Diversity: Where Libertarianism Goes to Die

by Tom Rhodes, 3/27/2017

I read this at Voxday today, “Libertarianism and pure classical liberal economics are elegant and seductive systems; but they did not stand up to the test of empirical evidence.” That sums up the failure of libertarianism.

Libertarianism works for a people willing to self-govern who share a culture, with common values. Libertarianism like our constitution is a reflection of a specific culture with a specific set of values. Any society that embraces libertarianism but does not have a shared culture by an overwhelming majority will fall apart and cease to function as a cohesive society.

Our forefathers were clear, and our constitution based on libertarian(classical liberal) ideas, functioned and created a society where more people prospered than any other in the history of the world. Until 1965 the USA protected it’s cultural heritage, it did so by not accepting large numbers of people from dissimilar cultures and worked at having those cultures assimilate and adopt American culture. The root of that culture is from Northern Europe primarily the English with some Dutch and German. There is/was one unifying cultural root of those Northern European Cultures - Protestant Christianity.

Significant numbers of most other cultures cannot be readily absorbed, and will cause strife and separation and disharmony in a society if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Because Catholicism is closely related to Protestantism small but significant amounts of immigrants from Catholic cultures have be absorbed in the USA.

History is clear, any society is invaded by force or allows invasion of large numbers of people from other cultures dies. Opening our doors to the third world as resulted not in those immigrants assimilating and becoming Americans. Rather than diversity being uniting and uplifting phenomenon, it has resulted in strife, and the breakdown of our culture. Such invasion inevitably leads to war. Be it the Hispanics and Blacks in Compton, American colonists and Native Americans in the USA, the Moors and Christians in Spain, or the Mongols and where ever they moved, cultures don’t survive large numbers of a different culture invading. The tactic of moving in, building up a significant but culturally separate population, then taking over and eliminating the native culture is how both the Quran and history showed as the method for Islam to expand. The clash of cultures results in War. The mime “Diversity + Proximity = War” is proven by history. Right now there appears to be one exception, but it isn’t over and may yet come to war, that is Brexit. England may be able to salvage it’s culture and remain England without war, but the jury is still out.

History has shown that man is tribal and does not generally trust, tolerate, and live well with other tribes. God separated man into various tribes at Babul. Weather you believe this is an allegory to the evolutionary divergence of man, or to explain tribalism, or the literal truth, is irrelevant. Unless artificially forced, man will choose to live with people of his tribe. You have to be blind not to see that people live and mingle in groups of others who are like them. Almost every big city in the USA has a “China Town” or “Little Italy” within its borders. When I was a kid, the kid’s from our block were a distinct group from those “others” who didn’t live on our block. This is not forced it is natural and part of our evolutionary design. Gated communities exist because people don’t want to live in close proximity to “others.”

One group, tribe, culture, race, whatever is neither superior or inferior to another. They however are not the same. Being different is neither bad nor good it is just different. Utopian thinking libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists or whoever, that believe “if everybody would just blah blah blah, then everything would be great and everybody would be happy” are all wrong. Be it a society without government where everybody respected and valued the property of others or a society where government owned and controlled all property with no individual having ownership and all receive a share of the total, or whatever, they are all utopian ideas that history has shown will not work.

What history shows is that pure libertarianism, or anarchy, or socialism, or capitalism, or communism, or Islam, or any other “system” of governance don’t work for all people everywhere. The reason is clear, not every person is the same, not all tribes are the same, not all cultures are the same, and what one person or group values is not the same as what the other group values. History is clear when one group tries to force or otherwise condemns the values of another group, either the other group surrenders and allows its culture to die or they fight.

The people of many cultures say stuff like, “My culture will not surrender to yours, and will fight to the death rather than abandon our values and beliefs.” In the USA that is shortened to “Live Free or Die” or “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” but it would just as easily be believed if said from a Japanese samurai; all variations on a theme of “Death before Dishonor.” So when cultural values clash, the result will be WAR! Islam is great in recognizing and capitalizing on this historic human trait that exists in all cultures, an evolutionary means of protecting culture. Islam clearly and boldly claims, you will surrender to Islam, or we will fight to the death. Other cultures will do the same, they cannot and never will live peacefully together. Ignoring this human trait that exists in every culture will lead to nothing but sorrow and violence. Keeping cultures separate is civilized, to do otherwise is to invite barbarism.

There is not, nor ever will be, one set of values and customs that everybody agrees. God separated the people, when man tries to undo what God did it never works out for the betterment of Man. When God separated men and created the different languages, it wasn’t only other language that men couldn’t understand, the very thinking and values of those “others” are so foreign that different tribes cannot understand (hence appreciate) the values of other tribes. The Alt-Right has a bull’s-eye on this point. All cultures have the right to protect themselves and keep other cultures from taking them over. As such, all cultures have the right to keep other cultures out, and institute a government, laying their government’s foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

When looking at languages, how do you reconcile people who don’t have a different word in their language to differentiate earning and winning. They equate earning money through hard work as the same as winning the lottery. You have money weather you earn it or win it is not relevant. The idea that actions, work to earn, or gambling, are the same when it comes to how you gain property. Who has more, is luck based, not based on the consequences of actions. This means that in some cultures, the idea that you must work to earn riches just doesn’t compute. You gain wealth because of who you are, who you know, and how lucky you are, what you do doesn’t relate to what you have. In the USA, what you do, is more important, than who you are. That is almost unique to American culture, where what your dad did or who he was is kind of irrelevant, a place where a black kid out of Chicago can be elected president one election cycle after an industrial robber baron’s family was president. A Chinese labor immigrant’s kids will never be president in Saudi Arabia, it’s just not culturally possible.

If a people choose they may institute a theocracy that they think will likely provide for their safety and happiness, or a commune, or a republic, or a democracy, or a King, or a Pope, or whatever. But no culture has the right to institute a government on another and all cultures have the right to protect themselves. The nation state appears to be the best method man has devised to divide diverse cultures avoid wars, and provide the means in which those societies can institute governments on principles that seems each separate and distinct society can best prosper. Forced unification, as seen last century by the USSR, fails and cannot be sustained.

When our founding fathers formed the USA, declaring our independence they summed up the idea that all not all cultures can get along and stay as one unified group of mankind. They declared that all men (meaning mankind and each culture) were created equally, but recognized they are different. As such declared “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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The forced unification in Iraq of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has resulted in a constant war, some arbitrary outside group like the UN cannot force divergent cultures to live under one roof and not war. It has never happened and will never happen.

The EU is falling apart, the English are not the French who are not the Germans, who are not the Swiss or Dutch. The English have shown that they cannot and will not tolerate “others” dictating to them how they must live, Brexit is the best we can hope for, as English left the EU without violence. Great Britain has had to war to maintain unity because the Scotts, Irish, Welsh, and Brits, although nominally unified in being a Christian nation, as separate cultures have a lot of trouble staying together, much less staying bound to EU. The history of Great Britain is one of trying to force different cultures to unify and those different cultures warring to maintain their independence.

The USA will fall apart, the states used to have a set of shared values and culture, that is no longer true, the separation of the USA into smaller nation states is as inevitable as the breakup of the USSR. Hopefully we won’t repeat our past as when Americans war against each other the losses and devastation are more massive than any other warring tribes in history. If the USA has another civil war, it will end when one or the other group will be destroyed, ask the native Americans when we’ll stop, and how much of their culture and way of life can be maintained. The civil war resulted in the utter destruction of the South, it’s no longer the same, there is some “southern” culture but the facts are clear the Union invaded and forced cultural and societal change on the South in the War Between the States, some states still aren’t allowed to create their own voting laws.

If you believe “we can all get along” you’re an idiot. We can’t, never have, never will. Each culture should for the betterment of their own people learn to live with themselves, and nurture and institute what form of government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Globalism and one-worlders ideas have in the past, are now, and will always lead to war. Libertarianism is not functional except for a group of people who share the same values and culture. As a system it has proven to work for such a group whose values and culture are rooted in Protestant Christianity, but libertarianism is not a functional political system on a world wide scale where the same values and traditions of Christianity are not shared.

Diversity and libertarian ideas don’t work together. If they did the LP would be the strongest political party in the USA. The libertarian party theoretically embraces diversity, but it cannot and does not attract a diverse cross section of the population. The LP is made up of protestant white males of northern European heritage, and although not technically Christian, as a group and philosophy libertarians embrace the culture of the “protestant work ethic” a product of Reformation Theology. At its heart, libertarianism is the political manifestation of a subset of Protestantism, Calvinism. Cultures not of northern European origin, reject Protestantism, and disdain Calvinism and thus don’t accept libertarianism. The USA started changing at the beginning of the 20th century with a large influx of Catholics (Irish and Italian), this changed the culture and diluted the Calvinist influence. As such even though the LP, which as a political philosophy is clearly non-racist, and embraces acceptance of diverse people and ideas in principle, the LP is rejected by most of the USA.

The Libertarian Party (LP) rejected the Christian roots to libertarianism, and is the party is a combination of the libertine with Calvinism which makes the party inherently illogical and unacceptable to most people. The historic fact that libertarianism, allowing people liberty to succeed or fail and do what they want so long as they don’t harm others, resulted in the most prosperous society for more people doesn’t carry much weight. The reason is cultural. The idea that people are not duty bound, nor should they be forced to support others who fuck up is not acceptable to most other cultures, and as such libertarianism is rejected by most people.

Diversity is Strength is a lie. There is strength in unity not diversity. The USA is a prime example, since 1965 when we abandoned protection of our culture and unity as people and embraced diversity, the USA’s strength politically, economically, educationally, has diminished. Libertarianism worked for a while for a culturally unified Protestant population. On a larger world-wide scale it is and will remain a failure. Libertarianism will only function for a culture that is willing to protect itself. Libertarians for open borders, who embrace diversity, and reject the idea that a culture has the right to protect itself from others is virtual suicide. The 16 points of the Alt-right are currently the most advance and practical reality based political ideology where libertarianism can function. Read what Alt-Right says, not how they make you feel, the Alt-Right is coming together of great philosophy with realism and human nature. You can ignore the Alt-Right, but like ignoring the ideas of radical Islamists, the reality of what they represent will change your life and eventually world view.

Ownership

By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2014

Ownership - A fundamental question. How you view and define ownership is THE fundamental component of your world view. The fundamental and accepted concept of ownership is generally accepted as the legal relation between a person (individual, group, corporation, or government) and an object. The object may be corporeal, such as furniture, or completely the creature of law, such as a patent, copyright, or annuity; it may be movable, such as an animal, or immovable, such as land. Because the objects of property and the protected relations are different in every culture and vary according to law, custom, and economic system and the relative social status of those who enjoy its privileges, it is difficult to find a least common denominator of "ownership." Ownership of property probably means at a minimum that one's government or society will help to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of one's possession without one's consent, which may be withheld except at a price.

You don’t really accept that. You believe that at some point societies “needs” outweigh other people’s right to own something. You believe that the state owns the people. Your vote and actions declare that the state owns all individuals, and that they don’t own themselves.

We don’t treat living things we own the same as inanimate objects. In a modern western civilization it is generally accepted that if own something living, like a dog or a horse or a cat, you have a moral and often legal obligation to be responsible for its basic health and wellbeing. Owning a living thing, like a dog, doesn’t give you the right to abuse it. Not like owning a car, if you own a car you are free to use it in a demolition derby if you choose, you’re free to crush it, hit it with a hammer, never change its oil, etc. It’s yours, you own it, so you can do what you want with it so long as you don’t use it in a way that interferes with other peoples natural rights. Not all societies think that way, that is one of the differences between savage and civilized societies. In a savage society, ownership conveys no responsibility, you can crush it, burn it, abuse it, or protect and cherish it, owning a living thing is no different than owning a rock, you use it any way you want, be it an animal or a car or even a person.

The drug war is based on the idea that the state owns its citizens. Just like you as a dog owner has the right to determine what your dog ingests, the state as owner of its citizens it has the right to determine what substances you can ingest, from recreational drugs to your very food. Some courts in the USA have ruled that you have no right to choose what food you eat (try to buy raw milk). More than what you are allowed to put in your body, your very essence is determined by the state. You as the owner of a dog have the right to name it, the state too claims the right to name property of what it owns. You didn’t get to pick your name, don’t think that your parents did either. You can’t even change your own name, oh you think you can go to the courts and “legally” change your name but that’s a façade. The state named you. When you are born, you can’t leave the hospital without your state assigned name. You can’t go to school without your state assigned name. You can’t seek the services of a doctor without your state assigned name. You can’t even purchase real property, or ask a bank to hold your money without your state assigned name. In fact the state is doing everything it can to make it so you can’t even travel without identifying yourself with your state assigned name. You can’t get on an airplane without your state assigned name. You can’t drive a car without your state assigned name. They want to make it so you can’t travel by bus or train without providing your state assigned name. Your Social Security Number.

The state owns you, it even named its property so it can track its property. You are its property. The state claims first right to your labor, and graciously allows you to keep part of your labor. The entire health care and other “entitlement” debates exist because we are a civilized society, and expect the owners of living things to accept civilized responsibilities. Just as the owner of a dog is expected to feed it, and not abuse it, the state is expected to feed its citizens and not abuse them. Savage states, don’t feed their citizens, and routinely abuse them. The determination is all in how the state views ownership, but today, all societies work on the belief that the state owns its citizens.

For a very short and brief period of time in all of human history, a society was instituted on the idea that individuals are severing. That idea exists but is not accepted by any society today. That society limited the state, outlawed direct taxation of individual labor, assumed that unless specifically granted the state didn’t have the power to regulate individual. There were no laws governing what you could eat, smoke, etc. The assumption was the state had no power to tell sovereign people how to live. The state didn’t provide for its citizens, in fact the idea of using tax monies to provide charity to victims of a fire, or other natural disaster was considered unconstitutional (read: “Not Yours To Give”). That very brief experiment in individual sovereignty, is gone.

We are returning to the days of the state, controlled by a few ruling elite, own the masses. Not much different than old feudalism. Look at the uproar over mere citizens not understanding they are owned. The ruling elite are having trouble with the idea that its property, whom they graciously to allow to vote to select leadership, have actually not selected from the approved ruling elite. Eric Cantor’s loss is not an “Earthquake” as some main stream press have headlined. It’s a speed bump in the return to mankind’s historic norms, were a very few ruling elite own and control the masses. Seeing this coming, we note the ruling elite no longer protect and accept the idea that the power is distributed, they willing allow the president to create, change, ignore, and modify law in clear disregard to constitutional limits. They have also accepted and instituted the idea that judges can force legislators to create law. They moved the responsibility and authority from congress to create laws, determine fines, penalties, and fees to unelected bureaucrats. Ownership means control, and the ruling elite have taken control away from elected representatives.

Want proof your owned. There is a disease, ALS commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease. With rare exception once diagnosed with ALS, you’re dead in 2 to 5 years. There is (was) no known drug that significantly improved this outcome. There is now a new drug in in clinical trials that holds considerable promise. The state has not granted it’s approval. In fact the average time our owners take to approve a new drug its mere property to use is 10 years. You don’t own yourself, if diagnosed with ALS, you do not have the choice to take the chance and try the new drug. This new drug is a risk, the side effects could be bad, or deadly, you might get worse and die sooner if you try this new currently experimental drug. Don’t take it and you will die in an average of 2 to 5 years. The right to take the risk and try this new drug doesn’t exist, your owner, the state, through the FDA determines what risks you can/can’t take just like you determine what food your dog eats, or if your dog gets surgery or is put down because you can’t or don’t want to spend the money. That’s ownership. The state owns you, the state not you, determines if you as an ALS patient can try the new drug. In 10 years the FDA might approve the new drug, over that time 50,000 citizens with ALS will die, without the choice of trying a drug their owner hasn’t decided on. If the owner decides the new drug is too costly, too bad, not your choice, not even the choice between you, your doctor, and your insurance company, your owner determines what medical practices are allowed, what drugs you can take, and what will or won’t be paid for. Proof you are owned, a slave to the state.

Keep voting for the ruling elite, the Republican or Democrat candidates the ruling elite offer you to choose from, each vote for an incumbent or any Republican or any Democrat is a vote to maintain the status quo, state ownership of the citizenry.

Only an Ass Could Ignore the Elephant in the Room.

By Tom Rhodes, 7/20/2013

As I and many others have pointed out, the historic norm for mankind is for a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation. The one thing that historically differentiates the haves from the have-nots is the ability to acquire and control property. The most fundamental property being one's self. Owning your self is not the norm for most people throughout human history. In fact, even today through most of the world property rights are minimal.

Your right to vote, or right to go to church, or right to speak your mind, is all meaningless if you don't have the right to own stuff. If you own something, provided you don't infringe upon somebody else's property rights you should be able to use that property or dispose of it as you see fit. If you own a computer and want to smash it into little pieces you can it's your computer. If you own yourself then the product of your labor is yours, to trade, use, or give away as you see fit. If you own yourself then what you put into your body is your business, if you choose to put poison and destroy yourself, like smashing your computer with a sludge hammer it's your property use or misuse it as you see fit. Of course if you have a right to private property so do others, and you have no right to their property except through voluntary trade.

We know what cultural traits and behaviors lead to success: People who get an education and do their best in school, then get a job, don't use alcohol or drugs more than occasionally, don't engage in criminal behavior, go to church, and get married before having kids. These are the common behavioral norms of people who are successful in modern cultures. We also know that the best way to promote and reward these behaviors is the equal application of the rule of law; allowing people to prosper or suffer depending on how well they voluntarily serve their fellow man. The one common thread to success for individuals and society is protecting and establishing property rights. Protecting and establishing private property rights has lead to more wealth creation and a higher standard of living everywhere it's been established. From the USA to Chile to China nothing has ever created a higher standard of living than private property rights and the economic freedom that resulted from protecting private property. The middle class doesn't exist and never existed until private property rights for all people under the equal application of the rule of law was established. No country without strong private property rights has a strong middle class.

Now the problem, utopian thinkers who emotionally want everybody to be happy and well off look at the objective truth that not all people use the private property they have and amass property wisely, thus not every person generates enough private wealth to be well off. This unequal outcome is primarily result of observable actual differences in peoples physical, emotional, and intellectual abilities, and secondarily the result of interference from government in their use of private property. All people are not in reality equal, we all have different needs, wants, desires, drive, and abilities. Utopian thinkers don't deal with how things are, they deal with how they think things ought to be. Nobody should go hungry. Nobody should have to live without XYZ, etc. Because the emotions tied with seeing some people do better than others, they ignore the behaviors and other natural differences and think that "only if everybody would XYZ" then nobody would suffer. Because not everybody makes wise decisions or has the same natural ability of others, they think that some "enlightened" people should make the decisions for everybody thus nobody would be allowed to make bad decisions and the result is nobody would suffer and everything would be alright.

They believe that their good intentions and desire for a good outcome and their superior insight should be enough for everybody to accept their dictates. Thus they outlaw fast food in certain neighborhoods because people might choose to eat unhealthy. Thus they outlaw cooking with lard in restaurants. Thus they mandate you wear a helmet when you ride your bike. They think that because you might not use your body (or other property) in a manner they deem wise, that their wisdom supersedes your property rights, thus negating your right to use or dispose of your property as you deem best.

They also notice the unfair advantages that some people have and want to fix it too. It's not fair that you were born 6'8" tall and can run, jump, and accurately throw an object better than others. It's not fair that your natural ability is so good at running, jumping, and throwing objects that lots of people are willing to pay to watch you run, jump and throw stuff. You ability to parley your superior natural talents into wealth results in an unequal distribution of the wealth, thus to make things fair the utopian thinkers take a disproportionate amount of your amassed wealth that you earned through fair trade with your fellow members of society and gives it to those who can't run, jump, and throw as well, so that they don't feel slighted. They feel that they know better who should have what, and that the private trade of individuals for their private property should be controlled by those with superior insight, because protection of private property and freely trading your property with others will result in unequal distribution, and they equal distribution regardless of ability and effort.

The very idea that everybody should have equal protection under the law and have the ability to own and control private property doesn't sit well with the old ruling elite. Be they kings or popes or pharaohs or dukes or emperors or dictators they work under the assumption that they have the right and authority to determine how all property, including the labor of those who live in the area they control should be used. By divine right or merely through the right of might they work under the assumption that what those who live in their sphere of control are under their complete control. The idea is that the rules they impose upon the masses are for the masses and not the ruling elite. The words "We The People" and the idea that the government is a servant to the masses, not the other way around is repugnant, and a slap in the face to the ruling elite by mere peasants. The ruling elite have been trying for 2 centuries to eliminate the idea that the people can or should have control of private property because private property and the ability to pass it down to progeny, dramatically reduces the power and influence of a governing sovereign. Paying off cronies with the property of serfs has been a favored way of amassing power for the ruling elite for all of history.

Today we have utopian leftists and corporate cronies working together creating a system of rules that apply to the masses and not the enlightened ruling elite to reduce private property rights and once again put concentrate power it the few ruling elite who are enlightened and know best how the masses should live. The stagnation and decline of the middle class and perpetual dependency of our poor is because of the effective denigration of property rights. Progressive asses are the useful idiots manipulated by corporate pachyderms to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a despotic oligarchy and return mankind to her natural state of a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation.

Treason

By Tom Rhodes, 6/12/2013

There is no difference between the two factions of the ruling party. They share the same statist goals and present We the People with the same talking points. Any mere citizen working for the government who exercises his First Amendment right exposing the ruling elite's clear violation of the Fourth Amendment that the ruling elite don't want public is considered by the ruling statist party (be they either the Republican or Democrat factions) a traitor.

On Monday the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said "I don't look at this as being a whistle-blower. I think it's an act of treason."

Tuesday this week on ABC's Good Morning America, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) labeled Edward Snowden, the contractor who leaked details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, a "traitor." Claiming that exposing the government's clear violations of the Fourth Amendment "puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are, and it's a giant violation of the law."

The Constitution was written not to limit the people, but to limit the government. Obama infamously lamented that the problem with the Constitution is it made it hard to get things done. Our elected officials including Boehner and Feinstein took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. Their actions are representative of the unified ruling party, that is displayed as a false choice of the Democrats and Republicans. Rather than uphold their oath, they have been exposed for not only failing to protect the Constitution but in truth grossly violating it, and thus destroying what little trust remained of the government. The ruling elite declare that because the consequences of knowing that the government is in clear violation of the rights of We the People and ignoring the restriction placed upon the government by the people, hurts the ability of the government to "get things done," that exposing such truth is treasonous.

Treason is now upsetting and exposing the ruling elite, not protecting the constitution and country from tyrannical usurpers taking powers that they clearly constitutionally prohibited from having. The idea that comes from on high, from Republicans like Marco Rubio, is that your liberty and freedom are secondary to "security" and that your right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, in this day and age is not as important as the Ruling Elites desire to know what everybody is doing and to use that information to protect the ruling elite.

It's simple the government is prohibited from looking at your mail (email, snail mail, text messages, etc.) unless they have an impartial judge issue a Warrant, and no judge shall issue such Warrant but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fishing for crimes by monitoring all communications, email, tweets, etc. to fish for violations of the law is specifically prohibited.

They have been exposed; the ruling elite are trying to tell us that exposing their abuses of power is treason. There is no difference in the ruling party's factions, Republican or Democrat. Any differences they have are inconsequential, when there is a real threat to their regime they circle the wagons and put out the same talking points and attack the actions of We the People. It is clear that both major political parties no longer represent the people, but the ruling elite. Their actions are treasonous, but then maybe electing them was equally as evil. I'll go so far as to say any future vote for either the Republicans or Democrats should be considered treason against your fellow citizen. This includes voting for Rand Paul and other so called "defenders of liberty" in the Republican Party. Any vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote against the Fourth Amendment, and a vote for tyranny - PERIOD!

The one thing Obama and the Republican Party is right on, you can have total security if you aren't willing to give up your rights. The choice is yours; do you want a secure tyranny or dangerous freedom?

Spending – Is Charity a Proper Use of Government Tax Dollars

Tax Day, a perfect day to review the well reasoned letter by Col Davy Crockett, explaining exactly why "entitlements" and other charity spending are not appropriate use of our tax dollars, not 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."

"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."

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."

Security vs. Responsibility

By Tom Rhodes, 1/11/2012

Our country is in the midst of a national discussion; ostensibly about Guns, Healthcare, Debt, Taxes etc. Those topics are not what the discussion is about, only the topics that are attached to the emotions used to drive rhetoric on the real topic. Fear of insecurity, and responsibility. Emotions are overriding logic and reason, those in power are capitalizing on emotions not truth. The battle is between those who cherish security but don't want to accept the responsibility for that security. Let's look at some word definitions so we are clear what we're talking about.

Security: freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.

Responsibility: the state or fact of being responsible.

Responsible: answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

Now the problem, huge parts our feminized society now embraces the security as a value superior to liberty. Large segments of our population want to assign the responsibility for their security to the government. They don't want to be accountable for mitigating danger and risk to which they are exposed. They are more than willing to allow the government the power to use force to restrict the liberty of others so that they can "feel" secure. The problem is that the government isn't actually accountable for providing any individual with security.

Another part of our society still values liberty, and are more than willing to accept the fact that to have liberty you must accept the responsibility to provide your own security. To have freedom is not free, because independence means that you are not dependent upon the government. The more things that you depend upon the government to provide, the more control of your actions you must grant the government.

Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control aka independence.

To have Liberty you must accept and embrace the fact that the government has no legal or moral authority to provide you individually with security. The government is not accountable for, nor responsible for providing you with security. You accept the risk that you must provide your own food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, happiness, and protection. In a free society the government's sole responsibility is to protect you're right to pursue those things, not grant you those things. The reason is that for the government to provide you with security it must be allowed and have the power to control. You can't be responsible to mitigate risks and provide safety if you don't have control. So if you want more security you must grant control to the entity accountable for providing that security. This is why the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the police are not responsible to protect any individual. Since the police cannot control the movement, actions, etc. of individuals, they are not accountable for any individual's security. The responsibility for security lies with whomever controls the actions, movement, etc. for an individual. Hence parents are responsible to their children for providing security, they also have control of those children.

Whoever is in control is responsible; period. Public schools are a prime example. Public schools exercise in loco parentis. What this means is that they have the right to act as a parent while schools children are at school. This gives them the legal authority to have much more control over students than the government normally has over individuals. They have in loco parentis because they also have the legal and moral responsibility to provide security for their students. That's why, within reasonable bounds, a school has the right to limit student behavior in schools even if that same behavior out of the school is totally legal. Hence a school can limit students from wearing gang colors while at school but not when those same students are out of school. So with responsibility comes control, and you can't be responsible for what you don't control.

Large parts of our society don't want to be responsible for their own security so are willing to give control to the government in exchange for security. They want the emotional feeling that security provides, even if it's illusionary. This is a huge conflict with those who value Liberty over Security. Those who want to control their own lives, and determine their own destiny are not willing to give control to anybody, especially the state.

At Newton, those responsible for the security of the students, the government school, who were granted large amounts control via in loco parentis, failed. The government school is responsible for the safety of the children in their care. The government exercised control by creating laws and rules that said nobody is allowed to have the tools to defend themselves or others at this government facility, they made it a "gun-free zone." The government was responsible for providing freedom from danger. The government not only took that responsibility, but denied others the right to exercise that responsibility. Now those in Washington want that control, but they won't subject their children to the same risks as the "public" school children in Newton. Obama, most of congress and the senate don't send their kids to "public" schools where the government is in control of security. They instead send their kids to private schools, with armed personnel specifically assigned to provide security, usually by having firearms of the type they want to deny every other citizen from having. They want and have taken responsibility for the security of their children, but don't want the general public to have the same security. They think that their ability to hire others to be that security is of greater value than poorer people taking individual personal responsibility is morally superior. That the rich ruling elite are saying, "If you can't afford to pay somebody to provide you with armed security, you aren't entitled to armed security."

Why is the government using the example of Newton, where they failed in their responsibility to provide students with security, as an excuse to take away citizens rights to the tools that allow them to effectively provide for their own security? Why is hiring armed people to protect you and your children morally superior to arming yourself to protect you and your children?

The ruling elite have said, because of our greater wealth and position, we deserve and will have control over the security of ourselves and our children, but you the masses cannot have control of your own security. They are clearly saying Liberty for Me but not for Thee. They simply prey on the fears of those who don't want or are afraid to assume personal responsibility. Many of the masses have proven more than willing to give the ruling elite control. Those afraid of having to be responsible for themselves, want a "right" to feel safe and secure, even if that means taking away the natural rights of others. This is a battle between those who don't want responsibility for their own security, and those who want liberty.

If it truly was about security of children then they would be up in arms about last year's 500 deaths of school age children and thousands of injuries in Chicago alone. The truth is the government and press are only in an uproar over Newton because it was white kids killed; in Chicago the situation is black kids killed by other blacks so they just don't care. Black on black violent crime is so common the press rarely cover it. The government has created laws that target young black males, arrested them, convict them, and imprison them at massive rates, so they can deny them their second amendment (and other) rights. The liberal press's and statist politicians' cries concerning the massacre at Newton are racist, they don't care and don't say anything concerning massive deaths of blacks, they only care and want action because Newton was white kids being killed. In 2012 Chicago had the equivalent of a Newton child massacre every two week, it also has the strictest gun laws in the nation, the press and politicians know this, they aren't dumb. They know more gun laws are not the answer, but more gun laws are a way to increase state control. Until and unless they make the government legally responsible for the security of individuals, they have no moral authority to take control of the tools of providing effective security. The government wants the control but not the responsibility for security. If you can't see that you are blind.

The fact is if you are against the restrictions on government as instituted in the Bill of Rights, you are in favor of oppression; period! Letting the state deny an individual the control of their own security without the state accepting the legal and moral responsibility for an individual's security, is in fact supporting statist tyranny. Fighting tyranny of the state is the reason the people included the severe restriction on the government known as the Second Amendment. Not because we have a tyrannical state, but because history has shown, repeatedly, that states can and do become tyrannical and an armed people have the means of fighting a tyrannical state.

If the fact that your neighbor owns or might own an AR-15, and a few other guns scares you, move. Your fear doesn't negate your neighbor's rights; you have no right to not be afraid anymore than you have a right to feel happy, sad, or mad, your feelings are not rights, and fear is just that an emotion. Until and unless you can prove your neighbor has committed a felony or is mentally unfit, in a court of law, where he can call witnesses, cross examine, and defend himself, you have no right to control how he chooses to be responsible for his own security.

The courts have consistently ruled against the government exercising "prior restraint." They have also consistently ruled that neither the police nor the state have a legal or moral responsibility to provide any individual with security. When thinking of security ask yourself, who is legally and morally responsible to provide that security and why? If you think it's the government you are in the wrong country and should consider moving to another, like Cuba, where the government clearly takes the legal and moral responsibility for its citizens, along with control of where they work, what they earn, what they receive, what they say, what they read, etc.

Security vs. Responsibility the choice is yours.
















");

Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good

By Tom Rhodes, 9/7/2012

A few years ago the Arthur C. Brooks published a study that clearly showed that more a person believed in individual liberty and responsibility they give more to charity and more liberal the less they give. The liberals have been trying to denounce and explain away the evidence. Now yet another study demonstrates that the liberal claim that if you're not liberal and statist you hate the poor is a lie and not based on fact. The latest study published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states. Damn, once again the evidence demonstrates that in reality it is the lovers of liberty and fiscal responsibility, who actually put their money where their mouth is and give more to the poor than liberals.

To quote from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers. The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama." This study was conclusive that the more religious states tend to give more than the less religious states. Obviously the statist left can't make the obvious conclusion; that the observable, and repeatedly supported conclusion is that liberals are less charitable than others.

USA Today published a leftist egghead commentary about the study saying:

Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.

Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. ... I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."

Alan Wolfe is a professed atheist, so his opinion may be biased, but then I'm a professed Christian, and my opinion is biased. Biases aside the facts not my or Wolfe's opinion can and should stand on their own, and the fact is Liberals give less to charity than others. The left believes as Obama said, "You Didn't Build That" implying that private charity (or private business, or private education, or private anything else) without government involvement doesn't count and can't be good. We must accept the falsehood that government bureaucracies are more efficient and delivering "superior" charity than private enterprise.

Consider how much more efficient Medicaid is than private charities, just because it is going bankrupt and is famous for fraud and inefficiency it should be the model. Compare Medicaid to St. Jude's or Shriner's Childrens Hospitals and the evidence is clear. Private charity is more efficient and better uses charity dollars than government.

The facts are clear liberals are liberal with other people's money but stingy with their own.

Libertarians and the liberty loving wing of other parties, believe in the writing of our founding fathers; Madison famously noted "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." Jefferson was clear saying, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Davy Crocket made such a stand a legendary part of his story in the famous "Not Yours To Give" speech. Lincoln was also famous for his position on charity saying, ""In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." The facts are clear America can and does do charity better than government.

Biden and Obama are both famous pikers donating miniscule portions of their earnings every year compared their competition. They seem to think that they and all individuals should not be individually charitable, but should instead give government the job of charity. They think people paying taxes happily is equivalent to giving to charity. They want to ignore the plain words of our founding fathers, ignore and denigrate the massive amounts people privately and voluntarily give to charity, and conclude unless the government controls it, it isn't good and doesn't count.

Liberals, specifically Democrats have made it clear by action and deed. They are not charitable, they don't trust or want the public to be responsible and accountable to each other and to take care of themselves and each other. They want society dependent on government, they want the people to believe and accept that they "belong to government", and as such government should take care of all their needs. They and statist egghead academics what us to believe their interpretation of facts, and we should be thankful to government and leftist egghead academics who can interpret the facts for us, otherwise we might conclude that this study, and the many other studies with similar results, that liberals are cheap bastards whose actions reflect their belief on charity not their words.

God forbid the people feed the poor without government intervention; the poor might not eat a government approved diet, prepared in government approved kitchens, if private charities or individuals were allowed to prepare and distribute food to the poor. That is why NYC has made feeding leftovers from the bar mitzvah to the local hungry a crime. The very idea that a local religious organization would organize a pot luck supper and urge everybody to bring extra because after the event they would use the extra and feed to the local homeless the same food that they just ate themselves is horrendous. The poor and hungry must be protected from what private charities feed might feed them. God forbid somebody's homemade casserole not be nutritionally balanced, and the poor get a delicious homemade meal that didn't meet government specifications. Because only government approved meals are acceptable, and only food prepared in government monitored kitchens is safe enough, and controlled enough to be allowed to feed the poor.

Liberals are clear on their message that private charity is bad, government taxes are good, and the people should not be trusted to do charitable works. We are expected to ignore the facts, we shouldn't be allowed to compare the most advanced and efficient hospitals in the country at places like St. Jude's or Shriner's Hospitals to government run hospitals like the VA. The fact that the more religious and conservative a state is, the more likely the people of that state will donate to charity must be ignored. The statist message must be promoted and the facts must be twisted to support the message: Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good.

When a liberal yells or denounces how uncaring of the poor, or how the right hates the poor, it's just a projection of their own cold hart. The evidence is clear, liberals are statists, and cheap bastards who want to use everybody else's money to do "charity" so they won't feel guilty, but won't get off their own wallets and help their neighbor. The evidence is also clear individual Americans can and are better at charity than the government.

Democrats' Dream for America

By Tom Rhodes, 9/6/2012

The Democrat National Convention isn't over and they're in damage control mode already. They actually showed what the Democrats believe, and said what they meant, but forgot the nation not just loyal statist Democrats was watching. The DNC has shown that the Democrats are not "progressive" but are regressive statists. Wanting the USA to regress to the conditions of other nations where the Ruling Elite dictate to the masses what they should have, what they should think etc. Forget the clear will of even their own delegates. The Democrats want to return to what is the historic norm not to maintain or advance the unique liberty and freedom the USA was founded on, and created to protect.

The Democrats struck God from their platform, and their ruling elders realized this was a mistake. With polls only 3-5% of the population being atheists and a strong super majority being Christian, the DNC ruling elite realized they better put God back the DNC Platform or risk alienating a huge swath of voters. They showed that they don't even respect the vote of their own people. When a voice vote was called to amend their platform and reinstate God into it, even after three calls, there was not a even a clear 50% majority much less the necessary 2/3rds required to amend their platform. No reasonable person could hear those votes and not know that the majority of Democrat delegates to the DNC clearly wanted God removed from the Democrat Party Platform. Because they believed that it was a bad political move (they are not stupid) the DNC ruling elite declared the motion to pass, ignoring the will of the delegates. Their attitude is clear, they the DNC ruling elite, know better than mere delegates, what's best for them. The will of the people in the Democrat party as represented by their duly selected representatives, the voting delegates, be damned.

This is the theme of Democrats. They don't believe as that first President of the upstart third party, the Republicans, proclaimed 150 years ago, that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The now already infamous video they highlighted at the DNC clearly stated their position "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Wow, we all belong to the government? What a far cry from our Declaration of Independence which clearly states, "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In fact the entire Democrat National Convention flies in the face of the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly and boldly proclaims that our government was instituted at the consent of the people to protect God given unalienable rights:

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.

The government belongs to us, not the other way around. Democrats obviously don't believe that. Freedom of association, assembly, religion, speech, etc. are all things they want to curtail because those are all based on voluntary relations with each other that generally diminish the power of the ruling elite. At this year's DNC the Democrats have renounced America's experiment in liberty and chosen to regress to the historic norm of man. Self-government, individual rights, limits on government power and authority, are all ideas that gall and restrict what the Democrat ruling elite want. Obama himself said that the problem with the Constitution was it made it hard to get things done. He and the other elitists of the Democrat party, obviously believe that they know what's best for everybody, and want the power and authority to dictate what they believe is plainly in everybody's best interest. Even as to include or not include God in their Platform, regardless of the clearly shouted NO! of the delegates to the DNC.

The DNC and Obama vetted and approved the >video which boldly proclaims that the only thing we all belong to is the Government. Unlike Abe Lincoln, and most of America, Democrats believe that the people are of the government, by the government and for the government.

Most of America realize the government is a necessary evil, but with massive immigration over the past century, an increasingly large part of our country no longer holds the ideas of our founding fathers at heart; that government is limited and has the sole purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and happiness. It is not and never was instituted to provide for the "needs" of individual people. Charity is not and never was a purpose of our government, this change and idea that government and not the people should provide charity is a slow but dramatic shift in our nation. An old Davy Crocket legendary story explains this well, read Not Yours To Give, a letter by the colonel himself for the best understanding of the purpose of our government.

I belong to my church, I belong to the Libertarian party, I belong to several FB groups, etc. I belong to a good number of organizations because I freely and voluntarily choose to belong to those organizations and groups. I do not belong to the government.

I am a US citizen, not a subject of any kingdom, dictatorship, or government. I and each and every other person is sovereign, we don't have a sovereign ruling elite. This is the USA and the government is supposed to be the subject of the people not the other way around. Should our government become too tyrannical and intolerable, it is our right and duty to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, that we deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. (Yah, I stole that).

I recognize and believe that I belong to my Creator, God. Not man, nor any institution created by man. The bible is clear, God has given me unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon another's pursuit of the same. Thomas Jefferson, with our other forefathers understood this and clearly explained that it was the government's role to protect those rights. Our Constitution clearly proclaims that We the People established the government and that We the People only granted it limited divided powers.

Obviously the Democrats don't believe that, and don't want Americans to believe that. From Pelosi's cry of "Are You Serious" when asked what part of the constitution granted the government the power to force people to purchase insurance, to Obama bemoaning the fact that the Constitution is a flawed document that makes it "hard to get things done" to his declaring that as president he has the right to assassinate citizens without due process and exercising that right; the limits on government powers, and original purpose of our government are not part of the Democrats' belief system.

From dictating to their delegates and party that God, must be in their platform, to telling you that at some point you've made enough to proclaiming "Government is the only thing we all belong to" , the Democrats clearly don't want you to have, live, or believe in the American Dream or the principles America was founded. The Democrats have loudly proclaimed that "We are the ruling elite, shut up and do as we say, eat what we tell you eat, tolerate what we tell you to tolerate, drive what we tell you to drive, ....." They are all about telling the people that the "government knows best" and dictating how you pursue happiness.

As for me I say to the Democrats "NO! I will Live Free or Die!" Yah, Yah, Yah, I know it's not as eloquent as Thomas Paine's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" but what do you expect, I'm a biker who was educated in a public government school, while Thomas Paine was home schooled and received a private education, another thing the Democrats want to outlaw for all but the ruling elite. Obama's actions are a prime example; under his leadership, the Democrats ended the funding that allowed poor inner-city blacks vouchers to go to private schools in DC, while not sending his daughters to the same failed public schools he forces the masses to go. Different education for the ruling elite than the masses; do you see a pattern?

The words and actions of Democrats demonstrates their desire to end America's experiment in Liberty and return to the historic norm of a few ruling elite dictating how the masses live with them living in relative luxury doling out favors and privileges as they see fit to whom they see fit. The idea that people should have liberty, and the resulting benefits/consequences of the liberty is not acceptable to them. They are busybody nanny's who want to treat We the People like children, in some utopian idea that the government can and should make sure everybody has the same. Like mommy's who want every kid to get a trophy regardless of how well they perform; and like mommy's who want everybody to be safe and never do anything dangerous or take a risk, Democrats don't trust and won't allow Liberty; Liberty involves risk; Liberty rewards winners; Liberty allows suffering for risky decisions.

The first colony here in America tried the Democrat's idea, making sure everybody got equal shares of everything regardless of input. That failed, it resulted in starvation and death. The idea that mankind should use the force of government to equalize results of life has been tried over and over again throughout man's history; it always results in the same thing, privation and tyranny. Democrats, their ideas, and leadership, when instituted lead to privation. Look at Detroit, it has been under Democrat control for over 6 decades, it's a former bankrupt shell of what was the 5th largest and most advanced industrial city in America. Superbowl commercial's aside; it is a prime example of the failed policies of the Democrat Party where those policies are fully implemented. If we follow Democrat lead, and institute their policies, what is now the ruins of Detroit is the outcome for all of America.

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."

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.