CHARITY: Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions (Alms - Any thing given gratuitously to relive the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity), or gratuitous services to relieve them in distress. [Webster?s 1828]


"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

AUTHORITY: Legal power or a right to command or act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children.? Power; rule; sway. [Webster?s 1828]

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

I began, 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'

'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.'

'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'

He haughtingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

'If I don't, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.'

No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

'Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

'My name is Bunce.'

'Not Horatio Bunce?'

'Yes.'

'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.'

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Why I Don't Respect the Law

Some of my Christian brothers, and some of my conservative friends have frequently commented on my lack of “respect” for law enforcement, and laws in general. To quote Alfred Hitchcock, “I’m not against the police, I’m just afraid of them.” The reason I will not cooperate with any government official for any reason is that I cannot be reasonably assured that I’m not breaking the law in any activity. A Reasonable person cannot exist in "Overcriminalized" America, without breaking a law.

In the past year or so I’ve read of high school kids being arrested for having a butter knife at school, a 12 year old handcuffed and detained for eating a french-fry on the DC subway, and 61 year old Kay Leinbrand arrested for letting her hedges grow too tall. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that none of these people intended to break the law, or even had an inkling of an idea that they were breaking the law.

“….there is no conveniently accessible, complete list o federal crimes.” reported the American Bar Association. There are over 4000 federal laws, and over 300,000 thousand federal regulations. Add to that countless state and local laws and it is impossible not to be “Ignorant of the Law.” You want to find out how bad it is, there is a new word for it; Overcriminalization.

From Overcriminalized.com
Overcriminalization” describes the trend in America – and particularly in Congress – to use the criminal law to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake (instead of making proper use of civil penalties), and coerce Americans into conforming their behavior to satisfy social engineering objectives. Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction.

But as a result of rampant overcriminalization, trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime. Many criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict a person even if he acted without criminal intent (i.e., mens rea). Sentences have skyrocketed, particularly at the federal level.

Less than 100 years ago to be be convicted of a crime the prosecution had to not only prove that you committed an criminal act, but that you had intent to commit an illegal act. A person had to be proven to have a “guilty mind.” That meant the accused could understand that the actions leading to arrest were wrong. This protected people from being arrested for simple mistakes. Now intent has no bearing.

Assume your loved one is off with their National Guard unit in the Middle East. And to show your support for your loved one you put a big plastic yellow ribbon around the oak tree in your front yard. Depending on where you live this may be a crime, and you may be fined, excessively for littering or endangering the tree, etc., regardless of the intent, purpose, or other relevant behavior.

According to Edwin Meese III, the former attorney general, “the average American, the average business person and the average corporation have little or no hope of knowing all of the thousands of criminal-law statutes -- and tens of thousands of criminal-law regulations -- by which they must abide in order to remain on the right side of the law.”

It got so bad here in Florida the government passed a law to force people to get a license to become an Interior Decorator.” Imagine having to pass a test, take hundreds of hours of approved classes, to tell people what color to paint a room and where to hang a picture, and that "Shag" carpeting is "In" again. Luckily a Florida judged ruled the practice to law to be unconstitutional. Laws like this don’t protect the consumer, but they do protect existing Interior Decorators from new competition. All this kind of law does is give to the government more power and increase prices.

Talk to any law enforcement officer and you’ll soon detect the “Us Vs. Them” mentality, they assume everybody is a criminal and have to prove they are not. Law enforcement is not your friend anymore. They can and will lie, cheat, and coerce to prove a person is guilty of something. Sense it is virtually impossible for you, or any business to actually follow all the laws we now have, it is vitally important that you protect yourself from the government. This video explains exactly why you should never under any circumstances talk to any government official. Watch the whole thing and play close attention to how the cop explains how he can and will trip you up.



Even Barney Frank recognizes that we no longer live in a Free society. I'll end with a very telling and compelling quote from the long standing senator. "Criminalizing choices . . . when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
– Barney Frank (2009)

Thursday, April 8, 2010

The Revolution Has Started

The elitists in Washington, who routinely create rules and laws that they exempt themselves from, just don’t get it. There is a revolution in this country that is currently (and will hopefully remain) non violent. Most of this country wants less government not more. The DC elite have said “we know what’s best for you, so shut up.” That’s why Obamacare passed even though nearly 60% of the people didn’t want it, and not one single Republican voted for it, and they had to use backdoor quasi-constitutional means to pass it. Outside of the elitist liberal city dwellers the rest of the US has had enough and are going to do something about it.

13 States have filed suit against Obamacare and 36 have laws either passed or proposed to invalidate it.

Arizona just told the federal government to back off. It declared that weapons made and sold in Arizona to Arizona residents are exempt from federal firearms paperwork. This makes Arizona the 6 state to do so.

Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels in his state. Utah lawmakers believe the federal ownership of millions of acres in the state is restricting economic development.

By a 4-0 vote, the San Benito County of Supervisors, rebelled against the power of the federal bureaucracy has to reopen county roads that had been shut down by the Bureau of Land Management. George Hill, a spokesman for the Hollister office of the BLM, told WND that federal bureaucrats were a little surprised by the county's move. That’s because the government doesn’t get it, there is a revolution starting.

As Thomas Jefferson would have said it, “When the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force'”. The duly elected, San Benito County Board of Supervisors, have said that the unelected federal bureaucrat’s agency rules are “null and void”. That they, not some distant Washington DC agency, are accountable to the local people, and have thus restored some modicum of sovereignty to the people (read the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution). They are working to do what our federal government was purposed to do, “Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.”

The States and the people are not stupid, the DC elite don’t know better than the people what’s best. The Democrats and Republicans (two sides of the same coin) no longer command respect or control. There are now more registered independents and third party voters than either party has. Our last presidential election they gave us the choice of a Socialist Democrat or Socialist Republican. The guy with more hair and better looks won.

Many in the Democrat Party, Republican Party and in the mainstream news media have a hard time understanding what the "Tea Party" crowd is talking about when it complains of incipient tyranny and intrusive government. They keep making up reasons for the TEA Party’s existence, ignoring the reasons the TEA Party says it exists (Hint: TEA is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already). A CNN reporter is on record as having told viewers that the tea parties were driven by "anti-CNN" passions; that dear reader is what is known as Hubris.

Americans have some basic beliefs that the leftists now in control don’t understand. This country was founded on principles of liberty and justice. Look at the Supreme Court of the United States and on the building you will see the ten commandments. The basic belief of virtually all Americans outside of elitist DC, NYC, and a few other big cities is based on the fact that justice is blind; that all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment under the law. This is a biblical principle; “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” (Leviticus 19:15). Equality under the law, ‘justice’ means that we don’t have different laws for different people. It means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor. You can substitute Asian, black, Indian, Hispanic, alien, Christian, Muslim, women, man, or whatever you want for “poor” in that last sentence. Everyone’s rights deserve the same protection. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, it was justice and equality.

The Tax Foundation estimates that some 60 percent of American families already get more from the government than they pay in taxes (and the top 10 percent of earners pay more than 70 percent of the income taxes), the tax law is clearly unjust. The current socialist leaders have made it clear that they want “social justice” not true justice. They are open about Obamacare being about “wealth redistribution” not healthcare. They want and are striving to institute the same kind of justice that Mao and Lenin gave their people, not the justice that Moses and Jesus offered.

It is laudable that Obama and the Socialists leading the legislature want to help those less fortunate. They obviously do not care for those who act responsibly; they demonize those who dare to question them. What is moral, just, and right about forcing those who don’t smoke, who exercise, who watch their weight, and who maintain adequate health insurance and forcing them to pay for the health care of couch potatoes who smoke, overeat, and live off the dole?

Is it moral, just, and right to reward those who choose to live criminal lives, or should the criminal suffer the consequences of his actions? People who come to this country illegally are breaking the law, they are criminals. If they choose to continue to live as illegal aliens the result of this choice may have unfortunate consequences, for both themselves and society. When they then fail to adopt the ways of this country like learning English and expatriate thousands of their hard-earned dollars to other countries, this can only serve to compound the problems of living a criminal lifestyle. The American people want justice; they are not unsympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate. That is why the American people give more to private charity than anybody else in the world. But they play by the rules and expect others who want the benefit of living in the USA to play by the rules and to be held accountable when they don’t.

The country is divided into two, not Republican and Democrat but as Walter Williams describes it in his April 7, 2010 column; we have two groups of people in this country, one group of people who prefer government control and management of people's lives and another who prefer liberty and a desire to be left alone.

If the group of people who want government control don’t stop pushing the group of us who want liberty into a corner we will revolt. Unlike 150 years ago, a man can no longer pack his things and move west to the frontier where he was free to succeed or die on his own, he is now trapped. When our forefathers who had escaped west (colonized America) and were cornered by the ruling elite who wanted to enforce government control and management of the colonists, we had a revolution.

There is a point at which the people will revolt, we have reached it. The States and people of “flyover” country will take no more, the revolution has started whether the powers in DC recognize it or not. Just like the tea party was the start of revolutionary war, it didn’t start with violence, it started with our forefathers trying to change the King’s decrees with diplomacy, reason, demonstrations, pleas for tax relief, and pleas for liberty. Hopefully this time the ruling elite won’t ignore the people and dictate what’s “best” for us like the King did. If they do the results will be the same, a violent revolution of free men fighting for their unalienable rights to throw off the shackles of tyranny.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Green Jobs Go Overseas

Remember when Obama promised us unemployment would remain less than 8%, and we'd have lots of new "green jobs" with American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009?

The results are in; BP Solar has ceased production of solar cells at its Frederick, Md., plant and will lay off 320 of the 430 employees there. This ends all of BP’s solar cell manufacturing in the U.S. Funny how this coincides with the increase in government mandated health care costs to employers, making each job in the USA cost more and thus become less competitive worldwide. Just one of the unintended consequences of Obamacare. These jobs have moved to BP’s production plant in Xi’an, China, or their joint venture in India.

Aren't you glad we spent a trillion dollars to move existing green jobs to India and China, with money we didn't have?

BP ending solar cell manufacturing is just another clear demonstration that when government tries to do something, they generally get the opposite, or the unintended consequences far outweigh any benefit.

Did the government's "War on Poverty" reduce poverty in the US, specifically for inner city poor? The unintended consequences of the “War on Poverty” have been the destruction of the nuclear family in inner cities, and generations of poor people dependent on the government.

How about "Cash for Clunkers", instead of helping US automakers, most of the money went to import companies, and the unintended consequences were significantly lower sales for the months following the program, and an increase in the cost of used vehicles; the only vehicles that the poor can actually afford. GM and Chrysler still went bankrupt, and now are suffering from the silent boycott of "Government Motors." I like many other Americans for one will never purchase another GM or Chrysler product; I will not willingly spend my money with a government owned/controlled business; doing so is to literally offer willing support of fascism.

The Democrats in charge are all upset, at GE, Caterpillar, Google, etc. for reporting to their investors - as required by law - that they will have significant decreases in profit because of the impact of Obamacare. ‘Whodathunk’ that in the real world the CBO numbers were wrong, and the cost of a government program is actually a lot more than estimated? It’s not like the government’s estimates of a program’s cost have ever been wrong before.

Ronald Regan was right. The nine scariest words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Free Will

To my atheist friends:

I’m a scientist and a Christian Libertarian, something most of my atheist friends really can’t get a handle on. I actually believe that life was designed and created and did not arise from spontaneous generation, literally come from natural lifeless chemical reactions, nor do I believe that all life on earth as we see it evolved from simpler organisms. But I cannot “prove” the existence of a God or the God.

As a chemist I can prove, and demonstrate that when chemicals are mixed in the correct proportions under certain conditions you always get the same reaction. Prove this to yourself at home. Take a ¼ cup of vinegar (a mild organic acid), and add to it a teaspoon of baking soda (a fairly mild organic base), you will get a bubbling reaction. Most of you will recognize this as the basic reaction used to create a “volcano” for typical elementary school science experiments. Repeat this process over and over again until you prove to yourself that when vinegar and baking soda are mixed under at room temperature and normal pressure you always get the same reaction. In fact I’ll wager everything I own that you will get that reaction every time, no matter how many trillions of times you repeat it. In nature under the same conditions when two chemicals mix you always get the same results. This is natural, and repeatable.

If there is only nature and there is no god, nor designer, nor programmer that created life as something special, or to be specific if there is no supernatural, then there is no free will. If we are simply the result of chemical and environmental reactions over time; then your very thoughts are simply the product of chemical reactions because certain chemicals in certain conditions interact in your brain. They are not truly yours to control, nor controlled by anybody or anything other than the natural conditions in which the reactions occur. Therefore nobody can be responsible for their actions; hence there can be no good or evil actions, since the actions of a person are simply the result of complex chemical reactions. The decision of a soldier to throw herself on a grenade to save her buddies is no more noble or good than the decision to rape and murder somebody. Both decisions are simply the result of certain chemicals being in certain concentrations under certain conditions. If life is just the result of natural powers not some supernatural power no decision or action is more valuable than another.

If you do not believe in a god, then you have to believe the scientifically improvable, improbable, and probably impossible. You have to believe that life spontaneously arose from non-living matter. This theory is un-testable, we cannot create the conditions which existed on earth billions of years ago, and to believe it you must have faith because there is no proof.

To my non-libertarian friends:

I’m a Christian Libertarian, something most of my non-libertarian friends really can’t get a handle on. I actually believe that people have free will and should be free to do as they please so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. That allowing freedom has, and will, provide for the best for all men. Free will is the basis behind the Judeo-Christian ethic; the granting of free will, the exercise of free will, and the consequences of exercising free will are the story of the Bible.

The forefathers of this country, looked upon thousands of years of civilization before them, and applied scientific reasoning determined to how best for people to establish governance. It had only been about 300 years (very short time in man’s history) since Roger Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. This time of the mid 18th century is known as the “age of enlightenment.” Through that “enlightenment” our forefathers believed that men were endowed with unalienable rights, that were independent of the government, and that the best, fairest, most equitable way to govern was to create a government which was limited and protected these rights. The continental North America was populated by people who lived this way. When the ruling elite (King of England), started to arbitrarily take away the people’s rights, they revolted, declared their independence, and penned the foundations of our country.

Our forefathers determined that history showed that power corrupts people, and that all people being free to live free and independent, being allowed own and acquire property, and to do business (or to not do business) with each other under fair laws that applied equally to everybody (no ruling elite, or nobility with special privileges), protecting individuals rights based on sound Christian principles would result in the best overall system of governance for everybody. They didn’t even give the government a monopoly on the use of force, and recognized the right of all men to protect themselves, thus extending the long tradition of the right to keep and bear arms. They argued over slavery and eventually in a bloody civil war the practice was ended. In a very short time, free people, living free lives, became the most powerful country in the world.

Ruling elite, robber barons, rich socialists, and the power hungry have been slowly trying to put the genie back into the bottle. We lived in a country where the government didn’t determine your future, where people can become millionaires from their garage ( HP printer company was a garage startup), where men were freely rewarded by their fellow citizens for the goods and services they provided, and where the common worker can and did, force companies to treat them fairly. Where when organized labor become taken over by some ruling elite, free men could and did choose to work where unions didn’t control their destiny. This whole free will thing really disturbs the ruling elite.

So the ruling elite have gone back to ancient ways (read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and The Prince), we again have bread and circuses. Instead of free people being able to all be treated equally, they choose to try and treat people differently based on race, sex, religion, geography, education, etc. To control the population they are “spreading the wealth”. Television has replaced the circuses, actors have replace gladiators, and welfare has replaced the daily distribution of bread, but the end goal is the same, to control the masses. Anything to keep power, rather than let free people determine how best to spend their money, reward their fellow man, and what charities to provide based on their own free choices. If you think there isn’t a ruling elite, then explain why congress and the government are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act, why they are exempt from OSHA. The government is forcing charity, and forcing how and where people must do business. By law you must now buy government approved services from government approved providers. Not just from whom, and under what conditions you can purchase services, but you no longer have the choice of choosing not purchase a service, this is exactly why we threw out the King and declared our independence.

This country was founded on the Judeo-Christian idea that men have free will, free to enjoy the rewards of wise decisions and free to suffer the consequences of foolish decisions; just as men are free to choose to follow Christ, or not to follow him, and be rewarded or suffer as a result of that decision. The problem with free will is that some people will freely choose not to do what is in their best interest, or choose not to do what the ruling elite want. Some will choose to smoke, or choose to not exercise, or choose to waste their money stuff they don’t need instead of preparing for their future, or choose not to get an education when offered. Because liberals (and many conservatives) don’t believe in a God, they don’t believe in free will, and thus don’t believe that people should suffer (or be rewarded) for the free choices they have made. If you recall Æsop’s fable of the ant and the grasshopper, the grasshopper suffered the consequences of his actions. Today, leaders in our government blame the ant for the grasshopper’s condition, and it uses force to reward the grasshopper with the product of the ant’s hard work. They talk about income redistribution, sounding like they believe in the Marxist theory of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, they actually just want power and control, and use the idea of “spreading the wealth” to justify their power grab. History has repeatedly shown that, under socialist policies, the ruling elite get richer, and everybody else gets poorer, and are just a means of sharing the misery, not sharing the wealth.

Belief in God matters, belief in free will matters, belief in Christian ideas matter. If there is no God, then the idea posed in the famous “B” movie when the Mongol General asked "What is best in life?" and Conan replied "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" is just as valid an idea as Christ’s answer to a similar question posed by the Pharisees, “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… and … To love your neighbor as yourself.”

Of course if there is no God then there is no free will, and none of this really matters.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Christian and Libertarian

Editors note: I've had some people try and confuse my political philosopy of libertarianism, with being a conservative, and with being a Christian. Especially when I attribute libertarian ideals to Christian beliefs. Back when Bush was president VoxDay addressed this issue very well. So I stole it and am reposting it below. I hope he doesn't mind. I'd also recomend that everybody read his book "The Irrational Atheist."


Christian and Libertarian

By Vox Day
http://voxday.blogspot.com
September 01, 2003

Every week, someone asks me what it means to be a Christian Libertarian. Almost as often, I hear from Republicans disgusted with their party's abandonment of its purported principles of small government, social conservatism and adherence to the Constitution, who are nevertheless afraid of switching their allegiance to the godless Libertarians.

It has been said that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. In like manner, a libertarian is a conservative who's been mugged by the government. There is no criminal gang or collection of scam artists who perpetrate even a small fraction of the crimes that the federal government commits and abets – from the forgeries and inflationary confiscations of the U.S. Treasury to the cowardly corruption of the judiciary, from the extra-Constitutional executive orders of the president to the treasonous signings-away of national sovereignty by Congress.

One need not be an atheist or a devotee of Shub-Niggurath to oppose these things. Indeed, I suspect the problem many Christians and conservative Republicans have with making the leap to Libertarianism is that they still see a connection between the concepts of legality and morality. But there is no inherent relationship between the two; indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is not possible to honor both in many aspects of American life.

"It's the law!" is not a moral argument. It is an argument based on the threat of force. Yesterday the law required one to return an escaped slave to his owner; tomorrow it will require one to have an implanted Social Security number when one simply wants to buy Cheerios at the supermarket. The law is not only "an ass," but in a secular society, its moral neutrality is the best for which one can hope. And the law is impossible to obey, even for the most servile citizen – no one truly knows the laws because no one reads them, not even the politicians who pass them!

Then there are those conservatives who simply do not have a real commitment to individual freedom. They believe that government power is like a light switch, to be switched on to enforce policies they favor – such as banning private development on scenic lands – but switched off in the case of policies they do not. This is optimistic lunacy, since the argument for limited government does not rest upon the notion that the government always does undesirable things, but on the idea that if it can, it eventually will.

The same government that has the power to ban a private house on the beach also has the power to sell the beach to Wal-Mart or build a nuclear power plant on it. Since the Founding Fathers understood that a Marcus Aurelius was always followed by a Commodus, they tried to construct a system that would prevent either. Good central government, even when it exists, is a short-lived beast.

And Libertarianism is not inherently godless. In fact, it is the only political philosophy that is truly in accordance with Christianity. The Christian religion posits an all-powerful God who nevertheless permits humanity to turn its back on Him. This shows an extreme respect for free will and for the very sort of individual choice that is banned by Democrats and Republicans alike as they attempt to enforce their will upon the people through the power of government.

The basic principle of Libertarianism is not anarchic. There are real limits. My free will ends where yours begins. Neither the community nor I have any claim whatsoever on your property or your life, and a libertarian legal system would be structured around that principle. Do not be misled by the false "pro-choice" rhetoric of the infanticidal abortionettes; when one individual decides the fate of another, it is nothing more than the ancient law of tooth and claw. Still, their very terminology is the homage vice pays to virtue.

And what of the Christian element? Christianity is integral to the philosophy, as without the spiritual core of its demand for free will responsibility, libertarianism has a tendency to devolve into simple utilitarianism, which eventually leads to the very collectivism it was conceived to oppose. The occasional perversions of princes of the various churches notwithstanding, Christianity is timeless and so provides the inexhaustible spring of moral refreshment that is necessary to any political ideology that hopes to resist corruption over time.

To love Jesus Christ and individual freedom; that is what it means to be a Christian Libertarian.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Biggest Evil of Obamacare

The biggest evil of the recently passed Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with health care or insurance. Embedded in Obamacare is a total government takeover of student loans. This is a recipe for the destruction of our secondary education similar to the government’s destruction of primary education.

Why does the government seek a monopoly on college loans? Or to put it more bluntly, what moral or rational reasoning does the government have in not allowing private entities to loan money to others for education?

Let us consider that government control of K - 12 education has accomplished in the last 50 years. As a society c an you honestly say we are more educated, more well-informed, brighter, self-reliant and self-governing society as a result of the government’s near-monopoly on schooling. Are we more civilized, are we more caring are we better people than before the massive government control. No child left behind is a prime example, it translates into no child gets ahead; to the elimination or scaling down of higher level classes, and vocational classes in favor of ESE classes, and remediation. No longer are there Valedictorians, or competition for the best grades. Teachers are not allowed to post class rankings, as it might make those who don’t perform the best feel less happy about themselves. Gone is the shame of getting a low grade, and gone is the reward for excellence.

Now if the government controls the money for all student loans, it can then dictate college curriculum, dictate what classes are required, and what must be taught. The government can dictate what are acceptable lines of research,; acceptable courses of study, and even dictate how many students can be in what majors. If the government thinks that a school has too many English majors and thinks that it needs more accountants, it can simply deny loans for students with English majors and offer better rates for loans to accounting majors. The government uses money and how it doles it out to control the States, business, and individuals (they can’t mandate drinking age of 21, but they do deny highway funds to states that have a drinking age less than 21, hence the legal drinking age is 21). Taking over all college loans is about control and power not making student loans better for students.

How can a college or university peruse academic excellence, independent of the federal government? Simple, just refuse to accept federal dollars, including student loans with federal strings attached. There are a few colleges and universities in the country that do this, like Grove City College in Pennsylvania. What will happen to Grove City College, and the few other truly independent schools now that the government forces students to become indebted to the federal government? Will the few independent schools be able to remain free from Washington’s intrusion? Obviously this is a way to cripple schools which are free of the federal governments strings.

I’m trying to find some semblance of constitutionality that makes it illegal for any private institution to lend money to college students who need help. It's incredibly daring, and frighteningly unconstitutional. The effect of the government intrusion into education is devastating. It will make in nearly impossible to prepare free men and women to be self-reliant free independent citizens.

The ruling elite of the US want the most advance effective military in the world, it has it. The ruling elite of the US want to be unhindered by constitutional restrictions, it looks like they almost have it. They are working on creating a populace that will not hold them constitutionally accountable. The government is working to try and control what and how every person is educated; their stated goal is usually preparing students for the workplace – mass-producing cogs for society's cogwheels. Obviously the government doesn’t want free thinking, innovative, self-reliant, self-governing, and independent citizens. If it did want those results wouldn’t we have seen them, nobody or even group can be as totally inept as the government has proven to be in education. They have gotten the results they desired, inner city schools more like prisons, and a poorly educated unthinking dependent population. They are working to achieve the same thing in the suburbs and rural America. Look to our government doing like Germany and making homeschooling illegal, and determining what must be taught in private schools. On average home schooled children score higher on every standardized test, do better in college, are independent self starters, and self reliant. The examples are everywhere, voucher programs are successful, charter schools are successful, but the government ends these programs because it doesn’t have control. Total Government control of student loans a power grab, to control universities and colleges, and to control graduates after the fact.

How much more control are you going to give the government?