In their coverage of the RNC in Tampa, rather than show the speeches from Arthur Davis, the black representative who introduced Obama at the 2008 DNC, Mia Love, black house candidate from Utah, Ted Cruz, Latin senatorial candidate from Texas, MSNBC showed commentary by leftist pundits.
MSNBC on Tuesday choose to only show white people from the RNC. This begs the question, does MSNBC hate black people? Or is MSNBC trying to show the GOP as racist by hiding and covering up the fact that significant numbers of minorities exist and support parties other than the Democrats? The answers clearly show MSNBC is racist/biased.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
What is the Purpose of Marriage (laws)?
By Tom Rhodes, 8/8/2012
The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.
Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.
In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.
Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.
The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.
Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.
Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?
The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.
Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.
All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".
Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by strait people. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.
The hookup culture and 50% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.
Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any offspring. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.
Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, but not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.
Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control, it has tried and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.
With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.
The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. But since there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility, not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle, what purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?
The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.
Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.
In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.
Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.
The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.
Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.
Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?
The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.
Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.
All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".
Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by strait people. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.
The hookup culture and 50% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.
Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any offspring. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.
Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, but not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.
Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control, it has tried and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.
With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.
The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. But since there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility, not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle, what purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Why Choose Evil
By Tom Rhodes, 8/7/2012
When some idiot conservative Romney zealot tries to tell you that voting for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama, you must consider that they are either ignorant, really stupid, or a manipulative liar. There is no other choice.
If you don't understand that ONLY a vote for Obama is a Vote for Obama; that any non-vote for Romeny that is not a direct vote for Obama is unequivocally not a vote for Obama, then you probably have trouble with basic math mathematics, like understanding that 1 + 0 <> 2. No matter how you slice and dice it not voting for Obama cannot in any way be construed as a vote for Obama.
The Political application of the idea that if you don't vote for R then you are voting for O, is a logical fallacy, when your choices are R, O, J, B, . . . and Null. If you cannot master basic math maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anything that is not an "O" is not an "O", only in NeverNeverLand does J = O, or B = O. Only those votes cast for Obama will count as votes for Obama, period!
This voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil, you have other choices, voting for Gary Johnson or other third party candidate, or not voting for president, or writing in Mickey Mouse, none of those choices is a vote for Obama. This voting for the lesser of two evils may appear pragmatic, but it is a self defeating concept that guarantees results it is supposed to oppose.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. To quote VoxDay, "If you're still buying the 'we must defeat Evil X with Evil Y' after the debacle of the George W. Bush years, you're not merely wrong, you're observably stupid."
Voting for Romney is voting for a big Business - big government statist. Nothing in his history or his words indicates that he cares one bit about individual liberty, and although not a card carrying Marxist, his goals are clearly helping the oligarchy that is the Wall Street - Washington Cabal. He just favors Wall Street control over Washington control. Voting for Obama is voting for a big government - big business statist. Obama's actions and words clearly show that he too is interested in helping the oligarchy that is the Washington - Wall Street Cabal. He just favors the other side of the coin favoring Washington control over Wall Street control. Both are evil choices of selecting corporate crony rule.
If you think anything will change by picking the lesser of two evils, you are wrong. We've done that over and over again, with the same results, bigger government and more corporate consolidation, because of cronyism. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. Those who tell you that anything except a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, are insane, really stupid, or manipulative liars.
LP candidate Johnson may have shot himself in the foot with the majority of the American public, but at least his words, and most of his actions as New Mexico Governor clearly doesn't put him in the government is the solution to all our problems camp. Voting for Johnson is not a vote for the evil Washington - Wall Street Oligarchy, voting for either Romney is a vote for evil.
When some idiot conservative Romney zealot tries to tell you that voting for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama, you must consider that they are either ignorant, really stupid, or a manipulative liar. There is no other choice.
If you don't understand that ONLY a vote for Obama is a Vote for Obama; that any non-vote for Romeny that is not a direct vote for Obama is unequivocally not a vote for Obama, then you probably have trouble with basic math mathematics, like understanding that 1 + 0 <> 2. No matter how you slice and dice it not voting for Obama cannot in any way be construed as a vote for Obama.
The Political application of the idea that if you don't vote for R then you are voting for O, is a logical fallacy, when your choices are R, O, J, B, . . . and Null. If you cannot master basic math maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anything that is not an "O" is not an "O", only in NeverNeverLand does J = O, or B = O. Only those votes cast for Obama will count as votes for Obama, period!
This voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil, you have other choices, voting for Gary Johnson or other third party candidate, or not voting for president, or writing in Mickey Mouse, none of those choices is a vote for Obama. This voting for the lesser of two evils may appear pragmatic, but it is a self defeating concept that guarantees results it is supposed to oppose.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. To quote VoxDay, "If you're still buying the 'we must defeat Evil X with Evil Y' after the debacle of the George W. Bush years, you're not merely wrong, you're observably stupid."
Voting for Romney is voting for a big Business - big government statist. Nothing in his history or his words indicates that he cares one bit about individual liberty, and although not a card carrying Marxist, his goals are clearly helping the oligarchy that is the Wall Street - Washington Cabal. He just favors Wall Street control over Washington control. Voting for Obama is voting for a big government - big business statist. Obama's actions and words clearly show that he too is interested in helping the oligarchy that is the Washington - Wall Street Cabal. He just favors the other side of the coin favoring Washington control over Wall Street control. Both are evil choices of selecting corporate crony rule.
If you think anything will change by picking the lesser of two evils, you are wrong. We've done that over and over again, with the same results, bigger government and more corporate consolidation, because of cronyism. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. Those who tell you that anything except a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, are insane, really stupid, or manipulative liars.
LP candidate Johnson may have shot himself in the foot with the majority of the American public, but at least his words, and most of his actions as New Mexico Governor clearly doesn't put him in the government is the solution to all our problems camp. Voting for Johnson is not a vote for the evil Washington - Wall Street Oligarchy, voting for either Romney is a vote for evil.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
LP Commits Election Suicide (again)
By Tom Rhodes 8/6/12
Gary Johnsons announced support of gay marriage, again shows the vast majority of Americans that the LP is not suitable to lead the USA. The LP can't even get its leadership to support its candidate. Even members of the Libertarian Party’s Executive Committee endorsed Romney not the LP candidate. When put to a vote Gay Marriage loses by huge margins, over 60% here in Florida.
Look at Chick-Fil-A, record sales and egg all over the face of militant gays. Gary Johnson loudly proclaiming he doesn’t go to church and that gays shold be allowed to marry, pretty much killed his election chances. Why do we Libertarians continue to choose totally unelectable people to run for office. As a Libertarian, I’ve committed to voting for Johnson, mostly because there is no other real choice, and I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Obama or Romney. But Johnson's words have effectively killed any chance he has of winning the election.
In an email I received from Johnson’s campaing he said;
Exactly where in the constitution is the right to marriage found? More importantly where in the constitution does the federal government have an enumerated power to legislate marriage? Rather than champion equality under the law, Johnson endorses adding yet another group getting special treatment and the further disenfranchise of some based on who they choose to enter contracts. If your single, and don’t choose to enter into a binding contract with another, you can be and are treated to different rules than those who do choose to enter into a contract with another.
Although there shouldn’t be any governmental authority to regulate marriage, constitutionally if the government does have that right it is clearly a States Right. Johnson chooses to ignore States Rights on this issue, and tell the 31 states who have had votes on the issue, that those voters are wrong.
Having met with and talked to Gary Johnson, I could not support him and didn’t as the choice for LP candidate for president during the LP selection process. I lost this and will vote for the LP candidate. The reasons I didn’t support Johnson were based on his words and stated beliefs. Mostly it appeared as though he was an opportunist Republican taking advantage of the LP. He appeared to have values that followed the wind, and took the position that could get him the most press. When directly asked Johnson was clear in stating that promoting the LP, and making the LP an effective political party was not his job, and not something he considered he was responsible for. His words were basically I'm out for me not the Libertarian Party.
That is why I didn’t vote for him at the Libertarian Party of Floirda state convention this year, and why I’ve clearly stated to those on the LPF EC that I don’t think they should have supported Johnson. Again we are stuck with an unelectable LP presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, who’s words and actions alienated 75% of the population which claims to be Christian and hold Christian values.
Libertarian Values are not and do not have to be anti-Christian. In fact whether my fellow Libertarians accept it or not, libertarian values are rooted in Christianity, not secularism. Read The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny. The idiocy of embracing non-libertarian and often sometimes anarchist ideas has become the halmark of the Libertarian Party, it dooms us to failure. The devisive hot button issues do not have to be part of the LP Platform, and still be libertarian. Taking positions contrary to the majority of society, that even libertarians can and do disagree; based on sound libertarian thinking and philosophy, is a receipe for failure.
The inability to the LP to win support influential libertarians. The fact that the Cato Institute, a clearly libertarian think tank doesn’t endores the LP. The fact that famous libertarians like John Stossel don’t openly support the LP. This is a sign that as a political party the LP is not going anywhere, and is completely inffective on a national scale.
The Libertarian Party of Florida, used to be a debate club and joke of a political party in Florida. Over the past few years, people within the LPF wanting a professional party with real political influence worked hard and diligently at changing it. Most of the old guard LPF leadership as been replaced, and the LPF is a far better and more professional party than before. The Platform in Florida is devoid of the most devisive issues that libertarians fight over. The objectives of the LPF are clear, and the leadership is working towards those objectives. Changing the LPF from a debating society to a real professional party is taking time but progress is visable and noticeable. The same must happen at the national level.
Taking stands that libertarians don't agree on, and most of America is divided on, and putting them in the platform is not a way to unify people around the idea of liberty, much less the Libertarian Party. To win the hearts and minds of the American people, the LP must change. The polls are clear, most of American is libertarian in beliefs but not part of and don't want to be associated with the Libertarian Party. To be effective, the LP needs a larger base. This base is available, but the LP must stop attacking the majority of Americans with extremist ideas that even its own leadership isn't unified. The image of Libertarians as being amoral atheistic anarchists must be addressed and changed. To do this it must start at the local grass roots level. Until and unless the national LP can learn that it must win small local elections, to establish a solid libertarian base before it can tackle the presidency, and big national elections it will remain a party going no-where. The LP must actually put efforts into helping its state and local affilliates, it is doomed to keep repeating what the LP consistantly does ; lose.
To see what effective grass roots change looks like, you should look up and follow the campaign of Collen Fretts. This is the model the LP should be looking at, not another unelectable opportunist like Gary Johnson. It's not too late for local LP affiliates to effect change, the selection of Gary Johnson for US President candidate on the national scene is once again evidence of the LP committing political suicide.
Oh well, maybe next time. . . .
Gary Johnsons announced support of gay marriage, again shows the vast majority of Americans that the LP is not suitable to lead the USA. The LP can't even get its leadership to support its candidate. Even members of the Libertarian Party’s Executive Committee endorsed Romney not the LP candidate. When put to a vote Gay Marriage loses by huge margins, over 60% here in Florida.
Look at Chick-Fil-A, record sales and egg all over the face of militant gays. Gary Johnson loudly proclaiming he doesn’t go to church and that gays shold be allowed to marry, pretty much killed his election chances. Why do we Libertarians continue to choose totally unelectable people to run for office. As a Libertarian, I’ve committed to voting for Johnson, mostly because there is no other real choice, and I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Obama or Romney. But Johnson's words have effectively killed any chance he has of winning the election.
In an email I received from Johnson’s campaing he said;
" I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right.”
Exactly where in the constitution is the right to marriage found? More importantly where in the constitution does the federal government have an enumerated power to legislate marriage? Rather than champion equality under the law, Johnson endorses adding yet another group getting special treatment and the further disenfranchise of some based on who they choose to enter contracts. If your single, and don’t choose to enter into a binding contract with another, you can be and are treated to different rules than those who do choose to enter into a contract with another.
Although there shouldn’t be any governmental authority to regulate marriage, constitutionally if the government does have that right it is clearly a States Right. Johnson chooses to ignore States Rights on this issue, and tell the 31 states who have had votes on the issue, that those voters are wrong.
Having met with and talked to Gary Johnson, I could not support him and didn’t as the choice for LP candidate for president during the LP selection process. I lost this and will vote for the LP candidate. The reasons I didn’t support Johnson were based on his words and stated beliefs. Mostly it appeared as though he was an opportunist Republican taking advantage of the LP. He appeared to have values that followed the wind, and took the position that could get him the most press. When directly asked Johnson was clear in stating that promoting the LP, and making the LP an effective political party was not his job, and not something he considered he was responsible for. His words were basically I'm out for me not the Libertarian Party.
That is why I didn’t vote for him at the Libertarian Party of Floirda state convention this year, and why I’ve clearly stated to those on the LPF EC that I don’t think they should have supported Johnson. Again we are stuck with an unelectable LP presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, who’s words and actions alienated 75% of the population which claims to be Christian and hold Christian values.
Libertarian Values are not and do not have to be anti-Christian. In fact whether my fellow Libertarians accept it or not, libertarian values are rooted in Christianity, not secularism. Read The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny. The idiocy of embracing non-libertarian and often sometimes anarchist ideas has become the halmark of the Libertarian Party, it dooms us to failure. The devisive hot button issues do not have to be part of the LP Platform, and still be libertarian. Taking positions contrary to the majority of society, that even libertarians can and do disagree; based on sound libertarian thinking and philosophy, is a receipe for failure.
The inability to the LP to win support influential libertarians. The fact that the Cato Institute, a clearly libertarian think tank doesn’t endores the LP. The fact that famous libertarians like John Stossel don’t openly support the LP. This is a sign that as a political party the LP is not going anywhere, and is completely inffective on a national scale.
The Libertarian Party of Florida, used to be a debate club and joke of a political party in Florida. Over the past few years, people within the LPF wanting a professional party with real political influence worked hard and diligently at changing it. Most of the old guard LPF leadership as been replaced, and the LPF is a far better and more professional party than before. The Platform in Florida is devoid of the most devisive issues that libertarians fight over. The objectives of the LPF are clear, and the leadership is working towards those objectives. Changing the LPF from a debating society to a real professional party is taking time but progress is visable and noticeable. The same must happen at the national level.
Taking stands that libertarians don't agree on, and most of America is divided on, and putting them in the platform is not a way to unify people around the idea of liberty, much less the Libertarian Party. To win the hearts and minds of the American people, the LP must change. The polls are clear, most of American is libertarian in beliefs but not part of and don't want to be associated with the Libertarian Party. To be effective, the LP needs a larger base. This base is available, but the LP must stop attacking the majority of Americans with extremist ideas that even its own leadership isn't unified. The image of Libertarians as being amoral atheistic anarchists must be addressed and changed. To do this it must start at the local grass roots level. Until and unless the national LP can learn that it must win small local elections, to establish a solid libertarian base before it can tackle the presidency, and big national elections it will remain a party going no-where. The LP must actually put efforts into helping its state and local affilliates, it is doomed to keep repeating what the LP consistantly does ; lose.
To see what effective grass roots change looks like, you should look up and follow the campaign of Collen Fretts. This is the model the LP should be looking at, not another unelectable opportunist like Gary Johnson. It's not too late for local LP affiliates to effect change, the selection of Gary Johnson for US President candidate on the national scene is once again evidence of the LP committing political suicide.
Oh well, maybe next time. . . .
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Jobs – Reality 101
By Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2012
Job numbers came out and unemployment is widely reported to have gotten slightly worse to 8.5%. That is a totally bogus number that doesn’t represent reality. Lucky for us the government does report real usable data, they and the press just choose to report manipulated skewed data to placate the masses.
The data we should be looking at is the percentage of working age people employed vs. population of working age people. This is called the employment-to-population ratio or EPR. The new numbers show that the EPR is down to 58.2% from 58.4%. This number is calculated by taking the total number of employed people and dividing by the number of individuals in working-age, and multiplying by 100.
Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics EPR graph for the last decade.
What the 54.2% EPR means is that 582 of every 1000 working aged people has a job, or 458 of every working age person is not working. This does not include children or retirees. Compared to the EPR of 63.4% in December 2006 and we see we have a problem. What’s worse, is the 140,000 or so new jobs created last month is backwards, and not enough to maintain current employment levels; hence the increase in the official but bogus unemployment stat of 8.3%.
Our average working age population growth rate is around 0.2% per month. So just to keep employment levels stable we need around a quarter of a million new jobs every month. The official end to the recession was June 2009, since then we’ve only averaged a little less about 110,000 new jobs per month, this is less than half the new jobs we need every month just to maintain our current EPR. The result is that we are now in the 41st month of over 8% unemployment, and the reality that since June 2009 the EPR has dropped from 59.4% to 58.2%. So although there have been new jobs created, they haven’t even kept pace with the increase in our working age population.
John Williams’ Shadow Stats, shows unemployment and other government stats, calculating them the way they used to be calculated, and compares them to the bogus numbers the government now reports. Here’s their graph of Unemployment numbers.
Right now employment numbers suck. The new American Dream is “I got a job!” and we cannot expect our children to do as well as we did.
Job numbers came out and unemployment is widely reported to have gotten slightly worse to 8.5%. That is a totally bogus number that doesn’t represent reality. Lucky for us the government does report real usable data, they and the press just choose to report manipulated skewed data to placate the masses.
The data we should be looking at is the percentage of working age people employed vs. population of working age people. This is called the employment-to-population ratio or EPR. The new numbers show that the EPR is down to 58.2% from 58.4%. This number is calculated by taking the total number of employed people and dividing by the number of individuals in working-age, and multiplying by 100.
Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics EPR graph for the last decade.
What the 54.2% EPR means is that 582 of every 1000 working aged people has a job, or 458 of every working age person is not working. This does not include children or retirees. Compared to the EPR of 63.4% in December 2006 and we see we have a problem. What’s worse, is the 140,000 or so new jobs created last month is backwards, and not enough to maintain current employment levels; hence the increase in the official but bogus unemployment stat of 8.3%.
Our average working age population growth rate is around 0.2% per month. So just to keep employment levels stable we need around a quarter of a million new jobs every month. The official end to the recession was June 2009, since then we’ve only averaged a little less about 110,000 new jobs per month, this is less than half the new jobs we need every month just to maintain our current EPR. The result is that we are now in the 41st month of over 8% unemployment, and the reality that since June 2009 the EPR has dropped from 59.4% to 58.2%. So although there have been new jobs created, they haven’t even kept pace with the increase in our working age population.
John Williams’ Shadow Stats, shows unemployment and other government stats, calculating them the way they used to be calculated, and compares them to the bogus numbers the government now reports. Here’s their graph of Unemployment numbers.
Right now employment numbers suck. The new American Dream is “I got a job!” and we cannot expect our children to do as well as we did.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
Elseware on this blog I've written about the fact that libertarian thought and roots are Biblical in nature. In fact the Rule of Law, and our country's legacy of fighting and rationale for fighting against tyranny are rooted in Biblical principles. Western civilization, which has brought more prosperity and a higher standard of living for more people than any other society the world has ever seen is rooted in Biblical principles. This fact, galls at many but it is the truth. Below you will find a great paper that relating the Rule of Law, libertarian thought, and Western civilization's success, to it's foundational principles in Christianity. I am a Christian Libertarian, so for me it is easy to see the relationship. If your a libertarian and not a Christian, you cannot deny the Biblical roots to your belief.
For your reading pleasure
The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
by Augusto Zimmermann
So see the original CLICK HERE
Abstract
According to the tradition of the rule of law in the West, to be under law presupposes the existence of certain laws serving as an effective check on arbitrary power. The rule of law is therefore far more than the mere existence of positive laws, as it also requires the state to act in accordance with principles of a ‘higher law’. The search for such ‘higher law’ implies, however, a moral discussion on what laws ought to be. If so, the rule of law becomes an impracticable and even undesirable achievement for societies not subject to certain patterns of cultural and religious behaviour. On the other hand, any radical change in such patterns can certainly produce undesirable consequences for the realization of the rule of law.
The Bible has been historically recognized as the most important book for the development of both the rule of law and democratic institutions in the Western world. However, we have seen over these last decades a deep erosion of individual rights, with the growth of state power over the life and liberty of individuals.
If the future we want for ourselves and our future generations is one of freedom under law, not absolute subjection to the arbitrary will of human authorities, we will have to restore the biblical foundations for the rule of law in the Western world. As such, the rule of law talks about the protection of the individual by God-given liberties, rather than by an all-powerful, law-giving government endowed by god-like powers over the civil society.
Christianity and the discovery of the individualThe modern roots of our individual rights and freedoms in the Western world are found in Christianity. The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times. Among the Romans, law protected social institutions such as the patriarchal family but it did not safeguard the basic rights of the individual, such as personal security, freedom of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of association, and so forth. For them, the individual was of value ‘only if he was a part of the political fabric and able to contribute to its uses as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the state’.1 According to Benjamin Constant, a great French political philosopher, it is wrong to believe that people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity.2 In fact, as Fustel de Coulanges put it, the ancients had not even the idea of what it means.3
In 390, Bishop Ambrose, who was located in Milan, forced Emperor Theodosius to repent of his vindictive massacre of seven thousand people. The fact indicates that under the influence of Christianity, nobody, not even the Roman emperor, would be above the law. And in the thirteenth century, Franciscan nominalists were the first to elaborate legal theories of God-given rights, as individual rights derived from a natural order sustained by God’s immutable laws of ‘right reason’. For medieval thinkers, not even the king himself could violate certain rights of the subject, because the idea of law was attached to the Bible-based concept of Christian justice.
Christianity, the rule of law, and individual libertyThe notion that law and liberty are inseparable is another legacy of Christianity. Accordingly, God’s revealed will is regarded as the ‘higher law’, and therefore placed above human law. Then liberty is found under the law, God’s law, because as the Bible says, ‘the law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul’ (Psa 19:7). If so, people have the moral duty to disobey a human law that perverts God’s law, for the purpose of civil government is to establish all societies in a godly order of freedom and justice.
St Augustine of Hippo once wrote that an unjust law is a contradiction in terms. For him, human laws could be out of harmony with God’s higher laws, and rulers who enact unjust laws were wicked and unlawful authorities. In The City of God, St Augustine explains that a civil authority that has no regard for justice cannot be distinguished from a band of robbers. ‘Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?’4
In the same way, St Thomas Aquinas considered an unjust law a ‘crooked law’, and, as such, nobody would have to obey it. For St Aquinas, since God’s justice was the basic foundation for the rule-of-law system, a ‘law’ that prescribed murder or perjury was not really law, for people would have the moral right to disobey unjust commands. Rulers who enact unjust ‘law’ cease to be authorities in the rightful sense, becoming mere tyrants. The word ‘tyranny’ comes from the Greek for ‘secular rule’, which means rule by men instead of the rule of law.
Barons compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede, England, on June 15th, 1215. The charter underlies basic rights of the individual according to the Christian worldview. (Image courtesy US National Archives & Records Administration.)
In declaring the equality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled the kings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over their arbitrary will. ‘The absolutist monarch inherited from Roman law was thereby counteracted and transformed into a monarch explicitly under law.’5 The Christian religion worked there as a civilizing force and a stranger to despotism. As one may say, ‘The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking “barbarians” of the British Isles to decency.’6
At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’.7 And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.’8
The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of England would no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property of individuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure. Rather, they were told about God’s promise in the book Isaiah, to deal with civil authorities who enact unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1). In fact, the Bible contains many passages condemning the perversion of justice by them (Prov 17:15, 24:23; Exo 23:7; Deut 16:18; Hab 1:4; Isa 60:14; Lam 3:34). In explaining why the citizens of England had much more freedom than their French counterparts, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) declared:
‘There is not land beneath the sun where there is an open Bible and a preached gospel, where a tyrant long can hold his place … Let the Bible be opened to be read by all men, and no tyrant can long rule in peace. England owes her freedom to the Bible; and France will never possess liberty, lasting and well-established, till she comes to reverence the Gospel, which too long has rejected … The religion of Jesus makes men think, and to make men think is always dangerous to a despot’s power.’9Reasons for a civil government
The first reference to civil government in the Holy Scriptures is found in chapter 9 of the book of Genesis. In this chapter, God commands capital punishment for those who take the life of human beings, who are always created in the image of God. In this sense, the right to execute murderers does not belong to government officials themselves, but to God who is the author of life and commands the death penalty for murder in several passages of the Holy Scriptures (e.g. Exod 21:12; Num 35:33). Thus, life can only be taken away from the individual if civil authorities apply it under God’s law and commission, as the sanctity of human life is the basis on which God sanctions capital punishment. As John Stott explains:
‘Capital punishment, according to the Bible, far from cheapening human life by requiring the murderer’s death, demonstrates its unique value by demanding an exact equivalent to the death of the victim.’10
The state is a ‘necessary evil’ that has to be subject to God’s higher laws. After sin entered in the world, it became necessary to establish the civil government in order to curb violence (Gen 6:11–13). However, the state was not envisaged in God’s original plan for mankind, as it places some people in a position of authority over others. At the beginning of the creation, however, Genesis tells us that man and woman lived in close fellowship with God, under His direct and sole authority.11 Then Thomas Paine (1737–1809), a non-Christian himself, expressed the biblical worldview when he uttered these words:
‘Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.’12
The understanding of civil government as a result of our sinful condition justifies the doctrine of limitation of the state powers. It inspired, in both Britain and America, the establishment of a constitutional order based on checks and balances between the branches of government—namely legislative, executive and judicial. Such division obeys the biblical revelation of God as our supreme Judge, Lawgiver and King (Isa 33:22). Since all human beings are born of a sinful nature, the functions of the state ought to be legally checked, because no human being can be trusted with too much power.
Because God instilled in each of us a desire for freedom, political tyranny, as Lord Fortescue (1394–1479) explained, is the attempt on the part of civil authorities to replace natural freedom by a condition of servitude that only satisfies the ‘vicious purposes’ of wicked rulers. As Fortescue put it, the law of England provided freedom to the people only because it was fully indebted to the Holy Scriptures. Thus, he quoted from Mark 2:27 to proclaim that the kings are called to govern for the sake of the kingdom, not the opposite. In this sense, he also remarked:
‘A law is necessarily adjudged cruel if it increases servitude and diminishes freedom, for which human nature always craves. For servitude was introduced by men for vicious purposes. But freedom was instilled into human nature by God. Hence freedom taken away from men always desires to return, as is always the case when natural liberty is denied. So he who does not favour liberty is to be deemed impious and cruel.’13
By placing God’s higher laws above human law, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) considered that the basic laws of England were not designed by the state, but ‘written with the finger of God in the human heart’.14 Coke described the constitution of England as a ‘harmonious system’ sustained primarily by God’s higher laws. Then he went on to declare that no statute enacted by the Parliament is valid if it does not respect God and the law. Finally, Lord Coke wisely pointed out:
‘In nature, we see the infinite distinction of things proceed from some unity, as many rivers from one fountain, many arteries in the body of man from one heart, many veins from one liver, and many sinews from the brain: so without question this admirable unity and consent in such diversity of things proceeds only from God, the fountain and founder of all good laws and constitutions.’15How the idea of ‘evolution’ undermines the rule of law
The notion that human law is always subject to God’s higher laws started to be more deeply challenged in the nineteenth century. After the work of Charles Darwin, belief in evolution presupposed the non-existence of God’s natural moral order as a primary source of positive law. Thus, legal positivists decided to regard the positive law of the state as a mere result of sheer force and social struggle. In brief, a product of human will.
Behind every legal order there is always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the state machinery.
But if laws are caught up in the faith of ‘evolution’, laws can no longer be regarded as possessing a transcendental dignity. Then the very idea of government under law loses its philosophical foundations, and, as a result, societies start to lack a moral condition of legal culture that allows them to effectively restrain the emergence of an all-powerful state.16 As J.R. Rushdoony pointed out:
‘When man is made controller of his own evolution by means of the state, the state is made into the new absolute. Hegel, in accepting social evolution, made the state the new god of being. The followers of Hegel in absolutizing the state are Marxists, Fabians, and other socialists … In brief, God and His transcendental law are dropped in favor of a new god, the state. Evolution thus leads not only to revolution but also to totalitarianism. Social evolutionary theory, as it came to focus in Hegel, has made the state the new god of being. Biological evolutionary thinking, as it has developed since Darwin, has made revolution the great instrument of this new god and the means to establishment of this new god, the scientific socialist state.’17
Behind every legal order there is always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the state machinery.17 The state becomes a ‘god’ in itself if there is no ultimate appeal to higher laws and authority. Whenever the law of the state is regarded as the only source of legality, civil rulers become all-powerful authorities over the life and liberties of the individual. For no legal protection can be reasonably afforded against tyranny, if the supremacy of God’s higher laws is not made to prevail. In this way, Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, has correctly remarked:
‘Views and opinions antagonistic to God’s plan, whether fashioned in legislative enactment or “spontaneously” over an extended period of time in judicial decree, are hardly immutable first principles and they have led, and continue to lead, to the defeat of our happiness.’18
The complexity of things that are held together in the universe indicates the existence of a Supreme Lawmaker. As we see the world as it really is, we must concede that its motions are directed by invariable and fixed rules of law. If there are laws sustaining the world, then who has created these laws? In this regard, as Montesquieu commented:
‘Those who assert that a blind fatality might have produced the various effects we behold in this world are guilty of a very great absurdity; for can anything be more absurd than to pretend that a blind fatality could be productive of intelligent beings?
‘God is related to the universe as Creator and Preserver. The laws by which He has created all things are those by which He preserves them. He acts according to these rulers because He knows them; He knows them because He has made them; and He made them because they are relative to His wisdom and power.
‘Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making, but they also have some which they never made … To say that there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden by positive [human] laws is the same as saying that before the describing of a circle all the radii were not equal.
‘We must therefore acknowledge the existence of relations of justice antecedent to positive law, and by which they are established … If there are intelligent beings that have received a benefit of another being, they ought to be grateful; if one intelligent being has created another intelligent being, the latter ought to continue in its original state of dependence.
‘But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical one. For though the former has also its laws which of their own nature are invariable, yet it does not conform to them so exactly as the physical world. This is because on the one hand intelligent human beings are of finite nature and consequently liable to error; and, on the other, their nature requires them to be free agents. Hence they do not steadily conform to their primitive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe.
‘Man, as a physical being, is, like other bodies, governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses these laws established by God and changes even the ones which he himself has established. Then, he is left to his own direction, though he is a limited being and subject like all finite intelligences to ignorance and error. And even the imperfect knowledge he has, he loses it as a sensible creature when it is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator. For this reason, God has reminded him of his obligations by the law of [the Judaeo-Christian] religion.’19God’s Law is above the state law
The human intellect should not be our basic reference in terms of legality because everyone is affected by a sinful nature. Then, our basic legal rights should be considered the ones revealed by God Himself through the Holy Scriptures. According to the doctrine of natura delecta, which means that our human nature has been damaged by the original sin, law is not so much to be based on human wisdom as on God’s wisdom and sovereign will. As the Bible says, ‘The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength’ (1 Cor 1:25).
The rule of law can only subsist if civil authorities are able to respect the hierarchical prevalence of God’s higher laws over the state law. Although the law of God is always perfect, for God’s wisdom is always perfect, human authorities are sinful creatures who might have their minds controlled by desires of the flesh. They may be slaves of sin and rebels against God, although citizens who elect sinful people and obey their wicked rulings are slaves of sin as well.
A basic question of the rule of law is to know which sort of authority we want as the ultimate source of power over ourselves: the authority of a loving God or the authority of a sinful human ruler. If we decide for the sinful ruler, then, as R.J. Rushdoony puts it, ‘we have no right to complain against the rise of totalitarianism, the rise of tyranny—we have asked for it’.20
To avoid tyranny, William Blackstone (1723–1780) once declared that no human law could be valid if it contradicted God’s higher laws which maintain and regulate natural human rights to life, liberty, and property.21 According to Blackstone’s biblical understanding of the rule of law,
‘No human laws should be suffered to contradict [God’s] laws … Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.’22The biblical understanding of lawful resistance against tyranny
When God delegates His supreme authority to human rulers, they have no liberty to use it in order to justify tyranny. In fact, there are quite remarkable examples in the Holy Scriptures where God explicitly commands civil disobedience against the state. For example, Egyptian midwives refused to obey the Pharaoh’s order to kill Hebrew babies. As the Bible says, ‘[they] feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt told them to do’ (Exod 1:17). Likewise, three Hebrews did not obey Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar, when he commanded everyone to bow down and worship his golden image (Dan 6). Daniel also refused to obey a decree enacted by King Darius, which forced everyone not to pray to any god or men except to himself.
In the New Testament, we have the example of the first Apostles’ attitude towards the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council of priests and teachers of the law. The council ordered them not to preach in the name of Christ Jesus. However, the Book of Acts says that the Apostles refused to obey their decision, and, as the Apostle Peter boldly declared, ‘We must obey God rather than human authority’ (Acts 5:29, NLT). In fact, the zeal of the Apostles for the Lord was so great that they refused to be silenced by unfair rulers, even if such a refusal resulted in arrest and/or execution. They considered themselves bound by God’s Law in the first place, and kept on preaching the Gospel as if it were no legal prohibition. To be obeyed, therefore, civil authorities have firstly to obey God and the law. As John Stott has pointed out:
‘If the state commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, then our plain Christian duty is to resist, not to submit, to disobey the state in order to obey God … Whenever laws are enacted which contradict God’s law, civil disobedience becomes a Christian duty.’23
Although the first Apostles regarded it as totally lawful to disobey ungodly legislation, today’s followers of Christ like to quote from chapter 13 of Paul’s letter to the Romans in order to justify their compliance with immoral rules of positive law. However, Paul argues here that we obey the civil authority because it holds ‘no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong’ (Rom 13:3 NIV). If the person who holds the state power abuses his or her God-given power, ‘our duty is not to submit, but to resist’.24 According to F.A. Schaeffer, a more accurate interpretation of this passage would clearly indicate that ‘the state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has not proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.’25
God has established the state as delegated authority, not an autonomous power above the law. When we obey the state it is not that we obey individuals who are in charge of the state machinery, but it is rather for obedience to a God-given authority who is commanded by God to promote natural principles of liberty and justice. Therefore, as Pope John XXIII explains in his encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris’:
‘Since the right to command is required by the moral order and has its source in God, it follows that, if civil authorities pass laws or command anything opposed to the moral order and consequently contrary to the will of God, neither the laws made nor the authorizations granted can be binding on the consciences of the citizens, since God has more right to be obeyed than men. Otherwise, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.’26
Because Paul also says that the Word of God is not to be bound (2 Tim 2:9 NIV), the right of resistance against tyranny is an important element of the rule-of-law system ordained by Him. For this reason, as John Knox (1513–1572) put it, to rebel against a wicked ruler can be the same as to oppose the devil himself, ‘who is the one abusing from the sword and authority of God’.27 Knox stated that anyone who dares to rule over a nation against the law of God can be lawfully resisted, even by force if necessary.28 According to John Knox, if the civil ruler seems to be effectively willing to destroy the Christian foundations of the society,
‘[God] hath commanded no obedience, but rather He hath approved, yea, and greatly rewarded, all those who have opposed themselves to their ungodly commandments and blind rage.’29
Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Scot Presbyterian like John Knox, developed in ‘Lex Rex’ a consistent doctrine of lawful resistance against political tyranny. According to Rutherford, if people wish to effectively stay free from such tyranny, then they will have to preserve their inalienable right to eventually disobey unjust legislation. For him, ‘A power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a [lawful] power, but a licentious deviation of a [lawful] power.’30 And in answer to the royalists who liked to use Romans 13 in order to condemn any form of resistance against the government, as a resistance against God Himself, Rutherford boldly proclaimed:
Colour image of Trumbull's Declaration of Independence taken from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image: Declaration_independence.jpg. public domain
American ‘fathers’ signing the U.S. Declaration of Independence at Philadelphia, 4 July, 1776. The document states as a ‘self-evident truth’ that all human beings are equally endowed by God with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Image courtesy library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Detroit Publishing Company Collection.)
‘It is a blasphemy to think or say that when a king is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God, that God, if he were personally present, would commit these same acts of tyranny.’31
John Locke (1634–1704), whose legal and political ideas provided legal justification to the 1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ in Britain, argued that lawmakers put themselves into a ‘state of war’ against the society whenever they endeavour to destroy our God-given ‘natural’ rights to life, liberty and property. For Locke, no government has the right to reduce these basic rights of the individual citizen. If so, Locke argued that people would be left ‘at the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and violence’.32
The American Founding Fathers fully acknowledged the principle of lawful resistance against tyranny, and drew heavily from this in order to justify their revolutionary actions against the British government, in 1776. Written by Thomas Jefferson, the US Declaration of Independence argues that revolution is the last recourse of a free people against ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations’ on the part of the government. Thus, they justified their actions on the grounds that God has endowed each human being with natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are basic rights that not even the state can take away from them.
Of course, any revolutionary uprising, as Pope Paul VI comments in his encyclical ‘Popularum Progressio’, can only be justified in extraordinary situations ‘where there is a manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country’.33 However, the recourse to violence, as a means to right the wrongs of the state against the rule of law, risks itself to produce new forms of injustice. Therefore, Pope Paul VI also stated that revolutionary uprising can only be carried out as the last remedy against long-standing tyranny, because, as he put it, ‘a real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater misery’.33
The rule of law, Christianity and human rightsAccording to the Judeo-Christian worldview, human beings were created by God and, as such, have never ‘acquired’ their basic rights from the state. Nor are such basic rights a result of any work performed by them, but it flows directly from the nature of each human being who is always conceived in the image of a loving God (Gen 1:26).
According to Genesis 1:27–28, God created all human beings, male and female, in His own image, commanding them to fill the earth and subdue it. We found here a very special meaning for the recognition of human dignity, as the result of the relationship between God and His human creatures, which the Fall has distorted but not destroyed. From this fact it follows, for instance, that widows will not be burned on their husband’s funeral pyre, as they still are in India, and that people will not be sold to slavery, as they still are in Sudan.34
Every year, Freedom House, a secular organization, conducts a survey to analyze the situation of democracy and human rights across the globe. Year after year, it concludes that the most rights-based and democratic nations are the majority-Protestant ones. On the other hand, Islam and Marxism, the latter a secular religion, seem to offer the most serious obstacles for the realization of democracy and human rights. In fact, the denial of the broadest range of basic human rights comes precisely from Marxist and majority-Muslim countries. The worst violators of human rights are Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and the one-party Marxist regimes of Cuba and North Korea.35
In contrast to Islam, Christianity has democratized political manners, and still is the main moral force that holds democratic values together in the West. It provides the strongest argument for the protection of basic human rights. For Paul L. Maier, Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, ‘no other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done’.36
In declaring that we all stand on equal ground before God, Christianity gives the best moral foundations for social and political equality.34 If Christianity is found to be true, the individual, male or female, is not only more important but incomparably more important than the social body. This helps to explain, in Charles Colson’s opinion, ‘why Christianity has always provided not only a vigorous defence of human rights but also the sturdiest bulwark against tyranny’.34
ConclusionA visible fact in these days of moral relativism is the gradual abandonment of the Christian faith and culture in the Western world. As a result, the moral
 "Westerners who disparage their Christian heritage should get much better informed … |
Westerners who disparage their Christian heritage should get much better informed that were it not for this religion, they would not have the freedoms they enjoy today, for instance, to dishonour the very source of these freedoms, namely Christianity.37 Regarding the present climate of multiculturalism, it would be better for them to think much more carefully on the words uttered by a great historian, Carlton Hayes:
‘Wherever Christians’ ideals have been generally accepted and their practice sincerely attempted, there is a dynamic liberty; and wherever Christianity had been ignored or rejected, persecuted or chained to the state, there is tyranny.’38References and notes
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Obama Lies again, This time about Guns.
By Tom Rhodes, 7/31/2012
Last week Obama said, “I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a national heritage. . ."
Was he lying then or was he lying back in 2003 when as an Illinois State Senator he voted for a bill banning the private ownership of hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in Illinois?
Either his vote to ban hunting weapons reflected his views, or his words last week reflect his views, both cannot be true. Since his 2003 vote was an action, not just political platitudes to the masses, I tend to believe that Obama would prefer that only the government could be armed, but knows that expressing the desire of his heart would cost him the election in November.
The Chicago Defender reported in 1999 that Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in federal taxes on the sale of firearm ammunition. A year later, Illinois state senator, Obama, co-sponsored legislation limiting the firearms purchases by law-abiding citizens. Actions speak louder than words, Obama’s actions and past confirm that not only does he not respect the 2nd amendment, but he’s a liar.
Tomorrow I’ll take action, I’m going to take a Boy Scout to the range and help him work on his Marksmanship merit badge, and then to Chick-Fil-A for lunch.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Yes there are still real men in the USA!
By Tom Rhodes, 7/27/2012
Not enough sympathy and support for the victims of the Aurora massacre can ever be expressed. We as a society can however take solace in knowing that this tragedy clearly demonstrates the fact that honorable manly men still represent a significant part of America. Fully one quarter of the people who died in the Aurora Massacre did so valiantly. Three of the 12 dead, died saving the lives of others, and can directly be attributed to diminishing what was a horrendous death toll.
The fact that three men purposefully and bravely did what American men have traditionally done; protect their loved ones, even at the cost of their own life. They did so by using their bodies to shield women from bullets, should not be astounding, it is a reflection of traditional American manly values. This kind of self sacrifice is not dead in America, and should be honored and celebrated. No doubt there are other men in the Aurora theater who did the same, and were lucky enough not to be killed, and don't want accolades or to even be noticed.
Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all died, by acting like men, using traits modern feminists consider barbaric, primitive and obsolete. The feminization of America is not complete, although traditional "macho" characteristics of men have been successfully devalued because of the feminist influence in our society, it is clear that America still values, and has men who still value, traits that make a man a real man.
Jon Blunk, pushed his girlfriend, Jansen, under the seat and laid on top of her to shield her from the butchery. That's where he died. Alex Teves likewise, pushed his girlfriend, Amanda, to the floor to save her. He was shot before he could do anything else. Matt McQuinn, jumped in front of his love Samantha, taking shots to the leg, back and chest. Matt's sacrifice was not in vain, and although she was shot in the leg, Samantha survived.
The sheer magnitude of the number of men willing to lay down their lives for others cannot be unstated. I don't know if these three men were Boy Scouts, but from the interviews of people who knew them, it is clear that they embraced the values the Boy Scouts try to instill in men. Those values which are under constant attack by the left and over feminized part of our society are expressed in the Scout Slogan, Scout Motto and Scout law:
The Scout slogan states: "Be Prepared"
The Scout law states that: "A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.
The Scout Motto states: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
The Boy Scouts are uncompromising in these values, for that they are vilified. The question I have for any parent of a girl, wouldn't you want the man she marries to be uncompromising in these same values? The question I have for any woman looking for a husband, wouldn't you want the man you marry to be uncompromising in these same values? The good news is that if the men in the Aurora theater are any example, you can still find men with such values.
It is clear by the selfless actions of Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves that they were all mentally awake, physical fit, did their duty to protect others, and completely honored both the law and motto of the Boy Scouts. They were even obedient (not being armed), honoring the rules of the theater that prohibited arms even from concealed weapon permit holders. They were prepared to take, and did take immediate self sacrificial action. I don't know if they were former Boy Scouts or not, but they displayed the traditional values of men, acting with chivalry, bravery, and selflessness that the Boy Scouts so proudly try to protect and instill in young men. These men didn't depend on any other to protect those they loved; they took personal responsibility and put the lives of others before their own.
The fact that it wasn't just one man, but many, should give us hope that society in America is not lost, and as a society we still value liberty, freedom, and yes, personal responsibility. It is virtually impossible to stop a deranged person with violent intentions. We see evidence of this world wide regardless of local laws; the sarin gas attack in Japan, bombing of innocents all over the world, the shooting massacre in Norway; Rather than dwell on trying to stop what can't be stopped. We should use this tragic event to celebrate and honor the men among us who are prepared, can, and will, sacrifice themselves for others. We should also take this time to look at examples where massacres were mitigated by men who were prepared and ignored danger to themselves, did stop similar events.
Although the press doesn't talk about it, and Obama uses tragedies like Aurora to try and disarm the innocent, the fact is experts agree that a determined killer willing to give up his own life, cannot be stopped. The fact is that as a society we can be safer if we enhance the odds in favor of innocent people instead of criminals. This means making it easier, not harder for individuals to exercise personal responsibility and be prepared to defend themselves and others. We have examples to numerous to count of regular people willing to put themselves into danger to protect others. The press and left in general don't like to expose these examples because they so often involve the effective private use of arms is defense of others.
The week before the Aurora massacre, a 71 year old man used a small pocket pistol to thwart two young men armed with a revolver and baseball bat, from robbing and/or killing the patrons of an Ocala internet café.
A gunman was stopped after killing two students and wounding seven at a Pearl, Miss. high school. An assistant principal, with no regard for his personal safety, rushed to his car, got his pistol, then rushed back to where the shooter was. He confronted the rifle-carrying shooter, and without firing a shot, ordered the shooter to the ground and held his gun to the shooter's neck until police arrived.
A man purchased a knife in a grocery store, went to the parking lot, stabbed and critically injured two men, and was threatening others. A prepared customer at this Salt Lake City grocery store, drew his legally carried gun, and held the criminal until police arrived.
At the Appalachian School of Law, a distraught student shot and killed the dean, a professor and another student. Before the shooter could manage any other carnage, two students retrieved their pistols from their cars, and used them to stop the attack. In analyzing this story John Lott, author of "More Guns = Less Crime" noted that were well over 200 print articles and only four mentioned that crime was stopped by students armed with pistols.
We should be celebrating, that there are still men in America who can and will defend and protect others. The political left and main stream press's use of the Aurora Massacre as a call to disarm America, while they generally ignore the character and actions of men who act like Boy Scouts (A.K.A. real men). They are un-American, not to be trusted, and are hurting not helping our society. Yes there are still real men in the USA, lots of them; they have names like Blunk, McQuinn and Teves. We need to be honoring them and quit tolerating the vilification of manly values that the scared, dependent, victim mentality, of the over feminized left in politics and the press consistently bombards us.
Not enough sympathy and support for the victims of the Aurora massacre can ever be expressed. We as a society can however take solace in knowing that this tragedy clearly demonstrates the fact that honorable manly men still represent a significant part of America. Fully one quarter of the people who died in the Aurora Massacre did so valiantly. Three of the 12 dead, died saving the lives of others, and can directly be attributed to diminishing what was a horrendous death toll.
The fact that three men purposefully and bravely did what American men have traditionally done; protect their loved ones, even at the cost of their own life. They did so by using their bodies to shield women from bullets, should not be astounding, it is a reflection of traditional American manly values. This kind of self sacrifice is not dead in America, and should be honored and celebrated. No doubt there are other men in the Aurora theater who did the same, and were lucky enough not to be killed, and don't want accolades or to even be noticed.
Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all died, by acting like men, using traits modern feminists consider barbaric, primitive and obsolete. The feminization of America is not complete, although traditional "macho" characteristics of men have been successfully devalued because of the feminist influence in our society, it is clear that America still values, and has men who still value, traits that make a man a real man.
Jon Blunk, pushed his girlfriend, Jansen, under the seat and laid on top of her to shield her from the butchery. That's where he died. Alex Teves likewise, pushed his girlfriend, Amanda, to the floor to save her. He was shot before he could do anything else. Matt McQuinn, jumped in front of his love Samantha, taking shots to the leg, back and chest. Matt's sacrifice was not in vain, and although she was shot in the leg, Samantha survived.
The sheer magnitude of the number of men willing to lay down their lives for others cannot be unstated. I don't know if these three men were Boy Scouts, but from the interviews of people who knew them, it is clear that they embraced the values the Boy Scouts try to instill in men. Those values which are under constant attack by the left and over feminized part of our society are expressed in the Scout Slogan, Scout Motto and Scout law:
The Scout slogan states: "Be Prepared"
The Scout law states that: "A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.
The Scout Motto states: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
The Boy Scouts are uncompromising in these values, for that they are vilified. The question I have for any parent of a girl, wouldn't you want the man she marries to be uncompromising in these same values? The question I have for any woman looking for a husband, wouldn't you want the man you marry to be uncompromising in these same values? The good news is that if the men in the Aurora theater are any example, you can still find men with such values.
It is clear by the selfless actions of Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves that they were all mentally awake, physical fit, did their duty to protect others, and completely honored both the law and motto of the Boy Scouts. They were even obedient (not being armed), honoring the rules of the theater that prohibited arms even from concealed weapon permit holders. They were prepared to take, and did take immediate self sacrificial action. I don't know if they were former Boy Scouts or not, but they displayed the traditional values of men, acting with chivalry, bravery, and selflessness that the Boy Scouts so proudly try to protect and instill in young men. These men didn't depend on any other to protect those they loved; they took personal responsibility and put the lives of others before their own.
The fact that it wasn't just one man, but many, should give us hope that society in America is not lost, and as a society we still value liberty, freedom, and yes, personal responsibility. It is virtually impossible to stop a deranged person with violent intentions. We see evidence of this world wide regardless of local laws; the sarin gas attack in Japan, bombing of innocents all over the world, the shooting massacre in Norway; Rather than dwell on trying to stop what can't be stopped. We should use this tragic event to celebrate and honor the men among us who are prepared, can, and will, sacrifice themselves for others. We should also take this time to look at examples where massacres were mitigated by men who were prepared and ignored danger to themselves, did stop similar events.
Although the press doesn't talk about it, and Obama uses tragedies like Aurora to try and disarm the innocent, the fact is experts agree that a determined killer willing to give up his own life, cannot be stopped. The fact is that as a society we can be safer if we enhance the odds in favor of innocent people instead of criminals. This means making it easier, not harder for individuals to exercise personal responsibility and be prepared to defend themselves and others. We have examples to numerous to count of regular people willing to put themselves into danger to protect others. The press and left in general don't like to expose these examples because they so often involve the effective private use of arms is defense of others.
The week before the Aurora massacre, a 71 year old man used a small pocket pistol to thwart two young men armed with a revolver and baseball bat, from robbing and/or killing the patrons of an Ocala internet café.
A gunman was stopped after killing two students and wounding seven at a Pearl, Miss. high school. An assistant principal, with no regard for his personal safety, rushed to his car, got his pistol, then rushed back to where the shooter was. He confronted the rifle-carrying shooter, and without firing a shot, ordered the shooter to the ground and held his gun to the shooter's neck until police arrived.
A man purchased a knife in a grocery store, went to the parking lot, stabbed and critically injured two men, and was threatening others. A prepared customer at this Salt Lake City grocery store, drew his legally carried gun, and held the criminal until police arrived.
At the Appalachian School of Law, a distraught student shot and killed the dean, a professor and another student. Before the shooter could manage any other carnage, two students retrieved their pistols from their cars, and used them to stop the attack. In analyzing this story John Lott, author of "More Guns = Less Crime" noted that were well over 200 print articles and only four mentioned that crime was stopped by students armed with pistols.
We should be celebrating, that there are still men in America who can and will defend and protect others. The political left and main stream press's use of the Aurora Massacre as a call to disarm America, while they generally ignore the character and actions of men who act like Boy Scouts (A.K.A. real men). They are un-American, not to be trusted, and are hurting not helping our society. Yes there are still real men in the USA, lots of them; they have names like Blunk, McQuinn and Teves. We need to be honoring them and quit tolerating the vilification of manly values that the scared, dependent, victim mentality, of the over feminized left in politics and the press consistently bombards us.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Only the Ineffectiveness of Police Allowed Obama to Be Elected.
By Tom Rhodes, 7/25/2012
"If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he used and 'maybe a little blow' ... if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard ****ing time ... time in federal prison, time for his 'weed' and 'a little blow,' he would not be president ... would not have gone to his fancy-ass college, he would not have sold books ... made millions of dollars. ... He would have been in ****ing prison, and it's not a ... joke." ~ Penn Jillette
The simple fact is Obama is an admitted felon. He has openly admitted to committing felonies that currently result in the US having more people in prison than just about any other country. In his memoir, "Dreams From My Father", Barack Obama wrote about using drugs in his youth, "Pot had helped ... ; maybe a little blow (cocaine) when you could afford it." The problem isn't that Obama committed felonies. The problem is that the crimes he committed, which infringe upon the rights of no other, are crimes in the first place. The bigger problem is that we have so many crimes that the government, much less any individual, can't even count them all. Hell, even lawyers can't agree on what's legal and what isn't.
One of the purposes of our government is to arrest, try and punish criminals, real criminals, people who violate our rights. Why our government at all levels is in the business of forbidding and punishing individuals for conduct that violates nobody else's rights, and creating a set of laws so complex to govern actions that might possible harm, rather than keeping itself to regulating and policing actual harm, should be examined. The reason is clear, politicians want power and control, our constitution makes that difficult. Unlike most governments ours is based on limiting government not individuals.
Lawmakers say the hundreds of thousands of pages of law are for our own good. Sorry but how the hell do they know what is best for each individual. The purpose and reason we created our government is clear; to protect fundamental rights of individuals from being abused by others or even the government. That's it, no more, it is not to provide for anybody's basic needs, protect people from poor life choices, or limit the choices people can make.
If the police and a prosecutor had known and could prove Obama's felonious acts, they could have and would have destroyed Obama's life, like so many prosecutors have done to millions of other Americans. The only reason Obama was a viable presidential candidate is because of the ineffectiveness of our police and prosecutors. If they were effective in prosecuting laws created for our own good, Obama would have been typical of so many other black men. A convicted felon, with a rap sheet, unemployable, unmarriable , unuseful, and an unwanted drain on society.
Depending on where you look it is reported that Right now we lock up about 750 of every 100,000 people, most for possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. This is absurd. What is more absurd is the hypocrisy of both parties, specifically Obama; destroying millions of people's lives, putting them in prison for doing what they openly admit to doing. In fact over the past 20 years all of our sitting presidents admit to committing the same felonies that their justice departments prosecute with the zeal of warriors. The entire War-on-Drugs, is about power and control not about doing what's in our own best interest.
A faction (small fraction) of people in government and society has decided that it is better for everybody to give up liberty so that they can make everybody safer. They believe that they, a small group, can and should decide what is best for everybody. They believe that the government has the right and should determine what and how much everybody should eat, where and how they should live, what safety gear people should be forced to use, and what mind altering substances should be legal. Because they have moved to give the government the power to provide for "health care" of everybody, they now believe that the government because it "must" provide for everybody, now can dictate everybody's actions. This is an insidious evil and is contrary to how the vast majority of Americans used to want to live.
If recreational drugs were so evil and damaging that we must protect people from themselves, how do you explain the success Obama, Bush, or for that matter success the cannabis growing forefathers like Jefferson and Washington. "Overcriminalization" describes the trend in America - and particularly in Congress - to use the criminal law to "solve" every problem, punish every mistake (instead of making proper use of civil penalties), and coerce Americans into conforming their behavior to satisfy social engineering objectives. Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction.
But as a result of rampant overcriminalization, trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime. Many criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict a person even if he acted without criminal intent (i.e., mens rea). Consider retiree and orchid grower T George Norris, federal agents raided and ransacked their Texas home in 2003, he was arrested and served two years in federal prison with rapists and murders. His crime was improperly filling out government paperwork related to perfectly legal orchids he grew and sold out of his back yard.
Imagine a high school girl who's parents abandon her and her siblings, she manages to maintain grades high enough to keep her on the honor roll while working two jobs as sole bread winner. Providing for herself and what's left of her family she has been forced to miss some school. Despite Honor Roll grades, she has been fined and forced to spend time in jail for truancy and now has a criminal record. "Her criminal record will stay with her for the rest of her life, jeopardizing her ability to find work or gain admission to a university."
Half a century ago we were told that our government would make it impossible for the average man live without breaking the law, thus giving the government power over everybody. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~ Ayn Rand
We are about to embark on a lawless America. The people cannot follow the law, nor does anybody any longer respect the law. The overcriminalization of morally righteous and laudable acts, has and will result in the people ignoring the law. Because nobody can follow the hundreds of thousands of laws; because even our own president openly admits to committing felonies; because it has become painfully obvious that the rule of law is no longer applied equally in our nation; we now see without any shame, people openly ripping off the government welfare system, openly violating laws, and thumbing their nose at the government. Neither the left nor right of the political spectrum respects the law.
Why does President Obama, not do everything in his power to end the absurdity of 750 of 100,000 people being in jail. He has the power and could pardon every person in federal prison convicted of non-violent drug crimes, and could direct the Dept. of Justice to not prosecute any and all non-violent drug crimes? Any actions less than this is complete hypocrisy as he admits to possessing, using, and purchasing both pot and coke, but now persecutes those who do as he did. Talk about saving the country money. Imagine the hundreds of millions that would be saved starting tomorrow, if zero non-violent federal drug crimes were prosecuted, and millions of non-violent people, only convicted of doing the same actions that exactly what Obama freely admits do doing were no longer imprisoned.
"If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he used and 'maybe a little blow' ... if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard ****ing time ... time in federal prison, time for his 'weed' and 'a little blow,' he would not be president ... would not have gone to his fancy-ass college, he would not have sold books ... made millions of dollars. ... He would have been in ****ing prison, and it's not a ... joke." ~ Penn Jillette
The simple fact is Obama is an admitted felon. He has openly admitted to committing felonies that currently result in the US having more people in prison than just about any other country. In his memoir, "Dreams From My Father", Barack Obama wrote about using drugs in his youth, "Pot had helped ... ; maybe a little blow (cocaine) when you could afford it." The problem isn't that Obama committed felonies. The problem is that the crimes he committed, which infringe upon the rights of no other, are crimes in the first place. The bigger problem is that we have so many crimes that the government, much less any individual, can't even count them all. Hell, even lawyers can't agree on what's legal and what isn't.
One of the purposes of our government is to arrest, try and punish criminals, real criminals, people who violate our rights. Why our government at all levels is in the business of forbidding and punishing individuals for conduct that violates nobody else's rights, and creating a set of laws so complex to govern actions that might possible harm, rather than keeping itself to regulating and policing actual harm, should be examined. The reason is clear, politicians want power and control, our constitution makes that difficult. Unlike most governments ours is based on limiting government not individuals.
Lawmakers say the hundreds of thousands of pages of law are for our own good. Sorry but how the hell do they know what is best for each individual. The purpose and reason we created our government is clear; to protect fundamental rights of individuals from being abused by others or even the government. That's it, no more, it is not to provide for anybody's basic needs, protect people from poor life choices, or limit the choices people can make.
If the police and a prosecutor had known and could prove Obama's felonious acts, they could have and would have destroyed Obama's life, like so many prosecutors have done to millions of other Americans. The only reason Obama was a viable presidential candidate is because of the ineffectiveness of our police and prosecutors. If they were effective in prosecuting laws created for our own good, Obama would have been typical of so many other black men. A convicted felon, with a rap sheet, unemployable, unmarriable , unuseful, and an unwanted drain on society.
Depending on where you look it is reported that Right now we lock up about 750 of every 100,000 people, most for possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. This is absurd. What is more absurd is the hypocrisy of both parties, specifically Obama; destroying millions of people's lives, putting them in prison for doing what they openly admit to doing. In fact over the past 20 years all of our sitting presidents admit to committing the same felonies that their justice departments prosecute with the zeal of warriors. The entire War-on-Drugs, is about power and control not about doing what's in our own best interest.
A faction (small fraction) of people in government and society has decided that it is better for everybody to give up liberty so that they can make everybody safer. They believe that they, a small group, can and should decide what is best for everybody. They believe that the government has the right and should determine what and how much everybody should eat, where and how they should live, what safety gear people should be forced to use, and what mind altering substances should be legal. Because they have moved to give the government the power to provide for "health care" of everybody, they now believe that the government because it "must" provide for everybody, now can dictate everybody's actions. This is an insidious evil and is contrary to how the vast majority of Americans used to want to live.
If recreational drugs were so evil and damaging that we must protect people from themselves, how do you explain the success Obama, Bush, or for that matter success the cannabis growing forefathers like Jefferson and Washington. "Overcriminalization" describes the trend in America - and particularly in Congress - to use the criminal law to "solve" every problem, punish every mistake (instead of making proper use of civil penalties), and coerce Americans into conforming their behavior to satisfy social engineering objectives. Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction.
But as a result of rampant overcriminalization, trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime. Many criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict a person even if he acted without criminal intent (i.e., mens rea). Consider retiree and orchid grower T George Norris, federal agents raided and ransacked their Texas home in 2003, he was arrested and served two years in federal prison with rapists and murders. His crime was improperly filling out government paperwork related to perfectly legal orchids he grew and sold out of his back yard.
Imagine a high school girl who's parents abandon her and her siblings, she manages to maintain grades high enough to keep her on the honor roll while working two jobs as sole bread winner. Providing for herself and what's left of her family she has been forced to miss some school. Despite Honor Roll grades, she has been fined and forced to spend time in jail for truancy and now has a criminal record. "Her criminal record will stay with her for the rest of her life, jeopardizing her ability to find work or gain admission to a university."
Half a century ago we were told that our government would make it impossible for the average man live without breaking the law, thus giving the government power over everybody. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~ Ayn Rand
We are about to embark on a lawless America. The people cannot follow the law, nor does anybody any longer respect the law. The overcriminalization of morally righteous and laudable acts, has and will result in the people ignoring the law. Because nobody can follow the hundreds of thousands of laws; because even our own president openly admits to committing felonies; because it has become painfully obvious that the rule of law is no longer applied equally in our nation; we now see without any shame, people openly ripping off the government welfare system, openly violating laws, and thumbing their nose at the government. Neither the left nor right of the political spectrum respects the law.
Why does President Obama, not do everything in his power to end the absurdity of 750 of 100,000 people being in jail. He has the power and could pardon every person in federal prison convicted of non-violent drug crimes, and could direct the Dept. of Justice to not prosecute any and all non-violent drug crimes? Any actions less than this is complete hypocrisy as he admits to possessing, using, and purchasing both pot and coke, but now persecutes those who do as he did. Talk about saving the country money. Imagine the hundreds of millions that would be saved starting tomorrow, if zero non-violent federal drug crimes were prosecuted, and millions of non-violent people, only convicted of doing the same actions that exactly what Obama freely admits do doing were no longer imprisoned.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Our Natural Response to Threats
By Tom Rhodes, 7/25/2012
Since before our country was founded, Americans have been a self reliant lot, distrusting of the government, with a propensity for hoarding arms and ammo to protect ourselves from any aggressors, including our government. When are rights are threatened we routinely purchase arms and ammo. Record arms and ammo sales in Denver after the tragic mass murder in a “gun free zone”, is the norm for this country and has been since before we were a country.
Paul Revere’s famous ride was one of several “Powder Alarms” that occurred in the British colonies in America. Before the revolutionary war started there were several Powder Alarms in the Colonies. In Cambridge Massachusetts the colonists removed their gunpowder from the storehouse, in response to the army, from the outlying area armed colonists surged into the area to protect the stores from the government. The result was ammo and arms was removed and dispersed among the people before the government could get there.
In Salem, Massachusetts, colonists thwarted the government from taking their cannons by raising a drawbridge and denying them passage. Only after the cannons and powder were removed and hidden did the people allow the government troops to cross the bridge. The government troops found the stores empty and returned to Boston.
The local militias drilled through the winter preparing for the inevitable moment when the conflict would start. In New England, towns moved and hid their powder and arms. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the Government marched into Concord to take the stores of arms and ammo which was collected there, the people preemptively hid most of it. When it was discovered that General Gage was plotting to confiscate the ammo and powder of the people, Dr. Joseph Warren sent Paul Revere on his midnight ride to alarm the people.
Contrary to what the ruling elite and liberal press would have you believe, it is the long standing traditional response of the people in the USA when threatened, to prepare for self defense, by hoarding arms and ammo privately, hidden from the prying eyes of government. This is a uniquely American tradition. When we are reminded that we have been lacking in preparation, like the tragic mass murder in Colorado, we renew our efforts. When we start to fear the government in restricting our ability to access stores of arms and ammo, we retrieve them and hoard them privately outside of government control. Just as we did centuries ago, the people of the USA, send out the word whenever it is believed the government is planning to restrict our access to arms and ammo. Then it was the “crier” yelling the warning to all, today it is the blogger.
Denver’s massive increase in arms and ammo sales is normal and predictable for our country. The massive increase in arms and ammo sales when it became evident Obama would win the election was predictable and normal for the USA. His record and words on private ownership of arms, and actions and laws he promoted, made it clear that once again, the people have need to hide and hoard arms and ammo from the government.
As James Madison said in the Federalist #46"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." In that same paper he also admonished the newly formed government writing, “Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”
The people of the USA will not be unarmed, and firmly believe that they should not trust a government that doesn’t trust them. Why the press is “shocked” at the people buying guns in record numbers in the Denver area as a reaction to last week’s mass murder shows a distinct lack of understanding of US history, and distrust of the American people. This reaction is distinctly American, and is also a well reasoned reaction.
The Aurora theater banned effective self-defense, obviously not allowing law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms didn’t work well for those who were killed and injured. Just as obvious was the Ocala Florida event a week earlier where a 71 year old man stopped violent armed criminals in an internet café. The tragic event in Aurora and the event in Ocala are reminders to all Americans that they need to be prepared to defend themselves from societies predators, a stark reminder that the police cannot be everywhere all the time. The reason we have the second amendment, and concealed carry laws is to protect the people’s pre-existing, God given right to effectively defend themselves and their families.
You can expect that regardless of signs posted, normally law abiding citizens will no longer leave their arms at home or in their car. It is unfortunate that we have to be reminded again. In Aurora just like the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, not being prepared to defend yourself, following irrational government regulations on where you can keep and bear arms, leaving your gun in your car while eat or watch a movie is not effective self protection. After her parents were murdered before her eyes, Suzanna Gratia Hupp expressed regret for abiding by the law and leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. See here testimony before congress HERE.
In the 3 days after the Aurora massacre there were nearly 3000 requests for back ground checks to purchase firearms in Colorado. This is the exact and proper response from Americans in America. Our traditions, our history, the writings of our founding fathers, all reflect this as a normal and natural response for Americans who as a people prefer the self reliance required of being free, to the obedience and servitude of being kept. Traditionally arming ourselves is the way Americans react when their rights are threatened, it should be no surprise, and should be soundly celebrated.
Since before our country was founded, Americans have been a self reliant lot, distrusting of the government, with a propensity for hoarding arms and ammo to protect ourselves from any aggressors, including our government. When are rights are threatened we routinely purchase arms and ammo. Record arms and ammo sales in Denver after the tragic mass murder in a “gun free zone”, is the norm for this country and has been since before we were a country.
Paul Revere’s famous ride was one of several “Powder Alarms” that occurred in the British colonies in America. Before the revolutionary war started there were several Powder Alarms in the Colonies. In Cambridge Massachusetts the colonists removed their gunpowder from the storehouse, in response to the army, from the outlying area armed colonists surged into the area to protect the stores from the government. The result was ammo and arms was removed and dispersed among the people before the government could get there.
In Salem, Massachusetts, colonists thwarted the government from taking their cannons by raising a drawbridge and denying them passage. Only after the cannons and powder were removed and hidden did the people allow the government troops to cross the bridge. The government troops found the stores empty and returned to Boston.
The local militias drilled through the winter preparing for the inevitable moment when the conflict would start. In New England, towns moved and hid their powder and arms. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the Government marched into Concord to take the stores of arms and ammo which was collected there, the people preemptively hid most of it. When it was discovered that General Gage was plotting to confiscate the ammo and powder of the people, Dr. Joseph Warren sent Paul Revere on his midnight ride to alarm the people.
Contrary to what the ruling elite and liberal press would have you believe, it is the long standing traditional response of the people in the USA when threatened, to prepare for self defense, by hoarding arms and ammo privately, hidden from the prying eyes of government. This is a uniquely American tradition. When we are reminded that we have been lacking in preparation, like the tragic mass murder in Colorado, we renew our efforts. When we start to fear the government in restricting our ability to access stores of arms and ammo, we retrieve them and hoard them privately outside of government control. Just as we did centuries ago, the people of the USA, send out the word whenever it is believed the government is planning to restrict our access to arms and ammo. Then it was the “crier” yelling the warning to all, today it is the blogger.
Denver’s massive increase in arms and ammo sales is normal and predictable for our country. The massive increase in arms and ammo sales when it became evident Obama would win the election was predictable and normal for the USA. His record and words on private ownership of arms, and actions and laws he promoted, made it clear that once again, the people have need to hide and hoard arms and ammo from the government.
As James Madison said in the Federalist #46"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." In that same paper he also admonished the newly formed government writing, “Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”
The people of the USA will not be unarmed, and firmly believe that they should not trust a government that doesn’t trust them. Why the press is “shocked” at the people buying guns in record numbers in the Denver area as a reaction to last week’s mass murder shows a distinct lack of understanding of US history, and distrust of the American people. This reaction is distinctly American, and is also a well reasoned reaction.
The Aurora theater banned effective self-defense, obviously not allowing law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms didn’t work well for those who were killed and injured. Just as obvious was the Ocala Florida event a week earlier where a 71 year old man stopped violent armed criminals in an internet café. The tragic event in Aurora and the event in Ocala are reminders to all Americans that they need to be prepared to defend themselves from societies predators, a stark reminder that the police cannot be everywhere all the time. The reason we have the second amendment, and concealed carry laws is to protect the people’s pre-existing, God given right to effectively defend themselves and their families.
You can expect that regardless of signs posted, normally law abiding citizens will no longer leave their arms at home or in their car. It is unfortunate that we have to be reminded again. In Aurora just like the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, not being prepared to defend yourself, following irrational government regulations on where you can keep and bear arms, leaving your gun in your car while eat or watch a movie is not effective self protection. After her parents were murdered before her eyes, Suzanna Gratia Hupp expressed regret for abiding by the law and leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. See here testimony before congress HERE.
In the 3 days after the Aurora massacre there were nearly 3000 requests for back ground checks to purchase firearms in Colorado. This is the exact and proper response from Americans in America. Our traditions, our history, the writings of our founding fathers, all reflect this as a normal and natural response for Americans who as a people prefer the self reliance required of being free, to the obedience and servitude of being kept. Traditionally arming ourselves is the way Americans react when their rights are threatened, it should be no surprise, and should be soundly celebrated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
