'Fugitive Slave Act' Shackles Runaway Rappers

Will Alexander| Stolen: Nov 02, 2020 from Townhall.com

Liberal masters and overseers took the whip to a few saucy runaways who had the gumption to think they could escape the Democrats’ ideological plantation. The public whippings are designed to make other slaves think twice about thinking for themselves.  

Whenever high-profile intellectual slaves flee the plantation, gaggles of barking bloodhounds track them down, threaten them, and use intimidation and extreme defamation to drag them back home. It’s become an unwritten Fugitive Slave Act used to perpetuate the left’s peculiar institution: intellectual slavocracy.   

Intellectual slaves are people who hide their true convictions for fear of retribution from ideological slave masters and overseers. They’re given unbridled freedom on political issues as long as they stay within plantation boundaries. Overstep those boundaries, and you get a beating. No exceptions. No excuses. No escape.

Three of the most daring escapes were attempted recently by three rappers: Curtis James “50 Cent” Jackson III, O’Shea “Ice Cube” Jackson, and Dwayne Michael “Lil Wayne” Carter, Jr. They all got whipped, but their reactions to the beatings were different: Cold (50 Cent), lukewarm (Ice Cube) and hot (Lil Wayne).

50 Cent read that Joe Biden’s tax plan would confiscate 62 percent of his income. His gut reaction?

“WHAT THE F***! (VOTE ForTRUMP) IM OUT,” 50 Cent wrote in one of several tweets.  “I don’t care [if] Trump doesn’t like Black people 62% are you out of ya f****** mind [?],” ... I don’t want to be 20cent.”

For as long as it took to send that tweet, 50 Cent inhaled the exhilarating air of freedom. But as he was exhaling, plantation bottom-feeders unleashed the bloodhounds.  

“I had to remind him (50 Cent) that he was a black person,” said ex-girlfriend Chelsey Handler on the Tonight Show. “So he can’t vote for Donald Trump, and that he shouldn’t be influencing an entire swath of people who may listen to him because he’s worried about his own personal pocketbook.”  

Others called 50 Cent a sellout and vowed to boycott his Power TV crime series.

“We won’t forget you sold us out even after the election,” said one tweet. “G Unit gear is trash … as well. Boycott all this waster does.”

The whippings worked. 50 Cent went cold. After less than a week as a fugitive, he ran back to slave territory. Rather than saying what he really thinks, he now thinks what slavers want him to think.  

“Fu*k Donald Trump,” 50 Cent tweeted. “I never liked him …” He also blasted Lil Wayne for tweeting a picture of himself with Trump, writing: “I WOULD HAVE NEVER TOOK THIS PICTURE.”

OK, Curt. Say what you have to. But when you vote, go with your gut.  

The verdict is still out on whether O’Shea “Ice Cube” Jackson remains a free thinker. That’s been challenged. Over the years, he’s authored a bombardment of angry, uneducated anti-Trump invectives – many too vile to repeat – but at least they were his genuine thoughts.

“I will never endorse a mothafu*ka like Donald Trump! EVER!!” he tweeted back in 2016. That was before Trump delivered unprecedented results to the black community; results that may have forced the rapper to rethink the media’s voodoo doll version of Trump.

Ice Cube met with Trump’s people in stealth mode, but plantation hounds soon picked up a scent that he had run off. Word spread that he was “working with Trump” to incorporate some of his “Black Contract With America” into the administration’s Platinum Plan.

Plantation overseer D.L. Hughley, a virulent Trump-hater, said the rapper is not qualified to speak for blacks; that he’s in over his head; and that by working with the president, he’ll end up killing his career because Trump “uses black people as props” and throws them away once he’s done.

Ice Cube gave Hughley the middle finger.

Others called Ice Cube a “sellout,” an “Uncle Tom,” a “coon” and denounced him for going to the “Darkside.”

So Ice Cube blitzed multiple media outlets to set the record straight. In nearly every interview, Ice Cube’s “Black Contract” took a backseat to reporters poking and prodding to see whether he had warmed up to Trump. He never confessed.

“I’m not playing politics with this,” he said.  “I’m willing to meet with anybody who could bring this to life and make it a reality.”  

OK O’Shea. But if you’ve warmed up to Trump and won’t say so because of the whippings, you’re not thinking freely. Taking the middle road will never be enough for these thought tyrants. So if you’ve had a “Malcolm X moment” that you’re keeping to yourself for fear of the thought masters, you’re still shackled to plantation rules.

Of the three rappers, Dwayne Michael “Lil Wayne” Carter, Jr. was the only fugitive to make a clean getaway.   After tweeting a picture of himself with Trump, praising his performance, and saying he’s “a really nice guy,” thought masters pulled out the whip and regurgitated the usual litany of threats and epithets. So far, he’s still off the plantation.

But Lil Wayne has a history of jeopardizing the security of the plantation.m He’s said that all police shouldn’t be blamed for what one policeman did to cause George Floyd’s death. In another interview, he shared a story about how a white policeman saved his life when he was 12 – a cop he affectionally calls “Uncle Bob.”  

“I don’t know what racism is …” he said. “I have never witnessed racism.”

He’s also said that the name Black Lives Matter makes no sense to him and that the group has nothing to do with him because he’s rich.

While it may seem small in the grand scheme of things, the rappers’ gesture toward Trump is signaling that a watershed moment is coming for the abolition of black intellectual slavocracy. The turning point for all three rappers came after they focused more on the real-life implications of policies, rather than on personalities or party politics.

When blacks begin to do that in droves, public whippings will not be enough to keep them shackled to the infantile policies of the Democrats’ ideological plantation.

Why you should hate Democrats.

Start with the Legal Documents that the USA was founded.

Democrats are anti-Declaration of Independence

They openly hate

That it declares all people are created

That it declares all people equal

That it declares all people have the right to liberty

That the People have the right to stop government

Democrats are Anti-Constitution

They Openly hate

Electoral College

Each State having 2 Senators

Limits on Government Power

Democrats are Anti-Bill of Rights

They openly hate 

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of the Press

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Right to Fully Informed Juries

States Rights, etc.

The Hate anybody and everybody who doesn't accept the idea that they should lead everyone, and have the power to control, cancel, dehumanize and eliminate anybody who is inconvenient to their rule.

Because they Hate America and it's founding principles, the Average American, they are openly hostile to any who supports tradtional American Values, you should hate them back.  Being nice are accepting or thinking they just differ in opinion won't do you any good. They hate you and want you dead. They have proven they will destroy their own families if their relatives don't accept their idiotic ideas as gospel. If you dare not accept their sinful values as righteous, they will do everything they can to destroy you.  

That's why you should hate them.  

You are at war with them even if you don't know it.  It doesn't take two to have a war, if you aren't willing to fight an aggressor, you lose and are conquered.  Fight back or lose your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, and right to exist or work if don't pledge alegience to their leftist values. They are treating Orwell's 1984 as a how to guide.  They give you one choice, pledge to their leftist ideas or be canceled.

It's About Power, not Truth, Science is Dead.

By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2020

You'll note the left keeps talking about power, and empowering, etc. They never talk about, nor promote liberty and freedom. They are openly attacking freedom of speech, they want the left to be able to censor those who dare speak something the left doesn't approve, and completely cancel any who dare speak against the left.

The hate free speech, as they realize the if they have the power to control speech, they have power over the masses. They don't want liberty, equality, and freedom for everybody equally, they simply want power.

They have finally succeeded in ending valid scientific research. Getting scientists whose findings don't support their narative fired. So scientists now know that if they do research, it doesn't matter what the actual data says, or with the objective truth exposes, their results must support the mob or the scientist will be canceled.

After the Wall Street Journal that cited the study the mob attacked at UM were “complications” on campus and outraged wokesters demanded that the profs be flogged, or something else terrible.

Professor Hsu told the WSJ: “The MSU professor who conducted that work, psychologist Joe Cesario, tells me that ‘we had no idea what the data was going to be, what the outcome was going to be, before we did this study.’ Mr. Cesario has collected evidence from a simulator and from real-world interactions between police and citizens. He concluded that ‘the nature of the interaction really matters the most, and officers were not more likely to be ready to shoot upon encountering a black versus white citizen.’ Pofessor Hsu has been Canceled.

Michigan State University leaders have successfully pressured Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation after the Graduate Employees Union launched a campaign to oust him from his role.

Once the professor was forced out, the other scientists who worked on the paper are trying to get the paper withdrawn to save their carriers.

The left wants a war against objective truth, and freedom of speech, because both get in the way of them being in power.

Remember all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say and do nothing. This shows that just doing your job and telling the truth will get you attacked by the mob.

If you tolerate SJW's at work, and don't speak up, and keep your head down, just hope and pray, you don't have to tell the truth that the mob doesn't like, or worse yet, you were merely on a "team" that produced results the mob didn't want, or didn't want others to know about. You too will be canceled.

Freedom of Choice – Really??

by Tom Rhodes, 4/23/2013

OK, so the pro-fetus-cide leftist feminists successfully used “Pro-Choice” arguments to legalize abortion. The basis being that a woman has the freedom to do with her body as she wants. Why don’t they want “Pro-Choice” for other actions like:

Freedom to choose how much to charge for your labor

Freedom to choose what animals you may eat

Freedom to choose what type of fats you want to cook with or voluntarily offer to others

Freedom to choose the size of soda you drink

Freedom to choose what chemicals you put in your body

Freedom to choose how much salt is in the processed foods you purchase

Freedom to choose what medical practices you and your doctor agree upon

Freedom to choose who can administer health advice or perform procedures on your body

Freedom to choose immunizations or not

Freedom to choose to eat genetically modified food or not

Freedom to choose to wear a helmet or not

Freedom to choose to wear steel toed shoes or not

Freedom to choose to wear ear plugs or not

Freedom to choose to exercise or not

If you believe that a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, and murder a unique human life, that only exists because of the voluntary actions of another, and in no manor initiated any force against her, but don’t believe everybody should have the freedom to choose those things listed above, you’re a liar and a hypocrite that has put little or no rational thought into your beliefs.

Call it whatever you want, but abortion is the legal premeditated murder a unique human life that is completely innocent. It’s not even a justifiable homicide. The fact that it is legal doesn’t change the fact, that it’s murder with planning and forethought. You can try to justify it however you want to make you feel good, but no amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that virtually every abortion is the murder of a totally innocent unique human being. Rationalizations like the person would be better off not born, than born into the custody of a drug addled single woman with no means of support who might be abusive, supposes that you or any individual has the right to determine which person’s lives are worth living and whose aren’t. You can rationalize that a mere fetus isn’t a person if you want, it’s a lie. The fact is from conception to death it is a unique human being, the only determining factor is the stage of development in that human’s life cycle. Rationalizing that killing a unique human at certain stages of development is acceptable has lead medical “ethicists” to conclude that infanticide should be legal, and have coined the term “post birth abortion” to attempt to lessen the emotional connotations attached to the more accurate term infanticide.

Unfortunately accidents, disease, and other medical conditions make survival from every malady for every person impossible. Medical science has advanced greatly in the past century, and doctors can now save many people who would formerly have died. Sometimes medical and physical conditions are such that doctors have to make the unenviable decision on which lives to save, because time, conditions, resources, etc. make saving everybody impossible. This is a decision process called triage. Triage is the process to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors, in a situation where it is evident that not everyone can be saved. In some rare medical cases doctors must choose between saving the life of a mother or her unborn child. If physically impossible to save both lives, the decision on which life should be saved should be left to the doctor. The emotions of the mother, father, and family could only cloud a triage decision, which is scientific based on survivability. I don’t envy doctors who have to make such decisions, as they can and do weigh heavily on their souls. Triage decisions are not murder, but may result in the failure to save one person while increasing the survivability of another.

So if the murder of an innocent human being is “pro-choice,” how can any “pro-choice” person argue that the government has the right and/or responsibility to dictate the food choices other have, or dictate what you can choose to purchase for food and drink, or a myriad of other choices? These things don’t even have an effect on others directly, while “Pro-Choice” has the effect of ending an innocent human’s life. If you believe in “pro-choice” but also believe the government should regulate, food, safety devices, wages, medicine, etc. you a hypocrite and should put some time into thinking about your conflicting views.

Non PC Questions That Need to Answers.

By Tom Rhodes, 9/4/2012

America is not what it used to be. We no longer hold the top spot for freedom in the world? We are no longer the most economically free, nor the most politically free. Answers to some politically incorrect questions may answer when and why the USA is no-longer the home of liberty she once was. Here are some politically incorrect questions we should ask ourselves, our elected leaders, and political candidates.

When did nannyism become the defacto condition of our federal government?

When did merely presenting clearly Constitutional positions become extreme?

When did the press become the mouth piece for the Democrat Party?

Why did our priorities in war change from protecting the lives of troops, killing the enemy, and breaking the will of the country/group which we are at war, become getting good press, protecting enemy civilians, and building nations?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Because democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority, when did recognizing that, and recognizing that we live in a republic whose government is limited and created to protect the rights of individuals become an extreme position?

When did people acquire the right to the labor and property of others without just compensation?

Why are so many politicians willing to sacrifice every citizens liberty for questionable improvements in their security?

When did an idiot hurting himself by using a product for something it clearly wasn't designed become the fault of the product manufacturer? In other words, when did idiots doing idiotic things become the fault of others?

Why is it racist that the NBA lacks black coaches, and not racist that it lacks Asian players?

Why did "old fashioned" ideas like virginity, chastity, loyalty, and believing marriage is a lifelong commitment become passé?

When did being on welfare, getting fee school lunch, using food stamps, and moving back home with mom and dad after graduating college stop being shameful behavior?

When did having 5 babies from 5 different sires become an acceptable career choice? Or why does society support slutty behavior by increasing financial support to women who engage in risky behavior that results in them having more children with neither the familiar nor financial means of raising them?

Why is it acceptable for public schools to teach about Islam but not about the Bible? Or to but it another way, why is Christianity now the only religion that is acceptable to discriminate against?

When did politicians making openly communistic statements about spreading the wealth cease being nails in their political coffins?

When did the right of the public to remain armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government become the right to have a government approved gun for sporting purposes?

Why is the heart of current political debate on government policies about intentions, motives, or personal characteristics of the debater and not about the policy and whether a it works, or if the policy is constitutional or the cost/benefit analysis of the policy. or if it takes away individual freedom and liberty?

When did the age old wisdom delaying purchases until you can pay for them stop being financially sound advice?

When did freedom of assembly and association become unconstitutional?

When did Freedom become a condition Americans fear to face without government holding our hand?

When did the common expression "Don't make a Federal Case of it" cease to be relevant?

Why do we allow congress to write laws that they are exempt?

Why does "racism" now mean disagreeing with Democrats?

Why did it become acceptable for the President to assassinate US Citizens without due process of law instead of grounds for impeachment, removal from office, criminal trial, and imprisonment?

As a society we have always found some way to limit the taxes on our income to about 20% of our GDP regardless of the legal tax rates; why do politicians think that if they change the tax law, we will ever give them any more than that? With decades and decades of history showing that, why do they spend more than they know they will ever be able to collect in taxes?

When did Liberty quit being a sacred cause which America judged her politicians?

Obamacare, Inspired by Loki

By Tom Rhodes, 6/14/2012



Free and open markets over time always produce the lowest prices for the best goods. From Computers to TVs; from Cars to Car Insurance, competition drives prices down and quality up. The undeniable truth is that he who pays determines what is purchased. Once individuals are no longer responsible and don’t pay for something, they lose the choice in that purchase; the choice of quantity, quality, style, etc. are all determined by the payer. A child may ask for, beg, cry, and demand a certain toy, or pair of shoes but it is ultimately the parent who makes the choice determines the purchase. This applies to our health care too.

Prove it to yourself, look at the cost of auto insurance in New Hampshire, and the wide variety of auto insurance available there. It is cheaper, and you have far more choices in the type and levels of insurance you can purchase than almost any other state in the country. Why??? Because it is not required, you do not have to have auto insurance in New Hampshire, to own and operate a car on the highways and byways of New Hampshire. Auto insurance in New Hampshire has true competition; it is a product that the people are free to purchase or not from a variety of sources. This is a model that can and does work for all insurance sales. Same goes for Homeowners insurance, and any other product and service. When a product or service is required by government regulation it always costs more for inferior quality.

Our current policy of having third parties pay for insurance and health care has caused out of control growth and decrease in choices for health care consumers. The big companies who form “groups” pay for and determine coverage, not the health care consumer. Most people are left with either what their employer offers or nothing. Corporatism, is not free enterprise and open markets. Our current system of employer paying had reduced not expanded health care choices, and once reduced to government not employer paying (single payer) it will get worse, because the person who pays determines the quality, quantity, and value of any product or service.

When you look at car insurance, you see lots and lots of choices, lots of companies selling a huge variety of services. This is because they have to deal with and take care of each individual, not a single HR rep who determines the service for thousands of employees. Because individuals can and do shop around and compare prices, service, quality, and then determine the level of service they can afford or are willing to pay for, they get the best product for the least. Once we accept the idea that government pays for health care, individual choice in what’s covered is gone. If you’re a single male why should you have to pay for coverage of pregnancy, etc. If you want your insurance to be real insurance and only cover true catastrophic health care events, and pay for your own check-ups, and routine care with a high $3000 deductable that should be your choice. But when you don’t pay for your insurance directly, that choice is determined by the guy who pays.

If we really wanted to address health care costs we’d do two things. 1) End third party paying of insurance and/or health care. This means that company’s don’t purchase your insurance, you purchase your insurance. Companies could then increase your pay by what they pay in insurance, and you could shop and compare and buy the insurance that you want not what your employer wants. 2) End the AMA and government monopoly on licensing health care providers. This licensing artificially keeps the supply of healthcare services low thus results in artificially high prices.

We know this model works in health care, Laser eye surgery to eliminate the need of glasses, has advanced dramatically and the cost has plummeted. This is because it is not covered by most insurance and is sold directly to individuals by the service provider who must compete with others in quality, comfort, and price. The results is clear, more people have more access to this health care service for lower cost and have a better service. The same can be said of plastic surgery etc. This should be the model for all health care not just “elective” health care.

Our current system big corporations and/or government decide what we get. As it has everywhere else in the world that it has been implemented, this will result in rationing, corruption, higher costs for poorer services. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide who get’s paid how much, which will result in the smartest and brightest exiting the business and put their drive and talent to something that they not the government controls. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide how long we wait for specific procedures, or even if some live saving procedures are available at all, or to whom. We will find that if your over a certain age, the decision isn’t between you, your family, and your doctor over exactly what efforts, and how much if any efforts are made to keep you alive, it will be the decision of unelected bureaucrats, who will weigh the value of your life to the cost of maintaining it. After a certain age you will be allowed die. It may be as subtle as simply “delaying” treatment or as overt as saying after age 65 the government’s health care your are not eligible for kidney dialysis.

We haven’t had a free market for medical services for a long time, we have a system with limited competition because of FDA and other government regulations. This non-free market system also has artificially stimulated demand because of tax laws that promote third party paying of both health care and health insurance.

Even with our limited free market for medical services, when completion is allowed pricing goes down. Look at the health insurance for schools in Wisconsin, where once school systems were allowed to shop for insurance instead of purchasing from a “sole provider” they were able to eliminate huge deficits and save millions. When allowed, free markets produce better service, lower costs, and more innovation than government controlled industries. This simple fact is not something those on the left, so-called progressives, hate to recognize, and they attack using emotional straw man arguments, because the facts support free markets not government control.

The entire theory behind the Obamacare mandate, and the entire Obamacare law is that “We The People” cannot take care of ourselves, and that they leftists as superior beings know better than the masses, and that “We the People” should be thankful for their benevolent control of our actions, and accept that they not “the People” can and should determine how we live our lives. The attitude of the left towards health care reflects their belief that “We the People” would be better off and happier if we’d just give them control. The left act and sound more like Loki in the Avengers movie and the actions are clearly against the ideas which founded this country as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the accompanying Federalist Papers.

“It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled.” ~ Loki

This reflects the expressed beliefs of the left, specifically Obama. Like Loki, Obama and the left really don’t care about “We the People” they just want power. Obama doesn’t want individuals to achieve as much as they can, he wants to determine at what point “you’ve made enough money.” Obama hates self reliant individuals, but isn’t surprised that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”, but wants all the people to just accept what he and others on the left have decided is in our best interest. He would treat those who stand up to him the way Loki treated the elder who stood against him in the Avengers. Obama actually believes that “We the People” want the government to take care of us and rule us. He doesn’t believe “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.”

He believes that he, the ruling elite, can and should determine what makes each individual happy, that he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what services and products you must purchase or are allowed to purchase. That he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what we eat, what we drive, where we live, how we use our private property, and even if we should be allowed to accumulate property. Obamacare is a reflection of Loki (Obama) not a reflection of the will of “We the People.” I’ll bet when Obama looks in the mirror he sees this:

A Light Bulb Moment

By Tom Rhodes, July 11, 2011


The difference between statists and libertarians, statists being the bulk of both Democrats and Republicans, is that the statists believe they know what’s best for you, and don’t think you should have the liberty to choose what you think is in your own best interest. This is called the Nanny State, or paternalism. The government wants to take away your choice. It doesn’t trust you to make your own choices. Do you get that? The government doesn’t trust you.


The best description between libertarians and statists can be represented by the lowly light bulb. Statists have decided that you are too stupid to pick the right light bulb; therefore they are taking away your freedom to choose how you want to light up your private living space. Libertarians on the other hand, don’t think that the choice of how to illuminate your private living space is any business of the government.





The reasoning for using one type of light bulb over another goes far beyond just energy usage, other factors include; quality of the light provided, the initial cost, the total cost of ownership, and even heat. Yes HEAT, the energy used by an incandescent light bulb that does not go to making light is heat, some say wasted heat. The fact is in a small well insulated house the heat produced from lighting is not wasted, and may provide enough warmth to negate the need for additional heating, and certainly supplements heating during the colder months. This heat when chilly, if it doesn’t come from a light bulb will have to come from some other source. Your thermostat doesn’t know where the heat it is measuring came from, furnace, space heater, or light bulb, it makes no difference.


Some of you don’t like the way the new bulbs come on slowly. Some of you don’t like the curlicue shape. Some of you don’t like not being able to attach your lamp shade to the bulb. Some of you just don’t like cold flickery fluorescent light. Some of you have noticed that CFL’s don’t in fact last longer than incandescent bulbs, and cost a lot more. Some of you are skeptical about promises of long-term savings. Some of you don’t want to spend more for a CFL now. Yet others of you hate having to shut down your furnace, air conditioner, and/or fans, evacuate all children and pets, and treat your home like a hazardous waste site if you happen to break a carcinogenic mercury filled CFL type light bulb.


It doesn’t matter what you need or what you prefer or what you think is in your own best interests. The government has decided that the only concern is watts per lumen, and you are too stupid to realize that. Your other wants and needs are not as relevant. Because the government thinks you’re too stupid to realize that your needs are subservient to the government desires, it doesn’t trust you to make the decision they want you to make, so has taken away your freedom to make that choice.


It doesn’t matter whether a statist calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, they believe in statism. Statism is the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. When the government decries what light bulb you must use, or what food you can eat, or how much you should save, they are saying to you that you are too ignorant, too weak-willed, and computationally too incompetent to satisfy your real or underlying preferences. You save too little for your retirement because you are overly impatient and cannot postpone spending. You eat too many calories because you ignore the costs of future illness due to obesity.


This is the difference between statists and libertarians in a nutshell. Statists don’t trust you and believe that they are better able to decide what’s best for your life than you can; so they take away your freedom (choice) for your own good. Libertarians believe that the state can’t possibly know what’s best for every individual so you and every individual should have the freedom to choose what you feel is in your own best interest. Statists simply put hate freedom.

Are We Free Men or Serfs?

by Tom Rhodes, 7/7/2011

Capitalism is nothing more than a subcategory of freedom – the freedom to trade one's goods and services with others without interference from government. When somebody talks about the "evils of capitalism" they are saying that freedom is evil. The idea that people should not be allowed to trade their property (goods) and labor (services) to others without the government interfering is not freedom.

The government’s sole responsibility concerning commerce in a free society should be to protect individual’s rights. This has traditionally been done by the government providing impartial judges and courts that allow individuals to sue other individuals when they believe that individual has not honored the contracted terms of their free exchange of property and/or labor.

Self-rule and freedom is fleeting. Freedom is not the natural condition for man. History has shown that freedom has occasionally existed for short periods of time but has never lasted long. The natural condition is for a few powerful elite to live in relative ease with armies to back them up through force or threat of force to control the resources and people with the vast majority living in poverty. The conditions today of the people living in Zimbabwe, Somalia or Afghanistan are more in line with historic norms for all of mankind than the conditions seen by the average man in the USA over the past two hundred years. The Idea of freedom and liberty for all is not easy to keep, or implement. Even the first 87 years of US history with legal slavery, is proof enough of that. As the saying goes “Freedom is not Free.” It has many costs.

One of the costs of freedom is uncertainty, as people are free to trade or not trade, hire or not hire, purchase or not purchase, work or not work. When people are free, they can compete, when there is competition then some people win and some lose. That means your business and hard work may or may not succeed, and if it fails you may lose your livelihood and cost those who work for you their livelihoods. This cost of freedom, uncertainty, is a high cost that some are not willing to pay. Many people will trade their freedom for certainty. They may not be as well off as they could be free, but the certainty of food, shelter, etc. is worth more to them than their freedom.

Some people with "vision" use this as a means to undermine freedom and make themselves the ruling elite. They promise that if you give me control, I will take away the uncertainty and you will be taken care of no matter what happens in life. These same people when in power, actively work to limit competition. Granting favors to companies and individual that help them keep their power, and making it harder for new people to enter into competing business.

Our country was made great by having a government that protected the natural rights, including property rights of all individuals equally. This did not result in equal outcomes as some through timing, hard work, competition, and natural ability do better than others. Overall by protecting freedom we did produce the most prosperous and generous society the world has ever seen. The very nature of our country was a slap in the face to the ruling elite across the world. Over the past century, those who would rule and control who is wealthy and who isn’t have slowly corrupted our country and the freedom we had is ebbing away. For our first 140 or so years, as a free country, although some people gained great wealth the difference between the top and bottom in the USA was not so great. As we gave away our freedom and embraced socialist ideas such as “from each according to his ability, to each according to their need” we have seen a greater disparity between rich and poor. By using the idea of certainty in our needs instead of freedom to pursue our needs and desires, we have allowed once again a few to concentrate power and wealth amongst themselves.

Once the idea that people have a right to the goods and services of another that they need, not just the right to trade for those goods and services freely, and that some ruling elite has the right to use force to make it so, we accepted the end of freedom and are once again on the path to subjugation. The idea that charity is not charity but a right is perverted. Nobody has the right to the labor or justly acquired property of another. Ideas such as the ruling elite have the authority to “spread the wealth” are anti-freedom. Once we accept the fact that a few elites have the right to the product of all risk and labor of the people (as measured by income) and use it as they see fit (providing for themselves and others in society) we are once again serfs, not free men. Although they allow people to keep a portion of their labor, the idea is that the government owns all your labor and determines what portion you may keep for yourself. This is no different than feudal serfdom or slavery.

This is not to say that free men don’t have a duty to pay taxes. For most if its life our Government survived on tariffs, user fees, postage, and other taxes. Direct taxation of labor was unconstitutional. There are problems collecting these kinds of taxes. One is the people see the tax directly so are conscious of what the government is taking. Another is that if the people feel a tax is unjust or usurious, not only do they change their vote, but find a means to avoid the tax, again adding a layer of uncertainty to government revenue. Another is that that if people choose to live frugally then the government revenue is decreased, and so revenue was uncertain. Demonstrating again a cost of freedom is uncertainty. By taxing labor (income), regardless of how a person chooses to live, or what government services he chooses to use, the government not the people is in charge and has control. The aristocracy finds this much easier to manage than being at the will and whim of the people.

Freedom in the USA is fleeting; the police no longer serve and protect the people, but are enforcers of arbitrary wishes of the ruling elite who pay them; no longer do judges serve as impartial arbiters of justice, both Actus Reus Versus Mens Rea are legal concepts our ruling elite no longer consider; Our government lays claim ownership of our real property and labor, you only rent your property and do not own it, and the government only allows you to keep that portion of your earnings they grant you. You are no longer free to trade your property and labor to others without government interference.



How are we now any different than feudal serfs, other than we vote for our aristocracy? A person no longer owns property, they rent it from the elected aristocracy, if the aristocracy thinks it can get more rent from somebody else, they will kick you out and give it to another. The aristocracy is your overseer and claims first right to your labor, they get your income first, and we serfs are allowed to keep that portion of our labor they allow. If they were truly taxing our income then you’d get a tax bill on a regular basis and pay your taxes. That doesn’t happen because the aristocracy doesn’t trust the people, as the people would revolt in mass if they had to actually pay taxes, so the aristocracy take our income before we ever see it and only allow us to keep a portion of it.

If the poor schlep making $24K working two jobs was forced to write a $1000 check every three months then file in April to get some of it back, we’d see a lot smaller government in a short time. If taxes weren’t reasonable the average citizen would non-violently revolt by simply not sending in his taxes. If a mere 5% of the people simply refused to pay taxes (that’s over 15 Million People) what could the government do? They couldn’t bring that many people up on charges, have a jury trial, and put them in jail. It would so overwhelm the government as to cripple it with both a loss of revenue and an overloaded court system. Knowing this the ruling elite slowly changed the system so that the average Joe only get’s what the government determines he should, and is none the wiser.

The aristocracy has declared that they have first right to all labor and by not taxing the least productive serfs they have purchased votes to maintain their aristocratic positions. They use the tried and true method of “Bread and Circuses” to keep a large part of the masses in compliance. Of course they keep rules in place that don’t allow for people without power to compete with those the aristocracy favors, and generously reward those whom support their power.

The normal condition for man is for a few ruling elite to wield power and force over the vast majority of people who live in poverty. The USA with its notions of freedom and self-rule will not last, freedom never has. The aristocracy will drive the country into financial ruin to gain power. Their goals are not prosperity, freedom, and independence for all, but the re-concentration of power into the hands of a few. We are seeing huge crushing attacks on freedom, like the patriot act and its renewal. I hope I’m wrong but if I’m right we will soon see more limits on free speech and assembly, watch for stricter controls of the internet, specifically YouTube, blogs, and who can report news. If I’m right we will see attacks on independent media, and attempts to control all news, and the exposure to the infringement of our freedoms. If I’m right we will see appeals to the UN or other International bodies to have greater authority than our Constitution. If I’m right we will see the aristocracy try to disarm the people as they have in Europe and other far less free societies. Project “Gunrunner” is just the tip if the iceberg for the aristocracy to try and find justification to disarm the serfs. Once disarmed the march back towards serfdom is inevitable. Already they have demonized weapons, and are trying to change the rationale behind the Second Amendment to exclude the idea that it was included not for hunting or self protection from criminals, but as a means for the people to be armed enough to stop a tyrannical government.

They have already convinced a significant portion of the population that they have a right to the goods and services of others without having to pay for them. In fact the aristocracy has convinced a significant portion of the population that their mere existence “entitles” them to the goods and services of others. Once the idea that individuals do not have rights to personal property and labor, and the idea that the aristocracy can take away the uncertainty that accompanies freedom and make everybody’s life secure by controlling the distributing all property and labor as they see fit, freedom is no longer valued. In fact freedom is considered selfish and evil, because if people are free and have individual rights, then the masses don’t have the right to property and services they haven’t earned.

Our founding fathers started with a Declaration of Independence, not the declaration to “spread the wealth.” They used words like Freedom, Independence and Liberty. Each of which refers to a dearth of undue restrictions and an opportunity to implement one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the implementation of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement. Independence implies not only lack of restrictions but also the ability to stand alone, unsustained by anything else: Independence of thought promotes invention and discovery. This of course carries the implication that others cannot be forced to sustain you should you fail. Capitalism is nothing more than a subcategory of freedom - the freedom to produce, trade, and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. Freedom, Independence and Liberty are embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative. The ruling elite in Washington are now compromising all that has embodied Freedom in the USA.

Crime, Punishment and Justice

On November 15, 2010 the Associated Press reported the following:

DETROIT -- Michigan high school teacher Jay McDowell says he didn't like where the discussion was going after a student told his classmates he didn't "accept gays."

So McDowell kicked the boy out of class for a day.

In return, the teacher was suspended for a day without pay for violating the student's free speech rights...

The Constitution of the United States, includes a Bill of Rights, which doesn’t grant rights to anybody, but assumes people have the rights and severely limits the government from infringing on those rights. The US Constitution is not politically correct and does not place the ideas and speech of some people’s values over the ideas and speech of others. Wanting to instill a value of “tolerance” does not give the government or any of its agents, the right to stifle speech they don’t approve. That is exactly what Jay McDowell did when he threw the student out of class because he didn’t like the “where the discussion was going.”

It is a shame that a teacher was so intolerant and thought he had the right to punish a student for exercising his right to free speech. What is good is that he was rightly reprimanded and punished proportionately.

Far too often do we see disproportionate punishment for "crimes." The reason for a fine or punishment is to deter future bad behavior and offer restitution to the victim. In this case Justice was served; the minimal punishment did both. It affirmed that student's right to free speech, it sent the message to other students that the school would protect their basic civil rights, and deterred not only the McDowell but other teachers from infringing on the rights of other students in the future. More severe punishment would have been counterproductive, costly, and unjust.

Compare that to the punishment another student received when she had a plastic butter knife in her lunch box. The typical punishment for that offence is expulsion from school for having a weapon. This zero tolerance nonsense is not proportionate to what reasonable people would not even consider a crime. Whereas McDowell, as an agent of the government, clearly violated the civil rights of the student, in the other case a powerless minor committed no crime. It seems the punishment associated with zero tolerance government rules for minors is to instill a fear, and belief that the government has the authority and right to force you to obey any rule or regulations they want, and failure to obey will be severely punished.

We must as citizens all try to hold our government accountable, even the petty tyrants in our public school systems. We can and did hold our government officials accountable as reported in the news this week in the story of a middle school boy who was ordered to remove an American Flag he put on his bike to honor veterans.

Friday, 12 Nov 2010, 5:05 PM EST
SACRAMENTO - A boy in California is now allowed to ride to school with an American flag. Earlier this week, a middle school told 13-year-old Cody Alicea to take the flag off his bike. He was carrying the flag to honor veterans, like his own grandfather. He had been riding his bike with the flag for about two months.

The school district says the boy was asked to remove the flag because some students complained about it and apparently made threats.

School officials worried students would come to school with flags from other countries, sparking racial tension and possible violence. . .

Thank God for the uproar of the American people. The uproar forced the California school board to reverse its decision. I read in one account where a US Soldier in Afghanistan called the school board to complain. It was absurd for the government agents to think that they can deny a boy his civil rights because others didn’t like his expression. This is the so called hecklers veto. The first action should have been to focus on those students who made threats, not take away the rights of the student who violated no laws, nor rules, nor rights of another. But the government now says that because your exercise of your civil rights may upset others, and those others may do criminal things, you are responsible for the criminal actions of people who don’t want you to express an opinion or idea they don’t like.

How did this country get to the government that thinks it can silence citizens who express non politically correct ideas? It is hard to fathom how and why we accept a government that punishes a child who is threatened rather than hold accountable those who do the threatening.

We are teaching our children that their rights are not important, and that the government can take them away at will, without due process, without proof, without cause, just because zero tolerance and other stupid school rules make it easier for the school to maintain order. Contrary to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law which says you have a right to defend yourself, the general rule in most schools that if you are caught fighting you are suspended. So if a high school bully with failing grades who doesn’t care about learning decides to pick on a good kid and the kid defends himself (or worse yet steps in to defend a smaller weaker kid from the bully), the victim (or defender) gets punished along with the bully. If you’re a white middle class kid, who’s only hope at college is an academic scholarship, then that 5 day suspension could cost you your GPA and thousands of dollars of scholarship funds and the bully gets what he wanted, out of school. The victim is assumed guilty and there is no due process, and no defense. The zero tolerance for fighting policy of most Florida schools punishes victims, and violates the civil rights of students. We are teaching our children: that they don’t have basic civil rights, that they must be cowards, they must never stand up for themselves or others, and meekly obey the government tyrants, or be punished. Regardless of what our Constitution says, our actions and the actions of our government are teaching our youth that the government does not protect individual civil rights, and that punishments are drastically disproportionate to the crime, if the crime is failure to obey the government.

This zero tolerance policy has but one purpose, to teach our children that they never have the right to use force for any reason and that the government (school) has a monopoly on the use of force, and that there are no limits to what authority can do. This zero tolerance policy also teaches that justice does not exist, and can be denied for the convenience of the authority. This is contrary to the US and Florida constitutions and laws but is exactly what the ruling elite what the public to believe. The idea that no individual has the right to use force for any reason is contrary to the Constitution, Declaration of Independents and even the Libertarian Party Platform; which states “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. . . . and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of selfdefense.”

There is a need for legitimate authority, our children should be taught to respect those in authority, and obey all legitimate requests of that authority, BUT they should also be taught there are limits to government authority, what those limits are, how to respectfully stand up to the illegitimate exercise of authority, and when if necessary to use force to defend themselves or others. As citizens and parents, we must stand up for the rights of our children against the tyrannical excess of authority. If we want our future to have liberty, not an all controlling socialist nanny state, then this is where we start. Educating our children and protecting their rights. If students now coming of age and future generations believe that only the government has a legitimate claim to the use of force, that the government can silence ideas and speech they don’t like, and that it can deny justice for convenience, then we are no longer the home of the free and the brave, but the home to slaves.

I’m encouraged by the national uproar that forced one small government school district to uphold the civil rights of one boy. That uproar should be happening in every school district across the country. We must end the systematic attacks on civil rights, end stupid zero tolerance rules and insist that our schools teach the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the true meaning of Liberty and Justice for all.

Extremism and the American Dream

"The next time you hear someone customizing the American Dream to suit his redistributionist agenda, ask him to show you one provision in the Constitution that provides for the government to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens. He can't." from the article Extremism and the American Dream by Robert Ringer

It is a waste of time to provide logical arguments to liberals.

Honest debate about political issues is impossible because of the irrationality of liberal doctrine. When a person’s principles are demonstrably based upon fallacy and devoid of rationale; all their rhetoric and precepts lead to their proffered result regardless of how they must torture logic, it borders on idiocy to engage that individual. Many of these individuals are so devoted to their core Beliefs, that regardless of how deeply irrational or perverse those beliefs are they cling to them the same way an alcoholic clings to the bottle.

Fervent Supports of Barrack Hussein Obama and his policies now openly advocate fascist, Marxist, and socialist policies into our political process. The history of the last century clearly show that when these ideas are implemented, individual freedom and liberty are eliminated and millions of people are eliminated (leaders to implement these ideas include Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler). They all implemented state control of education, healthcare, and industry.

Obama’s history, personal associations, and years of rhetoric in Chicago and national politics show him to be a fascist who wants to implement single payer health care. He has instituted more “Czar’s” than any president in history, positions that skirt the constitution. These unelected people, un-accountable to the senate or the people can and do institute policy, when exposed are extreme socialists and communists, who believe the ruling elite know better what “we the people” need than we do ourselves. Obama is a smart man; he has only been doing what he believed he could get away with. He has succeeded in taking over our largest banks and two of the Big Three auto manufactures, and wants government control of our health services industry. What has succeeded has been due to our widespread apathy and ignorance. The only reason government control of health care hasn’t been rammed down our throats yet is due to his miscalculations.

Considering health care, good people with their heart in the right place see that some people in the US suffer because they cannot afford the best health services the USA has to offer. They read about millions of people who are hurt by our current system due to no fault of their own, and feel something should be done. They falsely assume that people without health insurance don’t have health care. When you eliminate those who can but choose not to purchase insurance, the poor who qualify for existing programs but choose not to participate, and illegal aliens, the 40 million people without insurance in the USA actually equates to 10 million who fall through the cracks. The governments own numbers say that if the current Democrat proposed health care plans are implemented there will still be about 10 million who fall through the cracks. 10 million people is about 3% of our population, that means that 97% of our people receive health care; 80% of the population is satisfied with their health care (including those without insurance).

People who can and have need of the most advanced medical services fly to the USA to receive those services, they don’t fly to Canada, England, or Cuba. In Canada you can get a diagnostic MRI in 24 hours, if you’re a dog, otherwise you have to wait months. There are countless stories of people in countries with government controlled single payer health care who die waiting for treatment, or come to the USA and pay for it themselves. Compare medical innovations discovered and perfected in the USA to the rest of the world. The evidence is overwhelming when government controls and provides medical services to everybody for free, the results are less innovation, rationing of services, poorer services, and shortages.

In general, good people with their heart in the right place, see that some people in the US suffer; they in good conscience don’t want others to suffer. Nobody of good heart wants to see others suffer. With few exceptions most people or their children suffer because of their own decisions. The USA with its constitution which limits the government not the people, a country with no class system, where what your father did has no bearing on what you as an individual may accomplish, is a country which had more liberty and freedom for individuals to succeed than any other in history. With the liberty to advance from a business in your garage to the mighty Apple Inc., also comes the liberty to fail. The capitalistic system allows each individual to be rewarded based on how his fellow citizens value the service he provides through private exchange of services and money. The people have determined that the services and products Bill Gates, as provided are worth more than the services and products provided by your local grocery store bag boy. That’s why college dropout Bill gates is a gazillionaire and the bag boy makes minimum wage. But there is nothing stopping the bag boy from becoming another Bill Gates. Even persons with poor natural talent, bad looks, and low IQ like Rush Limbaugh can parley republican shtick into a fortune.

For some inexplicable reason liberals don’t want anybody to suffer the consequences of bad decisions they make. They don’t want persons who choose to drop out of school rather than apply themselves to suffer with poor wages that make their standard of living less. They don’t want person who chooses not to save for retirement to suffer poverty in old age. They don’t want the person who chooses not to purchase insurance to suffer the financial consequences of a severe illness or accident. They don’t want those who borrow more than they can repay to suffer foreclosure. They don’t even want the investors in big private businesses to suffer the loss of poor management. When people say that “no one should die because they cannot afford health care and not one should go broke because they get sick”, they are saying nobody should suffer the consequences of the risks they choose to take.

Worse yet for some inexplicable reason statists want to punish those whose decisions have lead them to success. Rather than have all in society pay taxes proportionally to what they are paid by society, they disproportionally tax those who succeed, and reward those who fail. It is twisted, why should anybody who doesn’t pay taxes get a tax “refund”? They want those whose choices have enabled them to provide for themselves to pay for the bad choices of others. The reasoned conclusion is that statists don’t believe that people can make decisions about their own lives; that some “leaders” know better what decisions individuals should make. The only logical conclusion is that they don’t believe in Liberty or Freedom, because to have liberty not only does one have the freedom to succeed but must be allowed suffer the consequences of exercising their liberty.

Christ said “There will always be the poor”, that is because God also gave us free will. Some people will make poor choices. The American people can and do take care of those who through no fault of their own, cannot take care of themselves. After the Tsunami the American people privately send more money and supplies than any other country, much less what we did through our government. St. Jude’s Hospital and the many Shriner Hospitals take care of children for free, the most effective aid after Katrina didn’t come from FEMA it came from private industry, churches, and individuals who willingly volunteered and sacrificed to help those in need.

Good liberals ignore history, and the wisdom passed down through the ages. They forget that it is because of suffering that we learn to make good choices. People learn through both reward and suffering, both individually and as a society. A child quickly learns through suffering that touching a hot stove is a bad choice. The first settlers to the USA established a communal society, where everybody had an equal share to everything society produced, the result was that many starved to death, and the first colony to the USA was nearly wiped out. By reestablishing individual private property rights, and the right to reap the benefits of good choices and hard work, and suffer the consequences of poor choices and laziness, the colony soon flourished. As a society early colonists learned that communal property and everybody being given what they need regardless of what they provide to society results in all of society suffering. In more modern history the former USSR and communists of the last century taught the world that socialism and communism lead to tens of millions of deaths and a lower standard of living for all but the ruling elite. The rule of law, property rights, capitalism and liberty has lead to the highest standard of living in history, where even the poor have color TV, AC, and microwave ovens. Compare the amount of freedom a country has to the standards of living of the people of that country and there is a direct corollary. The freer a country is the higher the standard of living that country has.

It is a fallacy to think that nobody should suffer the financial effects of an illness or accident. People only suffer the financial effects of an illness or accident because they or their legal guardians fail to prepare for it. Regardless of facts, of history, of reality, of reason, or of logic liberals desperately want nobody to suffer. To try and alleviate the suffering of a few they are willing to destroy the liberty of all. Or they are elitists who think that they know what’s best for everybody and are willing to destroy the liberty of all for what they think is best. In either case freedom and liberty have been removed from the liberals’ vocabulary.

Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today

Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today

Let's start with H.R. 675. This House resolution Provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/show

The authorities granted by the bill:

To execute and serve warrants;

To make arrests without warrants;

To carry firearms;

To enforce federal laws enacted to protect persons or property;

To prevent breaches of the peace and suppress affrays or unlawful assemblies

Why does the DOD or some new Federal police force need the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms? The FBI can already do that, and the Justice Department can prosecute federal crimes. I believe that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prohibits the Department of Defense from involvement in state and local law enforcement activities. So the whole reasoning behind HR675 just doesn't' make legal sense, and no where in any of the 28 powers authorized to congress is there a power to create a federal law enforcement agency. By the specific restrictions on the Federal Government in the 9th and 10th amendments tot he constitution the power to police is specifically restricted to the states or the people.

This sounds like Obama is trying to do exactly what he told us he'd do when running for office. Form a national police force that is not accountable to the people but accountable to Him, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's? If I remember my pre-PC history, I believe that Hitler did the same thing, it was called the Gestapo.

The first amendment to the US Constitution says that congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So what is an unlawful assembly? Any assembly the government doesn't approve? This HR wants to prevent "unlawful assemblies", didn't Germany do that in the 1930's. Those laws were used to arrest those how tried to protest against the Nazi party.

Earlier in this blog I wrote about Democratic congress persons claiming that those who would actually hold elected officials accountable and publicly tell them they would vote them out of office if they vote raise taxes are Terrorists.. They are trying to use a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine to shut down Talk Radio, and proposing other laws to shut down blogs, etc. to restrict what the press can and can't say or who can and can't say what. Didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.

There are several bills before congress that would require the registration of all firearms, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.

Obviously because current police and military have taken an oath to protect the constitution and the people, and are held accountable if they execute unconstitutional orders, the Democrats in Washington want to create this federal police force.

Obviously the virtues independence and individual freedom are not those of the Democrats and power mongers in Washington. Government control seems to be the virtue they most want cherish.

Rights and Government

Here in the USA we have a unique form of government founded on principles that no other government created before or sense has ever been based. This form of government was codified in two very short documents, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Let’s first discuss why a government exists. A government is loosely defined as: The Body or group which exercises the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. Most if not all societies have regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The common characteristic of most societies and hence their government’s is the fact that the government stands above the moral law. To put it succinctly whatever the government deems as moral is moral. Governments through history impressed upon individuals that self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.

To quote Ayn Rand, "The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.... All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time." Our Forefathers held a different belief that a man’s life is his by right, and that a right is the property of an individual. They believed that society as such has no rights. They wrote about and established the government of the United States based on the idea that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

If you read the Bill of Rights in the US constitution, you’ll note that it limits the government not individuals. You should also note that it limits the government from infringing on peoples actions, it does not limit objects. You don’t have the freedom to have something you have the freedom to do something. Your rights/freedoms are meaningless unless you have the right to the consequences of your actions. Hence property rights are a right to an action, they are not a insurance that a man will earn any property, but only an insurance that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

Go read the The Bill of Rights. What is common among all of them. They limit Government not individuals. None of these rights depends upon the action or property of another individual.

There is no moral ground for any individual to take the labor or force another to do any specific action. Since acquiring property is the result of the actions of individuals, no other individual has the right to the property of another.

Consider the eight listed economic rights from the 1960 Democratic Party platform, which mirror the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

Above it was clearly stated that an individual has the freedom to the results of his own actions. Let’s look at the right to travel. If you have a right to travel, then you have the right to acquire means to travel. In the US that usually means a car. You have the right to own a car. You do not have the right to force others to give you a car, or if your car is broken to fix your car. Hence an auto mechanic has the right to be paid for his services; nobody has the right to force him to repair their car unless the mechanic voluntarily chooses to do so for whatever compensation is agreed upon. The mechanic may if he chooses offer his service for free, but is under no moral obligation to give away his service. You do not have the right to use force to make him fix your car.

Considering our "Healthcare Crisis" let’s just examine #6. Does an individual have the right to the labor of another without just compensation? The answer is clearly NO. You have a right to life, hence your body is your own, not somebody else’s. Just like the car in our example above, if your body is somehow broken you do not have a right to have a mechanic (doctors, nurses, hospital owners, and drug company share holders) fix it. How then can you have a "right" to adequate medical care? Your medical care depends upon the property and actions of other individuals. You have no right to another person’s labor so have no right to adequate health care.

Considering #5, you have a right to a decent home, but you do not have the right to force others to provide you with one.

Considering #7 You have the right to a good education, but you do not have the right to force others to provide you with one.

All of the Economic rights listed above are not rights, but means for government to convince people to give up their rights. All of these so called Economic Rights depend upon taking the labor of one person and giving it to another. To make this more clear, read Article 29 from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN believes that society can subject and limit individual rights to secure the "rights" of others. In other words society has the right to your labor to make sure others have property.

None of the activities of Obama (and most of Bush’s activities), corporate bailouts, healthcare, taking over GM, forcing Chrysler into a deal with Fiat, etc. are moral, or even constitutional. While we are distracted from the true nature and actions of our government over so-called but non-existent economic rights, we are missing the degradation of our political and property rights.

The wealthy, gun owners, property owners, drug companies, etc. are not a threat to other individual’s rights or freedom. A entity who resorts to physical force, fraud, etc. and violates the rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against him. Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men.

Obviously our government no longer believes in the principles the US was founded. The UN has never believed in those principles and even clearly states that individuals only have the rights that Law allows. Think about what it means to have the rest of the world which doesn't believe in our founding principles, determine what our laws should mean, or what we should have to do, or force their beliefs upon us.

Our government was created to protect the rights of individuals, not groups, not society, but individuals. How can any of the actions of our government over the receint past be considered to be doing what our government was instituted to do. Jefferson may have been right and from time to time the tree of liberty............

...

Thomas Jefferson Quotes of Interest

Thomas Jefferson Quotes of interest.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Make Mine Freedom

This 1948 cartoon, sounds like it was made by libertarians today. This video is probably the best illistration of what the Libertarian Party stands I've ever seen.



Of course this video uses old terms like Capitalist, Freedom, and shows the evils of the State. Why are we giving our freedoms to the state? And what are we getting in exchange for our freedoms? All I can see is tyrany, distruction of rights, and loss of the rule of law/

4th Amendment Still Under Attack

Ok these guys are "Freedom Activists", meaning they know their rights and don't comprimise them. Not a bad position to take and a position every American should take.

3 young guys going from NewOrleans to Nashville, stopped in Jones County MS because the deputy doesn't like their temporary tag from New Hampshire.

They do nothing illegal except refuse to give police any more information than they are legally required to give. They are arrested for failing to obey an officer. Funny thing you are only required to obey legal orders from an officer. You do not have to obey any unconstitutional orders. The order the passengers didn't obey was providing identification papers. Since one of our protected constitutional freedoms is travel across the country without having to have government papers, permission, or identification, this was an unlawful order.



I hope the Jones County Sheriff and deputies get sued and held accountable for trashing the constitutional rights of US citizens. You can read more about it at Motor Home Diaries.

The Two America's

The USA is split, not by rich or poor, black or white, legal or illegal, liberal or conservative. In short ideologically split by those who believe in liberty and those who believe in socialism. It is split by sovereign and slave.

It is divided into two by those who believe that people are sovereign individuals and that our government is made of men and therefore imperfect. As such the government was created with limits not on the rights of individuals but on what government can do in the name of all. That individuals are responsible for themselves and that the government is not responsible to feed, house, and nurture individuals. That as a sovereign individual I am responsible to provide for myself and my family. That what a sovereign has is a product of talent, ambition, labor and the decisions made throughout life. Slaves consider this greed. The Sovereign believes that failures to reach his goals are not the fault of somebody else but his own failure. The Sovereign believes that support comes from her family and friends.

The other part of the USA believes that it is luck not individual effort, ability, and drive that has made people what they are. That everybody through the government should be provided with basic housing, healthcare, food, and even a job. That the people are subservient to the government. That if somebody earns more than the basics that they have an obligation and duty to give that extra to those who's own effort hasn't produced as much. That those who don't provide their excess to others should have it taken from them by the government for the good of all, by force if necessary. Sovereign individuals call this slavery. The slave believes that his failures are the result of luck and circumstance. The slave believes that her support comes from the government.

These two Americas have come about because the men of this country have become spineless and allowed the family structure to bastardized and desecrated. Rather than be men, it was easier to live and let live, than to take the responsibility to maintain standards in their community and families. The general attitude that "As long as I can do what I want, and they leave me alone, who cares what others are doing, it doesn't affect me."

In taking very small steps over a couple of generations, we have allowed our society to march from that of liberty to socialism. It was done by the slow methodical destruction of the family. Men no longer accept responsibility and don't ever question themselves. They don't have to, and are not expected to, be responsible for their actions. This is much easier and takes much less effort than owning up and taking responsibility for ones own actions. The result is that women are now raising children without a mans help. It's created an environment in which a child does not experience a complete upbringing. An environment where one can and does blame everyone else for one’s problems.

The split of the USA into two will not heal itself, nor come back together quickly. Too many of our population have willingly taken the collar of slavery and dependence that government subsidies and provision has given them. Too many are willing to become enslaved to the wishes of the government than take the responsibility for their own lives. Too many who don't know or want liberty. Too many who value even poor healthcare, shelter, food, and entertainment over their freedom. They would rather somebody else decided what's best for them than to put out any effort to take care of themselves.

Sovereign individuals belief that if one is free to enjoy the fruits of their labor, acquire property, determine what's best for themselves and their families then one must be willing to accept the consequences of one's actions or inaction. The size of our population without a work ethic, without a role model of self sufficiency, without belief in themselves has grown to a point that the number of those who take individual responsibility can no longer sustain both themselves and those who don't. This historically unique 200 plus year experiment in individual sovereignty, based on the belief that a person is not owned by the king, and as such individuals not own the products of of their effort, may be comming to an end.

The divide we now have in this once great country is between those willing to take the slavery that socialism offers, and those willing to take the responsibility that freedom requires. I don't believe those in Washington, Republicrat or Demican, really understand that there is a significant part of the USA which is willing to accept responsibility for themselves, and although charitable beyond reasonable expectations, are not willing to sacrifice their sovereignty for what the government is offering.

The question is are enough of us still willing to remain soveriegn?

Man Detained because of Bumper Sticker

A man was detained by small town police in Ball, Louisiana because of the bumper sticker on his car. That sticker said Don’t Tread on Me. Why are we standing by while our government declares that anyone who doesn’t agree with the current administration is a threat and uses men with guns to intimidate citizens who dare to voice an opinion critical of the current administration.

Displaying this could get you detained



You are now subject to being stopped, detained, and investigated if you dare to put a bumper sticker on your car that the government doesn’t approve of. The federal government has issued directives to be on the look out for extremists. Part of the definitions include “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.

The DHS document sent to all law enforcement in the USA defined right wing extremists as those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

If you believe in the Constitution of the USA, smaller government, or individual rights and you dare try to hold your government accountable, or exercise you constitutional rights in a manor critical of the current administration, then you too are considered an extremist and a threat.

Ask a question Get Arrested

More evidence of US becoming Fascist State

Are you really free in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment says you are, but apparently the TSA doesn't think so. You are expected to explain why, you have what you have, where your going, what your doing, and allow the government to look through your stuff when ever the want. Just having a legal possession can trigger arrest.

From dictionary.com
Arrest: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.

Here's a terrible story about the government arresting a man because he had the temerity to ask if he was legally required to answer questions about his possessions. The possession in question was cash.



Here's a question, by what constitutional authority does the government have to arrest a person for having any legal possession? Or by what authority does the government have to make cash illegal?

We are slipping into tyranny a little bit at a time, are you going to allow it to happen?

Fairness vs Liberty

Start of Ben Shapiro's article Titled The 2nd French Revolution

"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.

This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."

Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.

I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.

Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?