Channeling John Adams

soap-box-2My wife and I were watching the first part of the HBO mini-series this evening that chronicled the contributions of John Adams during the time of our founders. I have watched it before, a while ago. Mrs. Weapon had not watched any of it. So we thought we would sit down and watch an episode each night that we can until we finish it. I was listening to the speech that he gave just before he left for Philadelphia as one of the 5 representatives for the congress being held there. As I did, something really struck home with me. That spark has put me back on my soapbox tonight. And that is that the people of the United States have completely lost sight of everything that the founders were striving for when they did the things that they did. We have fallen into traps that were laid with the best of intention in most cases, and nefariously in others. I hear the calls to return to our roots and I submit to you that we are not ready to return to our roots….

I don’t know if this is an accurate speech that Adams actually delivered or not. But it is fitting, and moving, and embodies what this country was founded upon. If you have never seen the mini-series, you can view this 3 minute video that has the speech or you can read the transcript of it below: YouTube – Best Speech Ever by John Adams

Giamatti as AdamsLet it be known that British liberties are not the grants of Princes or Parliaments. That many of our rights are inherent, and essential, agreed on as maxims and established as preliminaries even before parliament existed. We have a right to them, derived from our maker. Our forefathers have earned and bought liberties for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasures, and their blood. Liberty is not built on the doctrine that a few nobles have the right to inherit the earth. No. NO! It stands on this principle: that the meanest, and the lowest of people ARE, by the unalterable and indefeasible laws of god and nature as well entitled to the benefit of the air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear as the nobles or the king! THAT is LIBERTY. And Liberty will reign in America!

How is that for a rousing start to your day. You see, this is what I think about when I think about getting “back to our roots” in America. I have listened to all the things that people write on this blog. With the exception of the 900 comments on last week’s open mic (which I am working through), I have read every single comment posted on this blog. All 20,000 of them. And I have to be honest when I say that some of them distress me. Because I listen (or read) to what people are saying and it directly goes against what the founders believed.

John Adams

John Adams

This isn’t about partisan politics, folks. This is about freedom and liberty. This is about what our founders fought for. You can’t tell me in one breath that we need to get back to what the founders gave us and in the next breath say that muslims should not be allowed on American soil. You can’t tell me that gays are less of people and thus don’t deserve every single right that the rest of us have. You can’t tell me that immigrants, illegal or not, are not people that have rights. You can’t tell me that the world has gotten too far astray to have these principles matter.

Go and re-read the Declaration of Independence people. I know that it is long. But do it. Read the list of grievances the colonies had with the King. Compare them to our situations today. We aren’t so far from what the King was doing to us. But more importantly focus on this particular part, the beginning:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of IndependenceThey are very clear in what they are saying and we know from history that they are very clear in what they meant. ALL MEN, not just Christians. ALL MEN, not just whites. ALL MEN, not just hetero-sexuals. ALL MEN….. period. Stop. Nothing Follows.

The left tries to lay claim to the moral high ground on some issues. They claim to care about the little people while the right tramples them on the way to power and money. Yet they stomp all over the rights of people in the name of their causes. Their social programs destroy communities. Their political correctness infringes on the right of free expression. Their redistributive policies infringe on my right to prosper with the fruits of my labor.

The right tries to lay claim to the moral high ground on other issues. They claim to be the good christians who look out for the children while the left is full of socialists and murderers. Yet they stomp all over the rights of the people in the name of their causes. They deny basic rights to those who don’t share their vision of marriage. Their desire to force the world to their version of what is right infringes on everyone’s rights. And they are willing to treat those who didn’t follow some mythical line on a map as less than human.

Ladies and Gentlemen, our founders saw the inherent rights that were due to all men. Not one group or another. They weren’t perfect, but they had this part perfect. All men. It is high time that all Americans started to step forward and recognize this. I do not level these charges at the readers of this blog. I level them at America. We forgot where we come from. We forgot what we stand for. We began to see those who were not us as something less than us, with less rights. In that episode, John Adams was the only lawyer in Boston willing to defend a British officer against false claims of murder. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

Lowered to TolerateIt is high time that Americans reach down and find the ability to take a hard look at themselves and ask a single question to that face in the mirror. Is what I am saying and doing the right thing to do? I try to ask that question on every issue that comes up. I talk about an out of control government and that isn’t going to change. I will continue to do so, vehemently. But I hope that you have noticed that when it comes to social issues I have a strong tendency to remember that in every issue we are dealing with people. Real people who have rights. The government is trampling mine. At the moment it is the left who is doing so. 6 months ago it was the right doing so.

All of you are wondering what we need to do to get our country back on track. I have a few answers. Our government no longer represents the people of the United States. And we are going to have to do something about that. I have a strong feeling that this is going to happen sooner rather than later. And it is not going to be a pretty affair.

But before we can change our government, we have to change our people. We have to get back to doing the right thing. We have to realize that those are people on the other side of the issue. Don’t respect those that don’t respect you. But don’t forget that they are individuals. You have all gotten to know Ray, Todd, and Chris. Liberals who you now feel are often different from those “crazy liberals” out there. Perhaps they may start seeing some of us as different from those crazy conservatives if we stop lumping groups together and forgetting the lessons of our founding fathers. I don’t imagine that I will ever get any benefit of the doubt from them (especially from Ray who thinks everything I say has an agenda for the right). They will always hammer me and find every nitpicky thing I say to point out. But there is still hope for the rest of you.

If you want to start leading a revolution….. you have to start with leading yourself. If you lead from the wrong place in your heart you are replacing one bad with another. If we want to offer a hope for a better America, we will have to begin with pledging to make ourselves better people too. I don’t claim to be there yet, but I am trying. I hope all of you will join me in re-committing to doing so as well. And I am open to discussion. Am I wrong on this? If so, in what way? If not, how do we go about fixing it?

Before I go I want to say one last thing. Again I want to say that I am not leveling these charges against the readers here or anyone in particular. I have the highest respect for the people here. Everyone conducts themselves with honesty and integrity and respect. I would never want any of you to think that I think otherwise of you. This is my take on the partisan politics that are strangling our country and our freedom. It is an effort to inspire us all to be the change we want to see in the world. It starts at home, in our own hearts and minds. We cannot win other’s if we cannot conquer our own.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Okay, USW, shoot me down if you must . . .

    1. Islam is not a religion – Islam is nothing more than a murderous cult hiding behind the skirts of a phony religion.

    2. Shariah Law is nothing short of a declaration of slavery and torture permission for evil minded individuals.

    The above two items DO NOT belong in the United States of America. There is nothing that anyone can say that can change my mind on that.

    Finally, I do not believe that “Winning our own hearts and minds” will make the world reach out and love us all . . . I just don’t.

    I do not believe that you have any animosity toward anyone in particular who post here on your site. However, I do believe that some of your social ideas and beliefs are just a little off base – Don’t get me wrong here, I am not putting you down – and in that respect they are far different from mine. I think I might know why – your education. I applaud you on getting your education. My education came mostly from personal experience, which some of it I would not wish upon my worst enemy. Very little came from a formal means and I still do not have any college degrees (got a lot of college credits, just no degree). The different kinds of education is what sets us apart in ideas and beliefs, and this also sets me apart from most of those who post on here, Conservative and Liberal alike. Not complaining, just making an observation.

    I believe that things are going to get pretty nasty in the next few years, as soon as folks find out what is happening to them from the cap & trade and Obamacare stuff when it all gets into full swing – not to mention the insane levels of inflation that is coming from those so-called “stimulus” packages.

    This will not be isolated to just here in America, but I think it will have a global impact and that since most of the countries in this world seem to be blaming the U.S. for the current global recession . . . Well, when the next global DEPRESSION hits – and it will make the 1930’s look like childs play when it does – I believe we here in the U.S. will bear the brunt of the worlds anger, and that will be some particularly nasty anger.

    That is the reason that I believe that we need to get a hold of our government and PDQ!

    Once we do that, THEN we can sit around and discuss the philosophy of different brands and forms of government to find ways to fine tune ours. Until then, we are just fiddling away while Rome burns.

    Keep watching those videos, in them you will see that a long time ago the tools were put in place for us to correct the ills that we have allowed our government to contract, all we have to do is use them!

    • G.A.

      “That is the reason that I believe that we need to get a hold of our government and PDQ!”

      How do you propose to get a hold of our government? I am working with the TEA Party movement to try and awaken the original spirit of our country in the silent majority. Hope you are an active member of some such group.

      I think the “PDQ” is going to be a problem. Short of a violent revolution, it will take a long time to replace the current federal politicians with those we think will serve the U.S. Constitution. IMO, they all have to go. I do not know a single one who does not believe that they have the right to legislate in areas that the Constitution left to the states/people such as Health Care. These are the same people who agreed to uphold the Constitution and defend our Liberty when they were sworn into office.

      When 50% of the people pay only 2.5% of the taxes; it is going to be a tough sell to that 50% that the values of our country are more important than the benefits they are receiving for nothing. Especially when our Pres. insists they are entitled to the benefits at the expense of those who produce.

      “I believe that things are going to get pretty nasty in the next few years, as soon as folks find out what is happening to them from the cap & trade and Obamacare stuff when it all gets into full swing – not to mention the insane levels of inflation that is coming from those so-called “stimulus” packages.”

      I agree. But, that appears to be what is necessary to wake the people up. If they wake up, there has to be somewhere to turn. What do you have in mind??

      I personally would like to see those that produce just pull out (Go Galt) and let those that are living as parasites figure out how to get by.

      Remember G.A., IMO, the responsibility of man is to not impinge on another man’s rights. If a man holds that responsibility dear, he is a great friend to have – regardless of anything else (race, religion, sex, etc). I take my definition of my rights from the writings of Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. If you haven’t read it, I suggest it as a great (although long) read.

      It appears that there are some people on this site who are willing to accept the same definition of the “responsibility of man”. That sure is comforting to my soul.

      I don’t know what is right. I know what I think. I know what I feel. Writing here gives me a chance to have others pick it apart. Sometimes the comments make me a better person. Other times – what the hell do they know.

      • “How do you propose to get a hold of our government? I am working with the TEA Party movement to try and awaken the original spirit of our country in the silent majority. Hope you are an active member of some such group.”

        That is exactly how we begin getting a hold on this runaway government of ours. We can also start to get our state governments to pull together and demand that congress convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of adding constitutional amendments that will constrain the national government instead of allowing it to run rampant on our liberties as it is doing now. By putting the brakes on in the caboose is how we begin slowing the train down so that we can get it on the right track without causing the biggest train wreck the history of mankind has ever seen.

    • G.A.

      I will admit to being very disappointed this morning.

      “Islam is not a religion – Islam is nothing more than a murderous cult hiding behind the skirts of a phony religion.”

      Now obviously that is your “opinion” and what you think about someone else’s religion is of no matter. Funny though, the “radicals” on the muslim side seem to have the same view of “your religion”.

      “Shariah Law is nothing short of a declaration of slavery and torture permission for evil minded individuals.”

      Shariah Law represents one interpretation of Islam, just as Baptist, Pentacostal, Mormom, etc represent one interpretation of Christianity. Lumping Islam and Shariah Law is FALSE and blatantly WRONG.

      “The above two items DO NOT belong in the United States of America. There is nothing that anyone can say that can change my mind on that.”

      Then you do not stand with Liberty and therefore I do not stand with you. And this one statement reflects why we can not take our country back today.

      “Finally, I do not believe that “Winning our own hearts and minds” will make the world reach out and love us all . . . I just don’t.”

      It seems you see what you want in the writings here, because that has not been the point. Winning the hearts and minds of our citizens is required if we wish Liberty to be resurrected. I am guessing I speak for many when I say, I don’t care whether the world loves us or not. I do care that they don’t see us as the biggest HYPOCRITE on the planet. Because we can not be free if we are imposing (using coersive force) our will upon others.

      “That is the reason that I believe that we need to get a hold of our government and PDQ! Once we do that, THEN we can sit around and discuss the philosophy of different brands and forms of government to find ways to fine tune ours. Until then, we are just fiddling away while Rome burns.”

      FIRE, AIM, READY

      “Keep watching those videos, in them you will see that a long time ago the tools were put in place for us to correct the ills that we have allowed our government to contract, all we have to do is use them!”

      The series actually contains very little about the tools, that you reference. One only has to read the Constitution for that, which I am certain many here have done. Your constant harping on “Just Read It” is quite frankly obnoxious and condescending. And for the record, reading it and understanding what lies behind it, within it and how it has changed and why is a much different thing.

      Best Wishes to You and Yours
      JAC

      • CONCUR

        DO NOT CONCUR, when you infringe on anothers rights and liberties as Sharia law does, it has no place in the land of the free.

        • Hmmm, screwed up that quote. Bottom line I meant toincur is Sharia Law has no place in America, Just like the twisted form of Christianty that the KKK subsrcibes to.

      • Hello JAC,

        Too bad that you are disappointed in my personal opinion of Islam. I did not come by that opinion quickly nor easily, but over many years that actually began in the mid to late 1960’s when I first came face to face with Islam. What I have learned since that time has only given me great concern and no good feelings about it.

        I personally believe that we Americans (who are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) need to look at what we are made from, where we came from and why our ancestors came here in the first place – and was not because we wanted to be just like Europe.

        We need to understand that we Americans are unique in this world, we are different, but we cannot state that since we believe that all men were created equal we need to open our country to those who would enslave and destroy us . . . and THAT is the aim of Islam, and it has been since that low life pedophile invented that phony religion.

        I believe that you are an intelligent man and I hope that you understand what I have written here.

        • I am disappointed because

          a) you have decided you are the determinant of “legitimate” religion.

          b) you have condemned an entire religion due to the actions of a radicalized group within the religion.

          c) your attacks seem based more on your own religion rather than any reasoned thought process.

          Now can you provide me with the citations of the historical documents that supports your claim that Mohamed had wifes who were 9 years old.

          And of course your continued use of “pedophile” completely ignores the fact that many of the people who were married in the olden days were under the age of eighteen. And I am not condoning such a relationship with a 9 year old but you can not place todays moral standards on those who lived long, long ago.

          After all, we don’t do that to our Founding Fathers do we!

          We are no longer that unique. We just wish we were. The only thing unique about us is the founding principles that we still espouse but do not practice. And how was our founding anymore unique than say Australia, where British convicts took over a continent and became a nation of free men.

          Now I hope you understand what I have written.
          JAC

    • Wow, you are condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a very small minority who are willing to embrace violence. Going by your logic, then can I condemn all the fine soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the military because of the actions of Green, Cortez, Barker, Yribe, and Speilman? For those who only get their news from FOX and are ininformed about this terrible act of violence, this is what they did…

      Green changed out of his U.S. Army combat uniform and into a black “ninja” outfit as he and four other soldiers – a sergeant and three privates – by prior arrangement deserted their Army checkpoint Yusufiyah, an isolated village southwest of Baghdad. While one posted guard, Green and three of the others then attacked an Iraqi couple and their two daughters in their home. Green herded the couple and their six-year-old child, Hadeel, into one room as Sergeant Paul Cortez and Privates James Barker and Jesse Spielman pulled the 14-year-old daughter, Abeer, who was dressed in a burka, into another room by her hair. Armed with an AK-47 and a shotgun, Green first shot the father, Qassim Hamza Raheem, as he tried to defend his wife and youngest daughter, then the mother Fakhriya Taha Muhasen, as she too tried to shield their little girl. Then he killed 6-year-old Hadeed by shooting her in the face. Meanwhile, as Spielman still in uniform and idly watched, Barker and Cortez dressed in black ninja clothes raped a sobbing, screaming, struggling teenage Abeer. First Barker pinned the 14-year-old’s arms to the floor with his knees and hands as Cortez raped her, then they switched. Joining them, Green raped or attempted to rape Abeer before shooting and killing her. Afterward the four burned Abeer’s dead body. Speilman threw blankets on the fire to make it hotter until there was nothing but thick char, leaving only a hand. The four tried to burn down the al-Jabanis’ house in order to destroy evidence of the crime. Then, changing back into uniform, they returned to their post as though nothing had happened. When frantic relatives reported the burning house and bodies to the U.S. checkpoint, Cortez, a sergeant, covered it up by joining in the first perfunctory U.S. Army investigation which blamed the rape, four murders and arson on “insurgents.” Green bragged about it, standing on a cot at the forward operating base saying, “That was awesome!” He later, more soberly, admitted the crimes to enlisted men, friends at home and another sergeant, Anthony Yribe. Taking full blame, Green said that he was the only one involved. Although Sgt. Yribe knew what had happened because he had helped Cortez investigate the al-Jabani house on the day of the crime. Yribe did not report the conversation to his commanding officers and hurried Green out of the U.S. Army and out of Iraq.
      Meanwhile, al-Qaida operatives in apparent retribution kidnapped two members of the 101st Airborne who had nothing to do with the rapes and murders. The men were tortured, beheaded, their bodies dragged through the streets and their heads played with while videotaped. Those tapes were briefly on the web where they were seen by other members of the distraught and enraged 101st Airborne.

      You think you may never be able to win their hearts with kindness and respect, but without a doubt, piss in anyone’s Cornflakes, and they will retaliate.

      • Dave E has given me a new tool for the box.

        “piss in anyone’s Cornflakes, and they will retaliate.”

        Good Morning Dear Sir and Thanks
        JAC

        • Good morning sir, I hope you are enjoying a wonderful day.
          Of course these individuals are just that, individuals, and it is wrong in so many ways to link the activities of a very few sick people with the entire group they are part of.
          My point is that the Islam religion has the same kind of problem. There are those who truly wish to live in peace, and those who represent the violent, murderous right-wing fanatics who wage war on they oppose.
          If you condemn an entire religion based on the unethical activities of a few, then there are others on the opposite side of the fence doing the same thing to the US military. Is this fair to all the fine people serving in the military? Of course not. Is it fair to all the peaceful, non violent members of the Muslim religion? Of course not.

          • I agree, and there are many other examples as well.

            Per my comment to G.A.

            I am enjoying the day and hope you are as well.
            JAC

          • JayDickB says:

            First, why do you call Islamic extremists/terrorists “right-wing”?

            Second, followers of Sharia are not just a few. They constitute a very large number.

            Otherwise, I agree with your overall thrust.

            • Right-wing.
              I believe I shall address this by first quoting from google. “In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms used to describe support for preserving traditional or cultural values and customs and maintaining some form of social hierarchy or private property.”
              The Islamic terrorists wish to establish a nation where their old traditions and fundamental aspects of their chosen religion are practiced.
              No difference between those in the USA and Islam, they seek a return to old values. Those willing to embrace violence are extremists. Be it Osama Bin laden, or an American citizen, if they promote violence to destroy others, they are right-wing extremists.

              I did not include Sharia in my post.

        • Not exactly as you guys have been chewing away for months and business owners in California have been noshing away for decades on that breakfast crunch with a hint of wee. At least it’s “organic”.

      • Bama dad says:

        DaveE said:

        “For those who only get their news from FOX and are ininformed about this terrible act of violence, this is what they did”

        For the record Fox covered this in detail and condemned it. Try watching the news programs on Fox (not the talking shows) and quite believing the propaganda MSMBC spews to try and prop up their ratings.

        • I don’t watch MSMBC, and to be honest, I had to google to find out what it is. Opps, no match, but they suggested MSNBC. Is that what you were referring to? I don’t watch them either.

      • Dave, this just hit the news thttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.htmloday, maybe G.A. has a point!

        • G.A. does not have a point consistent with the principle of Liberty.

          This group is large and dangerous. But it does not represent the entire religion.

        • First off, my incorrect assumption about FOX not covering this story was incorrect, and I apologize to anyone I may have offended. I was wrong.
          I did read the article about the “Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference” article. First off, it reeks of sleazy, tabloid-style journalism. When you begin an article with “Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “, the word “reported” jumps out as a red flag. I could just as easily do my own article with ” The US Olympic Swim Team with reported ties to drug cartels and child pornography rings..” Of course it’s all crap, just a sleazy attack on an institution without any facts to back the allegations.
          And of course, in the article FOX drags out some people who appear to know what’s going on. But when you check further, these people are members of organizations with an agenda. They are not unbiased.
          So what exactly are people all in a bother about? This organization does promote fundamental Islamic values. Gee, so does every religious organization you can name, they all promote their values. Is it because they support the general opinion that the USA is the enemy of Islam and thus must fall? I have seen posts in this very forum where members express the opinion that they support the US failing (aka Rush Limbaugh). So what makes them different? Oh yea, they’re ragheads, sand n—-rs. That’s reason enough.

          Ever since 911 organizations such as this have fallen square on the sights of agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on. Do not think for a second that they have not been under the microscope. All of their phone calls have been tapped, all emails, any form of electronic communication has been intercepted and analysed.
          OK, let’s assume one of two scenarios. They are either innocent, or guilty. If innocent, then leave them alone. But let’s believe for a second they are guilty. Some of their members are linked to terrorism, and they are active. Trust me, if this was true, the CIA, FBI, and NSA would be very aware of this. But an organization like this is a magnet, a collection point. Terrorists and those potential terrorists would find their way to this place, and do their business. All under the watchful eye of US security organizations. But of course, let’s break up this school, destroy a rallying point, and watch potential terrorists disappear into the general population. It could take months, maybe years for security organizations to track them down again and re-establish surveillance.
          Think about it.

          • Dave, Your trust in our government security agencies has much to be desired. With Children under the age of ten on the terror watch list, 90 year old grandmothers being searched at our airports, I don’t have much faith in their work. Having spent alot of time in the Middle East, I can say from experience, Americans are not liked at all. They might smile at you to your face, but don’t turn your back on them.

            G!

          • Bama dad says:

            DaveE said:
            “I have seen posts in this very forum where members express the opinion that they support the US failing (aka Rush Limbaugh). So what makes them different?”

            Please provide quotes of members of this forum that support the US failing. We have advocated change to return to our core value of freedom. There has been speculation about how this would be accomplished with some thinking that the government would fail because it has strayed so far from its purpose. This line of thought is a far cry from a hostile takeover by a foreign group of people.

      • DaveE said “You think you may never be able to win their hearts with kindness and respect, but without a doubt, piss in anyone’s Cornflakes, and they will retaliate.”

        Cornflakes? Okay . . . 9/11/2001 . . . USS Cole . . . The U.S. Embassy bombings . . . How’s that for “Cornflakes”?

        I have just named a few really heinous things that Islam rejoiced in – WORLDWIDE! Or did you just happen to miss all those Islamists dancing in the streets and cheering the deaths of over three thousand innocent people on 9/11/2001?

        And you bring up the crime of a few dirtbag criminals that managed to get into the Army in comparison? Show me where the Americans danced in the streets for that crime! Get real!

        I do believe that you missed my point entirely, that is unless you want Islam to take over this world and execute all those who are not “true believers” in Islam . . . That has been the intention of Islam since it was invented by a low life pedophile. That is the reason that I call it a phony religion.

      • TexasChem says:

        “Wow, you are condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a very small minority who are willing to embrace violence.”

        What constitutes a very small minority to you?I am 100% certain that your statement there is false.I suppose that would make you a liar wouldn’t it?Here I’m going to give you another cut -n- paste to research DaveE…

        http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/global-jihad-christian-persecution-by-islam.html#more

    • Black Flag says:

      G. A. Rowe

      1. Islam is not a religion – Islam is nothing more than a murderous cult hiding behind the skirts of a phony religion.

      Stop watching the propaganda machines, G.A.

      Islam is closer to Christianity than another other religion, including Judaism.

      If you rant so violently against Islam, you are attacking Christianity full force, too.

      2. Shariah Law is nothing short of a declaration of slavery and torture permission for evil minded individuals.

      But you probably didn’t know that Islam was the first religion to actually codify women’s rights.

      The above two items DO NOT belong in the United States of America. There is nothing that anyone can say that can change my mind on that.

      A mind closed to reason is an easy target for evil men.

      Finally, I do not believe that “Winning our own hearts and minds” will make the world reach out and love us all . . . I just don’t.

      It won’t.

      But they are more apt to leave you alone too.

      Once we do that, THEN we can sit around and discuss the philosophy of different brands and forms of government to find ways to fine tune ours. Until then, we are just fiddling away while Rome burns.

      Yes, that is the rationalization of almost every military junta and coup – we’ll seize the government and get ‘this country straightened out and saluting properly’

      …after they slaughter thousands….

      Get the moral base right first! Otherwise, it is merely a violent and tyrannical replacement – and not much of an improvement, is it, G.A.?

      • BF,

        Islam was invented by a low life pedophile (that is the nicest way I can describe him) and that is why it is a phony religion.

        Then I suppose that in your opinion women have the right to be slaves? Under Shariah law a women is nothing more than mere property of the man and her sole existence is nothing more than to provide him with children. Wow, that is some exclusive “rights” for a woman to look forward to.

        No, I do not look to the propaganda machines to get my information – if I did then I would be just another Obamatron blindly following this idiot into oblivion.

        I want you to still be around five years from now and tell me that all we had to do is ignore our government and we would have been better off. That is, IF we still have a country five years from now . . .

        • Black Flag says:

          We still have a country, but it won’t be what you want it to be.

          As easily as you see abuse from a group of people upon another, I can provide as easily any group (including from ‘yours’) that are equally bad, if not worse.

          It is a great and terrible risk to assign guilt of a man’s actions upon a whole people.

          • “It is a great and terrible risk to assign guilt of a man’s actions upon a whole people.”

            Really? Then just why did we go to war against ALL of Germany? Why didn’t we just send in a hit man to take out Hitler?

            I see no logic in your statement.

            Islamists were dancing in the streets on 09/11/2001. Or have you forgotten that?

            I said that we Americans are not perfect. No one is. Not even you.

            The country that will be here five years from now if “We The People” do not take back our country will not be the United States of America – It will be the subservient slaves of Obamanation, forever mired in the slime of a socialist/fascist dictatorship that was allowed to emerge by nothing less than the apathetic voters who just sat by and discussed philosophy as the Obamanation of the U.S. Presidency demanded that all of his ideas be made permanent law of the land.

            Oh, in case you think this idea of mine is a joke – what actually happened to the wonderful ideas of Karl Marx after Vladimer Lenin died and Joseph Stalin took over as the “New Socialists Clubs” convened to discuss the philosophy of Communism in Russia?

            Come on, BF, you know that all the best intentions of the world are nothing more than hot air unless they are actually put to use. We have all the groundwork done for use. It was done over two hundred years ago by men who were much more intelligent than anyone has ever given them credit for. All we have to do is use the mechanisms that they left in the Constitution for us. If we don’t start now Obama and his cronies wil have effectively removed them – and THAT will not be a good thing!

            • Black Flag says:

              G. A. Rowe said

              “It is a great and terrible risk to assign guilt of a man’s actions upon a whole people.”

              Really? Then just why did we go to war against ALL of Germany? Why didn’t we just send in a hit man to take out Hitler?

              So you believe every German was a Nazi?

              I see no logic in your statement.

              A man in fog has great difficulty in seeing the cliffs before him.

              Islamists were dancing in the streets on 09/11/2001. Or have you forgotten that?

              So were the Israeli’s.

              How do you feel about that?

              Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

              The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

              Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery.

              According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

              “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

              Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

              I said that we Americans are not perfect. No one is. Not even you.

              Correct.

              But I live by a core, moral, principle.

              Perfection is not required.

              An articulated, core, moral principle is.

              The country that will be here five years from now if “We The People” do not take back our country will not be the United States of America – It will be the subservient slaves of Obamanation,

              Fear not, G.A.

              They have no more hope of holding this thing together then you do.

              Come on, BF, you know that all the best intentions of the world are nothing more than hot air unless they are actually put to use. We have all the groundwork done for use.

              NO WE DON’T

              That’s the problem – you think all the thinking has already been done!

              But it was a mistaken belief back than, and it is a mistaken belief now!

              You will merely doom us all to exactly the same tyranny if not worse.

              It was done over two hundred years ago by men who were much more intelligent than anyone has ever given them credit for.

              You give them too much credit.

              First, they were not in agreement.

              Jefferson was adamanat that the organization that was created was eventually doomed to grow to tryanny. It was those that chose pragmatic solutions – over moral choices – won.

              We live that choice.

              All we have to do is use the mechanisms that they left in the Constitution for us.

              It is flawed to the core.

              You expect the government to create laws to limit itself.

              Only the most gulliable would believe such a situation to occur.

              If we don’t start now Obama and his cronies wil have effectively removed them – and THAT will not be a good thing!

              What Obama is doing is not a good thing.

              What Bush did was not a good thing.

              A good thing has not been done for nearly 250 years.

              Trying to stop Obama is a good thing.

              But do not confuse this action with being the answer to sovling tyranny

              Resisting tyranny does not create the necessary environment to prevent tyranny.

              Only a solid, reasoned moral basis to measure our action is the only way we can tell whether the solution is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

      • TexasChem says:

        “If you rant so violently against Islam, you are attacking Christianity full force, too.”

        *BLINK*
        WHAT?
        *BLINK*BLINK*

        That statement makes absolutely no sense.You need to research the differnce in Christianity and Islam BF.Seriously.

  2. USW, a lot of what you are saying are the true tenets of Christianity. I just read a devotion this morning about loving thy neighbor as thyself. As a Christian you are not suppose to endorse sin, which is the basis of the Republican party’s view of gay marriage. Homosexuality is considered sexually immoral and therefore a sin, of course lust and adultery are both considered to be sexually immoral as well (which didn’t stop a certain governor).

    Personally I agree with most of what you are saying as far as your stance on government, especially concerning liberty and freedom. The ideas Black Flag has been stating are hitting home with me – I don’t agree 100%, but a lot of the ideas are intriguing.

    • Edward:

      But do you agree that it IS NOT Govt’s job to endorse or attack those “SINS” that your particular religion identifies?

      This is the criticall point.

      All religions share some moral principles with the concept of Liberty and a peace loving people.

      For you to “not endorse” sin per your religion is much different than using a political party or the government to establish one particular view.

      That is why the founders rejected mixing the two.

      So where do you stand on this one issue?

      Best O’ the Mornin to Ya
      JAC

    • Bama dad says:

      Edward
      I too consider myself a Christian and agree we are not to endorse sin. Six months ago I would have said you or someone else can not do that as it is a sin. I have come to realize when I do that I am imposing my will on another individual and depriving him or her of their freedom. That being said I don’t want anyone or any group imposing their will or belief on me or my family. A lot of groups are doing that these days in the name of political correctness. In my opinion, I fear too many Christian people equate sin with civil law, which are two separate things. My Christianity is not diminished by what someone else does or says, only by what I do or say. I can live freely in the world and not be of the worldly things I disagree with. Folks might disagree with what I have said but I cherish my freedom, my god and see no conflicts in my Christian life in allowing others their right to freedom. Feel free to show me the error in my ways. 😆

      • GO Bama Dad:

        You have it right IMO.

        Well said.

        GarthD
        Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

  3. GMorning

  4. Vinnster says:

    Am I wrong on this? If so, in what way? If not, how do we go about fixing it?”

    Sadly, I do not think there is anything we can do by design. (more on that below)

    I am a Libertarian/Conservative. If you are gay, I do not care. If you are a Muslim, I do not care. If you are a Liberal, I do not care. Unfortunately, all these folks want to legislate how I act, think, and behave and they want to indoctrinate other people’s children into their belief system. I defend their right to teach their children their belief system, but they also should respect others who teach a belief system different from theirs. This is an area the gays are way out line. They what to be able to teach their belief system to other peoples kids, by force of law if necessary.

    Is it OK to teach a kid to hate homosexuals or Muslims, no, but like it or not it is a parents right. Once the government breaches that right, the family unit is dead. And when the family unit dies, history has shown society breaks down. The perfect model of this is the African American culture.

    As a Libertarian I want to be left alone to enjoy all the freedoms a man has a right to enjoy and I want to prosper without having my labor stolen (labor is just another form of money).

    The Libertarian in me wants as little Government as possible, but what laws there are should be enforced. The Conservative in me wants to protect children from being forced to adopt a belief system different from what the parent wants. When the child is 18 they can do anything they want and discover any shortcomings of the parent’s belief system.

    Why do I believe we can not fix the current situation by design (voting, laws or government enforcement)? Because it is the current laws and government intrusion into everyone’s life that has caused today’s problems. Our Founding Fathers understood this and set up a form government that was limited and respected individual freedoms and liberties, and the right to enjoy life unencumbered by government.

    Most people of America do not know how to enjoy freedom or liberty. They have accepted comfort and abdication of responsibility in exchange for forfeiting their freedoms and liberties. This can not be reversed legislatively, a whole country of people will have to be re-educated not by government of some other form of organization, but by the collapse of our current government and economic system.

    Will America’s government or economic system collapse? Yes, but no one knows when . We could go for hundreds of years before there is a revolution they resets the whole countries perspective on freedom and liberty. I personally think it would take a collapse so large and so pervasive (lose of power, famine, pandemics) it would result in millions of deaths worldwide to reset Americans understanding of freedom and liberty.

    One thing I do know, there is a subset of people that will never accept giving up freedom and liberty. They have always existed in every society since the beginning of man. Regardless of how intrusive government becomes or how much “intellectual elites” try to force their belief system on other people, that subset will always exist and fight back. Ever so often and very rarely they are in a position to establish a minimalist set of rules (in our case, The Constitution) that allow men to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are the generation to witness the end of our Founding Fathers moment of brilliance by people who think they are brilliant. It may be a 1000 years before it is ever duplicated again, or as few as 50. We live in interesting times.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Nice Post…

    • Good Morning V:

      I am of course picking nits here but; “(labor is just another form of money)” it is actually the other way around. We need to realize that money is just one way to store the production of our labor. Money is just the tool for moving the value of our labor through time. Other tools have and do exist.

      “Most people of America do not know how to enjoy freedom or liberty. They have accepted comfort and abdication of responsibility in exchange for forfeiting their freedoms and liberties. This can not be reversed legislatively, a whole country of people will have to be re-educated not by government of some other form of organization, but by the collapse of our current government and economic system.”

      I do not believe the collapse of our system is required to “re-educate” the people. However, it probably will collapse before WE can get the job done to the extent required. And Yes, it must come from within not from govt. at any level.

      It is not the current structure that is the problem, it is the mindset of the people. What have the Republican Congressmen been saying these past few days about Cap and Trade and Healthcare. “We have better alternatives”, please consider “our amendments”, “we want to work with the D’s to come up with a bipartisan solution”, “we need to figure out how to pay for this”.

      Now does that sound like the makings of Liberty? And do not assume because they do not represent your views that they don’t represent the majority in your Congressional or Senate districts. They usually have a better handle on the pulse of their Districts than the citizens who live within them. That is why they keep getting re-elected.

      Good thoughts this morning V.
      Live Free and Be Happy. All will be OK in the end.
      JAC

  5. Barberian says:

    Many posters here have voiced a need to change our form of government. They site the intrusions of our government on our personal rights as we believe them to be and as our founding fathers believed. I believe that the founding of this nation was the start of the greatest experiment in human society. The designers of that experiment were very educated in history, philosophy and politics. But what they understood most of all was Human Nature, both the bad and good. It was this understanding of human nature that caused them to distrust any form of central government but realized the need for one to protect those “unalienable rights” of the individual from both foreign and domestic intities. Their solution was not perfect but nothing devised by man can be because of his incomplete knowledge. But I have yet to see anything past or present that is superior.

    As you stated Vinnster, “They have accepted comfort and abdication of responsibility in exchange for forfeiting their freedoms and liberties.”

    However the situation may present itself to best get back to the original intent and design of our federal government, those of us that desire this must be ready to recognize that situation when it happens.

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

    • What would the situation look like to you?

      Make the situation as bleak as you would require before you stepped in to help.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – But, it assures Paul’s vote.

    • Vinnster says:

      “However the situation may present itself to best get back to the original intent and design of our federal government, those of us that desire this must be ready to recognize that situation when it happens.”

      This would be my dream. To go back to the Government one day after the Constitution was signed by voting in people who would make it so. But with MSM just an extension of the Democrat/Liberal Party I doubt the common public will ever become enough informed to force the change at the ballot box. Let alone overcoming their self interest to accept assistance from the government , cradle-to-grave.

      I do not think we have enough time or the information outlet mechanism to re-educate the population to call for a Constitutional Convention that would roll back our governement to its orginal intent. It would require the majority of regular folks to pull their kids out of public school and educate them in private schools or home-school them and stop listening to ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC….in essence reverse everything they have been taught about government and self reliance their entire lives.

      I hate the idea something as bad as economic collapse will have to occur to wake folks up and I am not sure just that alone would do it. As horrible as is sounds the only solution I can conceive is a complete collapse of the economy coupled with as collapse of law and order. The result would be millions of people dying in the cities, a vast majority of the Liberals. The cities would become the land of the bad guys since all the good folks are mostly unarmed and unskilled at self defense. The good folks food and water will be taken from them and they have no way to survive.

      The country folks will fair far better since they are almost all well armed and they have natural water suppies and food sources and most importantly, they know how to exploit them.

      The result would be the deaths of large numbers of Liberals and much fewer deaths of Libertarians and Conservatives. With that population shift I see the possibility of a new Constitution and governement that is closer to the original…then the process starts all over again with the “intellectual elites” trying to repeat what failed the first time.

      • Unless the intellectual elites were able to leave the country, they would not survive. They would be hunted down and destroyed. If they were able to leave, it would be forever, because they would be destroyed when they came back. Those of us that survive an event like the one you described would never allow the elite to regain power, they would have to be terminated to establish the changes that are needed in our Government, and for us to be truely free.

        G!

        • Vinnster says:

          I doubt many would survive since most live in the cities, believe in gun control and have a hug-a-thug mentality, not to mention the male versions are bit on the sissy side 🙂

        • This poses another problem, once order is restored and a new smaller government is in place, the cities would have to be retaken from the thugs, or leveled!

        • Both of you under estimate us “intellectual elite liberal sissies”… 😉

  6. Naten53 says:

    Our Founding Fathers got a lot of things right.

    I consider the Bill of Rights the most important. Our personal freedoms are what makes America. The raging debate over some of the amendments, (first and second) should be a non issue, yet when these rights appear to be threatened it makes the news, as it should, and people react to support the Bill of Rights.

    It is this reason I do not know why this is not national news. I had to search for the articles posted below because they are no longer a link on the front page of the newspaper’s web site.

    A man in the Pittsburgh area intended to have a protest during an Obama rally last year, based on the comment Obama made about clinging to guns and religion.

    Mr. Noble, 51, of Industry, carried his Bible and pamphlets on gun rights on the outskirts of the crowd gathered in a park across the street from the courthouse. On his hip, as usual, was a pistol.

    Open carry is completely legal in Pennsylvania, yet John Atkinson, of Beaver, testified that he alerted authorities after spotting the weapon.

    “I was scared for my family because it’s the situation of it — the first black guy nominated to be president of the United States,” Mr. Atkinson said, “All the crazy things people do these days, you never know what’s going to happen.”

    Mr. Noble was then arrested. Granted it is only a third degree misdemeanor of disrupting a public gathering. The trial last night resulted in the jury being sent home still in deliberations. What does this mean if he is found guilty?

    Does it infringe upon the right to Open Carry? I believe so. It can then be implied (as we all know lawyers like to do) that anyone that is made uncomfortable by someone doing something completely legal can call the cops and have them arrested, therefore making Open Carry actually illegal.

    I posted 4 links because one does not tell the whole story. They all have different parts that have useful information about this case.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09196/984062-100.stm
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09198/984447-57.stm
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984278-57.stm
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984366-100.stm

  7. USW:

    Very good quote this morning. It was a great TV series.

    Now I want you to revisit Mr. Adam’s speech and your post then lets reflect on the words of your article the other day.

    “Government, in my opinion, is the organizational structure that we put in place to make society work effectively and to provide for things that the people cannot provide for themselves.”

    “Government is the organizational structure that we put in place to make society work effectively.”

    “Government is there to create and enforce laws.”

    “Government exists to empower and serve its citizens. In theory that is the fact of the matter (although I am aware that in practice it usually devolves to what we have today).”

    Do you think Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson would share your vision?

    The best to you and the Mrs. this wonderful morning.
    JAC

  8. Morning to all!

    Todays topic should produce some interesting debate. Yesterday I spent some considerable time preparing to debate with a member of the DNC about ObamaCare and it’s effects on our society. I found a section of a House Resolution (645?) that stated that no individual policies can duplicate what the government plan offers. I printed it to support my position and presented it during the debate.

    His name for this post was C.A., and he kept repeating that he wanted a choice in healthcare plans, which the section of the HR bill clearly was taking that choice away. C.A. simply could not grasp what I was presenting, so I put it in simpler terms, I said that he wants those he voted for to give him Utopia, but if he reads what I have given him, he is only getting stronger shackles.

    I asked C.A. if he believed in Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, his reply was yes. I read him the definition of liberty (wikipedia) and said that any government control over ANY part of his life was taking away his liberty, and limiting his pursuit of happiness. I continued to state that his desire for Nationalized Healthcare is a direct (I loved this part) contradiction to his beliefs. He was quietly puzzled as we parted ways. Later he said that I had crushed his desire for choice and proved that it would not exist, and his Utopian desires have been a pipedream all along, and could never happen with our government making decisions. Alas, a new member of the VLDG!

    G!

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      G-Man,

      I think that is awesome! One success at a time! Way to go…

      Best regards and keep up the good work!

      Richmond Spitfire

    • Vinnster says:

      “Alas, a new member of the VLDG!”

      Way to go G-Man!

    • A big Atta boy and Well Done to the G-man

    • Black Flag says:

      The power of exposing contradictions!

      Right on, G-Man!

    • OK…now that all of you have responded in the affirmative…..and I agree that G-man did right in this PARTICULAR expose’….so assuming that you are correct….assuming so…..what is the alternative since NONE of you believe that you can change anything by the vote. Keep on talking and not doing anything? Keep on spouting rhetoric with no solutions? Keep on talking about understanding core beliefs and then criticizing those whose core does not agree with yours? BF, you are good at that. You did it to me. Every time you make a claim that someone’s thinking is “flawed”…you just made a judgment. You all say that your reason for posting is make people question and then everyone of you criticize our government and the freedoms and liberties that are being taken away (which is true) but you offer no solutions….saying that any solution that infringes upon the rights of another is no solution so do nothing. Each of you challenge everyone (and this is good)and each of you support free thought (and this is equally good) and then you criticize those that do it and you pass judgment on those that do not agree with you and then you camouflage, very successfully at times, that you are not passing judgment but trying to make people question. I would rather you just say…think about it this way and leave it alone. You get your point across and you just challenged thought. But when someone does not see it YOUR way, then you have a “cat” and claim that they do not know, or do not understand, and continue to try to destroy the free thinking that you claim you are trying to support.

      I would be willing to wager that every one of you use government facilities, police department, fire department, federal airways, federal airwaves, pay your taxes, and you are using the freedom that this country protects to espouse your beliefs and core values and this VLDG movement. And, this country does protect your freedoms. It does not provide them….it protects them. Like it or not. And the minute you claim brainwashing by years of teachings, etc….(as you have)then you have done something you claim you do not do. You passed a judgment and then use the “Las Vegas” smoke and mirrors trick to camouflage under…I am not passing judgment, I am simply trying to make you think and question.

      If I have read your postings and archives correctly,and I think that I have, each of you correctly have pointed out discrepancies by philosophy and definitions of freedom and liberties and the erosion of same. I cannot agree with you more. Our government and the people in power are usurping and were slowly (and now furiously) taking our liberties and freedoms away. And you are correct in saying that something needs to be done. But, and this is my judgment, doing nothing is worse than doing something. We have a system and, I agree, that it is flawed. But, never the less, it is our current system and our current government. The vote, right or wrong, is still the method we (USA) employ and still the most important weapon that we (as individuals and citizens)have. Al Franken proved that the vote is powerful as that is what was manipulated to get him elected and part of the bullshit that now resides in Washington. (And my bullshit throwing arm is an area weapon…it is non discriminatory and hits ALL in Washington). The system is good, but the mechanics are flawed. It can be fixed, we just need the statesmen to do it.

      It appears to me, that I (and the gang of five above) are saying the same thing. But the method to achieve change is different. I believe in a form of government (for what ever you wish to call it, the minute a group gets together and formulates a theory and espouses it, they just formed a government…for example VLDG). Any organization that has rules is a government, including the Lion’s Club, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Little League Baseball, religion, work, etc.

      So, voting and organizing the vote to stop this madness is the most direct and correct way. Stop the leak, then repair the dam. Change it again for the better after that…then change it again. But do something other than lip service. I hope that it never gets to the point that change will require getting back to the basics, and those basics were the point of a gun in the end. Rebellion against an evil empire.

      Texas tried the BF approach. Don’t mess with me and I won’t mess with you and we will be just fine. Texas, as a free and independent state in Mexico, helped Mexico fight and beat Spain. Texas lived quietly for years as a free republic in Mexico. A truly free republic with a government that understood this concept. That is until 1821, when a military dictator decided that a free Mexican Republic is not what he wanted. The rest is history that is well documented. He came to us with guns because years of talking did not work and got his ass kicked. And the government of Texas at that time did wish to discourse other than fight and tried it. I only wish we did not aspire to Statehood but, alas, we did. I use Texas a a model because we are still this way to an extent. I wish it were more so but we still have a strong separation of powers here and strong constitution that requires fiscal responsibility. It is constantly attacked by interlopers but we are holding off well, for the time being. Wish we were still a republic,though.

      Time for me to shut up, perhaps for good (not). We had a “Blue Norther” blow through here today and the temp has dropped to a freezing cold 95 degrees with only 45% humidity. I know that this is sweater weather but time to get out and enjoy the day.

      Peace to all until the need for the .50 cal is required.

      D13

  9. JayDickB says:

    Don’t have time to read everything right now, but it is worth noting that even Adams tried to remove liberties and centralize power when he governed as president. Kind of supports Black Flag’s take on government, doesn’t it?

  10. All;

    Although there seems to be an awakening in progress, it is far from a majority. There is now, and has been, far too much complacency left unchecked this past decade. The people have allowed the Government to wander and/or delibertly tread down an unteathered path.

    Far too many processes, precedents, laws and deviations have become common place, and to a point that they are held to be ‘normal’ by the largest majority of the population; those 18 – 35. The youth of America has been raised to believe ‘Government’ is the answer, they are entitled, big business is a gluttonous pig, and that America is to blame for most of the worlds problems. That mindset will be difficult to change, because it was developed throughout their lives, and at the time accepted as righteous.

    As an example: Take a young child reared in a strict Catholic household. The child attends church each week, is taught throughout their first 18 years in a Catholic School and then goes to a fundemental Catholic college. By the time they have reached the age of 23 their thougth patterns, belief’s, moral code and general personality have been built around a particular set of standards, and ones that they truthfully believe are correct. Changing those basic principles is difficult at best, and unless that individual experiences some hypocrasy about their core beliefs, they are unlikely to question of change.

    BTW: I AM NOT CONDEMING THE CATHOLIC RELIGON. I AM ONLY USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW INDIVIDUALS RAISED BY A SET OF SPECIFIC STANDARDS ARE HARDPRESSED TO DEVIATE FROM THOSE CORE STANDARDS.

    Since the majority of those under the age of 35 living in America have only experienced government as it functions today, we need to understand that ‘changing that mindset’ is a difficult and timely task.

    It will be a process of re-education and unfortunately require a great majority of them to realize personal suffering and/or tragity.

    As our philosopy has taught us, change is hard and feared, and takes great effort. That is even more difficult when individuals must first un-learn in order to re-learn.

    I beleive the key is to start now by organizing a movement to individual American Liberty. I think if we take the core belief discussed in these pages “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and couple that with “All Men/Women are created equal” we have a start. And a start is key, even if we don’t have all the bugs worked out. As so many great people have demonstraited before us you must take the first step to begin a journey.

    Maybe today’s discussion can be channelled towards ideas around invoking that re-education and eventual change.

    I don’t believe we can change the current government, it’s too daughting of a task, and one that BF, and I too, beleive would result in our efforts being squashed

    So, let’s work on uniting those that beleive as we do, and re-educating that majority whose mindset is warped, to speak out against the government wrongs, and initialize a movement of liberty.

    I look forward to everyone’s thoughts and ideas.

    CM

    • Good thoughts CM! I agree with you that it will most likely require suffering and tragedy to have any real change occur. Our wonderful government is doing more to help our cause than they know. When the wealthy leave because of taxes, and unemployment hits harder, the govt. can’t sustain their entitlement programs, which will cause a huge problem in the inner cities. Add inflation to all of this and the uprising will begin.

      G!

    • CommonMan:

      “I don’t believe we can change the current government” and “So, let’s work on uniting those that beleive as we do, and re-educating that majority whose mindset is warped, to speak out against the government wrongs, and initialize a movement of liberty.”

      If we can’t change the current government, what form would the “movement of liberty” take.

      Rather than starting a new movement at this time, why not use all the groups that have been formed recently (TEA Party, 9/12) as fishing grounds for sympathetic thinkers. If you can find enough sympathetic thinkers you may be able to direct the groups where you want to go.

      Far easier to catch a fish that is not hiding under a rock.

      These groups are currently trying to change the government. I agree with you and BF that they cannot succeed but they can slow down what is happening to give you a better chance at putting a good sized movement in place before the gov’t brings itself to its knees.

      It is generally easier to direct a charged up group than to charge up a group.

      Best way to be a leader is to step out in front of a parade.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

      • Garth;

        I do not advocate starting another group. If what I wrote lead you to that conclusion my appologies.

        I agree that the “Tea Party” movement contains both the right individuals and mindset, and should be the foundational majority of our efforts. I do beleive we need to organize it on a national level; kind of like a lobby. Forming another political party is as fruitless as fighting the government. It’s a lose, lose situation.

        I have writtten in these pages some ideas as to how to start. As an example I suggested that the July 4th Tea Parties focus on Cap and Trade as a theme.

        We should use what has started and work to strengthn that foundation.

        As far as changing the government as it exists today, we don’t have a prayer. We don’t have the muscle, might or army to do it with. Besides those in power don’t even acknowledge our existence let alone respect our wishes.

        “Americans” as Individuals no longer have a voice that is listened too by those in power, becasue those in power don’t feel we matter; and we are too stupid to pay any attentions too. Hell, they don’t even listen to the people that initially supported them, they are just tools in a large bag used to execute a defined objective.

        Becasue of that, the individuals “Americans” need to unite and form an alliance with a voice loud enough to attrack attention. Then and only then will we begin to effect change.

        CM

        • CM,

          “I have writtten in these pages some ideas as to how to start. As an example I suggested that the July 4th Tea Parties focus on Cap and Trade as a theme.”

          Our Tea Party went after Health Care as once it gets passed it will be very hard to take it back. The Pauls would go berserk. But, Cap and Trade was also part of the program.

          Sure hope everyone is contacting their Rep and Senators about stopping Obamacare. Health Care is not a Right.

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

    • Excellent post CM, excellent.
      I would like to touch on two things you identified. First off “The people have allowed the Government to wander and/or delibertly tread down an unteathered path” and the point that due to people’s upbringing they adopt core values and sincerely believe them correct.
      From this outsider’s perspective, it appears government has distanced itself from it’s citizenry, and are not held accountable for their actions. In fact, the first lines of the preamble to the US Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States”.
      Strong words, and inspiring. But it appears that today “we the people” have little voice in their government.
      I do not have the answers, but I would like to challenge traditional thinking and inject an alternate viewpoint. I understand many will reject it or believe the present US electorcal system is as good as it gets. Just keep in mind that when people reach adulthood they retain values that they believe correct.
      I will speak about some aspects of the Canadian system, in the hope that people can make a valid comparison between different systems, if only for the purpose of education.
      The leader of a political party is it’s leader and determines it’s actions. One and only one person controls a party. Members of the House of Commons have to be elected, and these elections are held in “ridings”, of which there are currently 308. As population grows and changes, ridings may be added or altered to reflect this. So basically, each and every person who determines government policy has to be elected in their riding. If you cannot please these people, you don’t even get to first base. For instance, the riding with the smallest number of voters is Nunavut with 17,397. These 17,397 people have a direct voice on who they elect. The people are much closer to their elected official, and this process makes accountability realistic. And boy oh boy, does it work. For instance, in 1984 the Conservative Party was in power with 211 of 282 seats. An overwhelming majority. In 1988 another election held, and their lead slipped to 169 of 295 seats. But this party lost sight, made mistakes, and lost support from the people. In the next election in 1992 they captured only two seats. Yup, 2 out of 295. Totally, absolutely destroyed, washed aside like a wooden bridge in a flood. Bottom line, under our system, if a political party loses the support of the average voter, they are toast. That makes them accountable to the average citizen. Even our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper first had to win a riding. This riding, Calgary Southwest had 52,832 eligible voters. So even the leader of our nation is directly accountable to the citizens.
      Now onto phase two, multiple political parties. Up here anyone can form a political party, and if enough people support that party, it gets into business. Amazing, once again the ordinary citizen can do something if they do not like the political landscape. And this produces a volatile political situation, where if a political party loses touch with the ordinary citizen, they do not get elected. And if someone comes up with really good ideas, they get elected. It’s really that simple.
      Now I will be the first to say this system is not perfect, it does have it’s bumps and warts. But I sincerely believe that at least with this system, the average voter is capable of holding the government accountable. Even with the case of our national leader, there were 52,832 ordinary people, the average citizen off the street, who decided his fate.
      Now compare this sytem with the US. Ask yourself who actually put a check mark to Obama’s name on a ballot on election day. Ask yourself how this office is held accountable by the average Joe. It isn’t… this position is determined by primaries, conventions, and the Electoral College.
      The two party system is nice… for the two parties. In the USA, roughly one third will vote Republican no matter what. One third will vote Democrat for the same reason. And of course, the remainder is the important swing vote. So no matter what, either Republican and Democrat party will have massive support. Why? Because the average citizen has only one of two choices. If there was a third, then all of a sudden people would realize there are choices, and alternate solutions.
      In Canada, most voters approach elections asking such questions such as “what’s their track record?”, “do they follow through on their election promises?”, and “do I approve of their proposed solutions to today’s problems?”. It’s not a case of selecting the lesser of two evils, but instead of being able to pick and support the political party that they believe is capable of running the country properly, and solving problems.
      Of course both the Democrat and Republican parties oppose anything but a two-party system. Of course, why give away power, why allow in a system that could possibly lead to the total destruction of the party? Both parties claim it leads to chaos an a failed system. But funny thing, up here in Canada we enjoy comparable prosperity and a stable government. Additionally, before the big financial meltdown a few months ago, zero deficit.
      I’m not proposing that any system is superior to the US electoral process. But I do suggest you examine your system, and how it can be made better so that politicians and their parties are truly accountable to the average voting citizen.

      • DaveE;

        I am not a student of Canadian history or government, I am too busy trying to re-educate myself on American history and government. That’s not to say that you brothers from another mother in the Great White North can’t suggest intelligent alternatives from which to rule or legislate. However, I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with our form of government as it was initially developed. The problem stems from it being bastardized, and the fact that we as a people let that bastardization take place; either by design or complacency. That started around the FDR era and has progressed since. It was then that Government started to seize control, implement Acts and Laws that set precedents and direct the people under an ideal of “prosperity for all” mentality.

        The current regime is now in the control seat, taking advantage of it, and as such is railroading policy and process down our preverbial throats.

        We have a multipal party system…Libertarian, socialist, communists, just to name a few but they lack the support to make the election ballots in a primary.

        Term limits might help, but that is another discussion.

        I am sure there are those on this blog that have much more knowledge than I and can reflect upon your thoughts; both positive and otherwise.

        Please stay tuned in and keep providing your ideas; we need every voice and idea.

        CM

        • It is my belief that the fundamental political process in the USA is flawed. Not that the Constitition and such documents were a good beginning, but how elected representatives are elected and held accountable is flawed.
          Up here in Canada, any politician who loses trust or screws up is toast. Any decision by any politician is open to scrutiny and debate by the general public. We discuss issues and how to solve them, and partisan politics are not the issue. It’s about politicians solving problems we the public consider relevant. I compare this to the USA and ask myself the question.. why does this not happen in the USA?

  11. OK, I am a little conflicted. I like to think I support the principle behind absolute freedom, but I don’t. I frequently see gray, not black or white. I think a parent should be allowed to raise and teach their child how they see fit.
    I think a school cannot violate certain ethical standards. When people talk about basic human rights, as Jefferson does, for a school to teach it is ethical
    to kill or enslave others if they are of a different faith, I think a line has been crossed. Call me a hater, but were it within my power, the chapters of the Koran containing Shariah Law would not be taught in any school in America, and I would be willing to imprison any who taught this in school.

    What would happen if the KKK opened a school that taught enslaving blacks is the natural order? The Supreme Court rules its protected by the 1st amendment.
    This is exactly the same thing. We have reached a point in our society where people are not legally discriminated according to race or gender. To allow a school to teach otherwise would undermine the principal behind the words, “all men are created equal”.

    I am not joining G.A. on saying Islam is not a religion, but I will stand with him on Sharia Law. JAC, be nice, if you respond and make my head hurt, I going into a corner and playing with my hot wheels. LOL, lest we become too serious.

    • LOL;

      “Call me a hater, but were it within my power, the chapters of the Koran containing Shariah Law would not be taught in any school in America, and I would be willing to imprison any who taught this in school.”

      With the attitude you are showing here, you are no different from the KKK. Is that something you want. By the way, do you think there are any colleges that are teaching Shariah Law?

      Just think what you are doing to the First Amendment.

      If you don’t like parts of the Constitution, don’t break the law, change it.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

      • GarthDamnyou(meant that to be funny)

        No different than the KKK? I fail to see that in what I posted, please explain. I did not call for lynchings or cross burning.

        Imprisoning would have to be a legal act, not sure what laws would apply. I am pretty sure you cannot teach enslaving blacks in America. Or can you, would that be legal?

        By the way, do you think there are any colleges that are teaching Shariah Law? I do not know, but here’s something close.

        Dan Lawton writes in the Christian Science Monitor: “Nearly all my professors are Democrats. Isn’t that a problem?”

        He said despite millions of dollars invested by the university into a diversity program, there are just two registered Republicans out of 111 staffers across five departments.

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533383,00.html

        “Just think what you are doing to the First Amendment.” Having as close as I come to an intelligent discussion on that subject. Did I break some rule? no different than the KKK, strong words there

        • LOL:

          LOL:

          “GarthDamnyou(meant that to be funny)” Was funny.

          “No different than the KKK? I fail to see that in what I posted, please explain. I did not call for lynchings or cross burning.”

          Imprisoning would have to be a legal act, not sure what laws would apply. I am pretty sure you cannot teach enslaving blacks in America. Or can you, would that be legal?

          By the way, do you think there are any colleges that are teaching Shariah Law? I do not know, but here’s something close.

          Dan Lawton writes in the Christian Science Monitor: “Nearly all my professors are Democrats. Isn’t that a problem?”

          He said despite millions of dollars invested by the university into a diversity program, there are just two registered Republicans out of 111 staffers across five departments.

          “No different than the KKK? I fail to see that in what I posted, please explain. I did not call for lynchings or cross burning.”

          Not lynching – but – prison. Not cross burning – but – removal of free speech. Not same punishment nevertheless for something Constitutional. Rembember the “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”.

          “Just think what you are doing to the First Amendment.” Having as close as I come to an intelligent discussion on that subject. Did I break some rule? no different than the KKK, strong words there”

          All people have the same rights. To do what you think you want to do to these people you would have to pass a law that would take away your own rights to teach as you saw fit. I don’t think you want to pass that law – though you may want to scream. Before I scream, I remember that it is best that I am not limited but that means, I must accept another person’s right.

          If they act on that knowledge, they can be taken down.

          BTW – Hate speech, if it isn’t already a federal crime it soon will be with the Hate Crime amendment they just attached to an appropriations bill. It is okay to hate whites for being whites but not a person of color for being colored. Unless, the white is gay.

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

    • LOI, you made me chuckle and that is good for the head and heart.

      The key to your apparent dilemna is once again; No one may initiate coersive force against another. Coersive force includes enslavement of the mind by forcing indoctrination of initiating violence against others. Which would be a violation of the Primary Law of the Free Society. But that is a slippery slope, so we rely on this fundamental:

      Teaching violence and doing violence are different. Teach all you want but the day you act I will destroy you in retaliation. And retaliation against violence in order to defend my freedom is not only moral but an unalienable right.

      Hows that for a dose of headache prevention?
      LOL

      JAC

      • from wikipedia
        A school (from Greek σχολή (scholē), originally meaning “leisure”, and also “that in which leisure is employed”, “school”),[1] is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or “pupils”) to learn, under the supervision of teachers. Most countries have systems of formal education, which is commonly compulsory.

        When does education become indocternation?

        “Teaching violence and doing violence are different. Teach all you want but the day you act I will destroy you in retaliation.”
        But who will you destroy? Those who commit the violence only? What of the teachers who taught that violence? How many students will commit violence, how many innocents will be harmed before you would act against the “teachers”?

        I am willing to consider being wrong, but my position on parents being free to teach as they wish, but restricting schools from teaching against basic human rights was thought out.

    • LOI

      If we all lived our lives in accordance to “Do onto those as you would have them do onto you” a school like this or the KKK would not be able to substain itself. It is no different than ‘free enterprise’, those that offer lousy service or poor quality product wind up in Chapter 7.

      I realize that is idealistic, however you cannot preach equality, freedom for all and freedom of religon one day, and then single out an individual or organization that does not follow your code of conduct.

      They have a right to express and educate whatever their religous beliefs are as long as they don’t surpress or violate the rights of others. On the other hand we can also express and educate an opposite point of view.

      • CM,

        ” you cannot preach equality, freedom for all and freedom of religon one day, and then single out an individual or organization that does not follow your code of conduct.”

        Yes I can, my house, my rules, do as I say, not as I do

        Ok, serious now, my only issue here is this being taught in school.
        First, the government REQUIRES all children to attend school, or something equivilant. The government requiring attendance and recognizing these type schools gives legitimizes them.

        And I am not saying they cannot teach or practice their religion.
        My position is those parts of Sharia Law that advocate killing or enslaving people of other faith could and should be illegal to teach in school.

        Apologies to all who responded, but I am un-moved so far. Hit me with some more logic and reason.

        • LOL:

          If only they would accept federal money at the school — then we could close down the school as religion is not allowed in schools that accept federal monies.

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

          • State/Federal government regulate the standards of education. What standard prohibits any private school from teaching enslaving blacks is natural
            order? Not advocating such, just saying that standard should apply here as well.

            Makes me wonder, do Christin schools teach evolution? Is it required? Do they also teach creationism?

            • LOL:

              Got this off AnswerBag. Sounds like it might be right.

              The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science can not be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. The U.S. Supreme Court calls it: “Creation-science”. Chief Justice Rienquist & Justice Scalla, “We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation-science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the earth.” Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).

              This decision was based upon the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court in 1987. It stated that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

              The court also indicated that there should be no constitutional crisis created with including creation science so long as it is done with the “intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction” and, provided it is not taught to the exclusion of evolution.

              Where do you find the Separation of Church and State? In the U.S. Constitution? In the Articles? In the Amendments? How about in the Declaration of Independence?

              You will not find it in any legal document in the Unites States. This phrase, penned by Thomas Jefferson was for a wall of separation between church and state, because in England, the State was the Church. It was a church-state. This is what inspired Jefferson in his memoirs, that a division of labor be established. The government shouldn’t fund religion or impose it at the state level as compulsory. Nor could the State impose it’s ideology upon the churches.

              GarthD
              Taking from Peter to pay BF is alright with me

        • I did not try to move you. I gave you the moral base to solve the problem.

          And you don’t have to wait for someone to blow up your house to take action to defend yourself, ie rataliate.

          Conspiracy to committ murder is a serious offense and I would think gets to clear and present danger. There is nothing that prevents us from watching these schools closely. There is nothing immoral about preventing an attack or arresting and prosecuting those who are actaully plotting violence. But I do have a problem with extending that criteria to those who merely say what is on their mind.

          I am not sure, in current govt situations, why they would be sanctioned by the state as legitimate schools, if they are in fact teaching violence. They could be decertified and the students forced to regular schools or home schooled.

          I do agree with the idea that if we are living a truly moral non-violent life and our laws are based on that moral primary that much of our concerns, within this country would dry up. Not all, but most. Those who are using Islam to re-esablish the Caliphate will probably continue their efforts. But we will have the undisputable moral high ground.

        • Public Education and the outline it follows is a farse. Private education does a better job at indoctrination. They also do a better job at preparing youth for an entitlement based society.

          Our current education system k through college is for the most part set to instill and ‘pound’ like BF says, absolutes, thought patterns and core beliefs different than those of our founding fathers and those that have contributed to a once great society.

          But that is a different subject for a different day.

          Bottom line: If they are not violating any laws or plotting to overthrow our government, leave them alone; it’s their right.

    • To all,

      Let me throw another rock at your assumptions. 1st amendment protects freedom of speech. But you cannot yell fire in a theater as a prank. The Supreme Court say no, no. So why is it a teacher can teach a Muslim to set fire to a non-muslims home protected? Or to kill them in another manner?

      • Black Flag says:

        Even the Supreme’s accidentally got the right answer with the wrong reasoning.

        You can yell “FIRE” all you want on your own property.

        You cannot do so in a theater because It is not your property – you are acting in a manner expressly forbidden by your contract with the owner.

        Your yelling imposes upon others – whether you yell, “Fire”, “Water” or “Boo”!

  12. Question, should terrorist supporters be allowed to recruit in America?
    I will not be staying at Hilton, ever. They have the right to refuse anyone without giving a reason.

    A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html

    • LOI, I read this earlier and found it quite disturbing. As we have been discussing all the various subjects over the months here, I have been wondering if there might be a large enough group of Americans willing to stand up and say “NO DAMN MORE”. I have come to the conclusion that we are here, as yet untapped, and quite large, with many supporters. This large group has a personnal stake in the freedom of this nation, are very knowledgable and well trained. Just for fun, guess who WE are?

      G!

    • Reportedly? As in … we cannot prove it but since we don’t like them, let’s just smear them with the terrorism brush. If they really did have links to any terrorist organizations, rest assured Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA and NSA would be all over them.

      • TexasChem says:

        Here DaveE read this then investigate what this organizations goals are.Oh and please quit your job at the kool-aid factory!

        Hizb ut-Tahrir America Enters Public Stage
        By Madeleine Gruen

        Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) has indicated that it has transitioned from its covert status to a public phase of operations by issuing an announcement, signed in its own name, that it will host a conference in July 2009 to support the establishment of a Caliphate. The promotional video can be viewed on YouTube. The event, titled “The Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam,” is scheduled for Sunday, July 19th, 2009, at the Aqsa School in Bridgeview, Illinois.

        Bridgeview is a suburb of Chicago. Chicago has been a major hub of HTA’s activities for the past ten years, approximately. According to information available on the internet, the Aqsa School is a private Islamic primary and secondary school. Although HTA’s Khilafah conference will be held at the school, there is no public indication that the school, its staff, or its board members are directly involved with HTA.

        Last fall, after HTA issued a leaflet in its own name calling for Muslims not to participate in the U.S. elections, I wrote a brief post on CTB about the possible transition of HTA to the second stage of its development. According to party doctrine, Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) implements its strategy in three stages–The first stage is the covert level of development in which members are recruited and trained. In the second stage, members promote the party’s methods and objectives publicly in order to win the support of the Muslim population. The final stage is the establishment of an Islamic government and military, in order to carry HT’s “message to the world.”

        Indeed, HTA’s announcement that it will host the Khilafah conference in July indicates that the U.S.-based branch now perceives itself as solidly prepared to emerge from its covert status into the second stage. HTA has held Khilafah conferences, and other major conferences, in the past, but has only done so from behind fronts and covers.

        Other international branches of HT that have advanced from the developmental stage to the public phase have done so after achieving a level of internal fortitude that would enable the branch to withstand opposition. The transition may indicate that HTA perceives a level of comfort in an operating environment in which aggressive challenge from the government or the public is not anticipated. In order to sustain operations publicly, the branch leaders must be confident that members are loyal and committed to HT’s objectives.

        The conference promotional video does not provide a list of speakers or an agenda for the conference. However, Khilafah conferences hosted by branches of HT in other countries most often include prominent HT members invited from overseas. It is likely members of HT will travel from abroad to the conference in Bridgeview, Illinois, to enhance the credibility of HTA and to solidify the commitment of its members.

        The promotional video for the July conference appears to have been created by an Australian member of HT, which indicates some degree of coordination between the organization’s branches. This particular member has created promotional videos for HT conferences in Indonesia and in Australia.

        Although HTA appears to have transitioned to the second stage of development, it is important to note that aspects of HTA’s activities will continue to be conducted covertly, such as recruitment and ideological training.

        HT is not designated as a terrorist organization in the United States, however many consider it to be a stepping stone to more militant organizations.

        For more information on Hizb ut-Tahrir, please see Hizb ut-Tahrir: Islam’s Political Insurgency, by Zeyno Baran.

        For more information on the background of Hizb ut-Tahrir America, please see my article in the Jamestown Terrorism Monitor.

  13. v. Holland says:

    I going to be gone this weekend, but before I leave I would like to ask a question, I’ll read whatever people want to answer when I get back-I read a lot on here about individual freedoms but how does compassion, helping your neighbor , or just man’s humanity to man fit in with the VDLG Party? Please don’t take my question the wrong way, I believe in individual freedoms but I also think man has a moral obligation to help his fellow man.

    • V, I don’t see anything wrong with helping out folks who have run into some bad luck (loss of job, illness). But that should be up to the people, not the government. If it were up to me Welfare would not exist. Compassion should go hand in hand with personnal responsibility, I personnally don’t have compassion for people who lack personnal responsibilty, I simply lack respect for them.

      G!

    • Hi V.

      Boy, does that fit in with what I have to say here on that. I just read a letter to the editorial page this morning about a man who had a problem in Washoe Valley going 70MPH.

      As he was driving, the hard top on his convertible just flew off, thank God he said nobody was behind him. As he pulled his car over to get his top off the road, he said not one person stopped to help him. Mind you, he was on a road where the speed was 70MPH, glass everywhere, people dodging him so as not to hit him. Anyway, he said, finally a man with a pick-up truck stopped to help him get his top, and he put it in his own truck and proceeded to follow the guy home so he can have his top fixed or replaced. He then asked in that letter, Just where is the compassion in people to stop and help a fellow human being that might have needed help. He said he doesn’t see that anymore, and that it seems like nobody wants to get involved and help their fellow neighbors. But, he was very grateful for the man who did stop to help. He said, he will never forget that man to who took the time to offer his help, even though he risked his life on that busy road to help.

      I agree with that, because you don’t find people too often to stop a fellow human being. The don’t want to get involved in case of a law suit or something. Too bad really.

      Have a good weekend.

      Judy

      • When we become trained to expect one certain entity to be there to help, we stop looking for those who are in need. Then when we do see them, we pass by knowing the other will take care of them, I don’t need to.

        Whether it is a convertable top or a hurricane in New Orleans, the mindset is the same.

        Judy, did you ever find my explanation of liberal/conservative?

        JAC

        • Hi JAC

          Yes I did, and I read it thoroughly, and thank you. I’m sorry I didn’t mention it yesterday, totally forgot, shame on me. Please forgive me, for I have CRS.

          Judy

          • Did it make sense?

            • Judy S. says:

              Hi JAC. I’m sorry, but I had to go back and re-read it again, CRS you know. Yes, made sense to me. Why do you ask? But, Oh, Please don’t quiz me, it’s Friday, and I really can’t take any quizzes. I read it, I agree with it, okay.

              Judy

              • just wanted to make sure I didn’t confuse the matter even more.

                Have a great weekend.
                JAC

              • Judy S. says:

                Hi there JAC

                No you didn’t make any more confusing, and I really appreciate you going to all the trouble of putting it down for me.

                You have a great weekend too, my friend, but I’m not going any where yet, I planned on staying on here a while longer.

                Judy

    • Bama dad says:

      V
      To me this is an easy one to answer. According to my core belief I do feel a responsibility to freely help my neighbor when he is, in my opinion, in true need of assistance. When I am forced to help my neighbor I have no obligation, especially one who has not done all he could to help himself.

    • You have no moral “obligation”. Your principles may drive you to help and probably give you pleasure.

      But any help to another, given out of some sense of “obligation”, “duty”, or other form of “guilt” is immoral. Because it eventually leads to someone imposing their view of “moral obligation” on others.

      That is the philosophy that destroys Liberty.

      Charity is given from the heart, not from guilt of the mind. Humans are herd anmimals and they do care for one another. Nothing about Liberty prevents each of us from doing so, if done as stated above.

      Hope that helps.
      JAC

      • Bama dad says:

        JAC
        There you go again diving deep after I told you I had a shallow mind.

        Top of the day to you and TGIF. 😉

  14. Good Morning all.

    As I have often stated, “freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know”. Not my words but I learned them in the Vietnam War.

    Not too long ago, I went for a walk. You know, one of those evenings that you just get out by yourself and reflect. No telephones ringing, no news on the TV, no trappings of computers or emails..no blogs…. nothing. Just fresh air and late evening sunshine. While walking, I took notice of how many American Flags were flying in yards, on a church building, in front of a school, and on small mom and pop ventures. I saw children playing in a park playground, cars driving through neighborhoods, water sprinklers going, couples holding hands, neighbors talking to one another..etc. There was one particular home that had a flag in a holder nailed to a tree and in the window, there were two different little flags depicting different colored stars. One flag had three blue stars and one flag had two gold stars, symbolic of that family that had members killed and serving in the military. This brought a reflection. I stopped and took a good look around again and this time I saw everything differently. The cars driving by were not armored, there was no barbwire surrounding any home, the children playing did not have armed guards watching things, there is no shortage of power or water as the yards were green and lights were on in each home, no police or armed security standing on street corners, people walking in and out of that little church without persecution, our country’s flag flying without being taken down, cars parked in front of a little store that had no barbed wire or barricades in front of it…I think everyone should have the picture by now. I saw all of this and the phrase came to me again, “freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know”. How true this is.

    I will brag on my State (Texas), the Dallas Cowboys, the Texas Rangers Baseball Team, my beloved longhorns, the Dallas Stars Hockey (yes, even in Texas we like ice hockey)I very rarely will brag on myself. In this case, I will for a little bit to make a point. I saw in a post above, that education was mentioned and that experience was mentioned and both could result in differing views on things. This is a true statement. But one is not superior to the other. I am an educated man by most standards…BBA, MBA, a degree in Kinesiology from Japan and numerous certifications. I grew up in the fabled “silver spoon” era. My family is very wealthy and I was afforded the best education possible in my time. ( No, not Ivy League, I did say the best education possible). I am a retired Colonel from the Army that was an enlisted E-6 first. I did 10 years active duty, 1969-1979 and thirty years reserve duty 1979-2009. I have been in four military campaigns. Vietnam (2 combat tours), Kuwait (Desert Storm 1 combat tour), Bosnia (so called peace keeping mission for 6 months), and Afghanistan (1 combat tour, actually only 9 months). I have been awarded several medals of valor, the highest being the Silver Star. Received two purple hearts and have the Combat Infantryman’s Badge with Star, among many others. So, I have education and I have experience. I have a family that is wealthy and we are into various ventures from oil and gas to ranching, started by my father and passed forward. My background is broad and varied but I actually chose my own path. I could have used political connections to get out of Vietnam, like so many did, but I did not. Much to the chagrin of my parents, I volunteered for service. Gave my mom a heart attack because I did so as an enlisted man and not as an officer. I did not go to OCS until my return from Vietnam. The reasons are my own as to why I did not choose the easy way out but I did not. I could easily be a trust fund baby but I am not. My brother and sister have been from inception. I own my own business. This is not to say that I am not conversant with the family business’ because I am. But, up to now, have not drawn one dime of family money since May 31, 1965. I paid my own way through college without family money or grants. I did have a sports talent that allowed a full education. I paid for and earned the MBA on my own, through government student loan program, WHICH had to be paid back in those days. I will someday be wealthy, I assume, with the passing of my parents whom are both in their nineties. Ok….suffice all this to say, my life experience level is from both spectra. I have dug the ditches and eaten the dirt. I was raised privileged.

    All of that means nothing and disintegrated when the first bullet angrily zipped by my ear. All of that is worthless, when I remember the blood, the wounded, and the dying. The basic realities of life have absolutely no meaning until it is almost taken from you for eternity. All of the privileges of youth and all of labor of education fade dramatically, when you lay in a pool of your own blood wondering if your leg was going to work again. (It does).

    Freedom and Liberty is something that is earned. This country, USA, allowed my father to be a self made man. This country, USA, allowed the freedoms and liberties that enabled me to make my own choices. There have been many that have taken the word freedom and the word liberty and dissected them on this blog to the point that semantics and definitions have hidden the true meanings. There has been much philosophy and quoting from our founders through today. It is hard to bite my tongue at times because I love my country so much, it hurts to see adults tear it apart because they do not like something, even worse, do not understand something. I have to realize, and I am learning, even at age 60, that some just do not know and do not understand the true meanings of freedom and liberty. Even worse, some just do not appreciate what we have, even as imperfect as it is.

    Everyone on this blog, means well. They have points to get across and meanings to specific words to impart. It matters not how educated you are or how experienced you are. It simply does not matter. It matters not how philosophical you are. What matters is a true understand and appreciation of what we have. What matters is a true understanding and appreciation of what is happening to our way. All men and women are created equal has a meaning, but does that meaning actually get so bogged down in semantics that we miss the actuality of it? We live in a country that has no walls and no barbed wire. As I stated above, even with all my experience, I was overlooking the forest for the trees. I first saw children playing on a play ground and said, how nice. I looked again and saw children playing without armed guards and thought….that is freedom. This is liberty. This is reality and not hyperbole. I have been to Europe, Asia, and the Middle east. They do not have what we have.

    I applaud the philosophical viewpoints and the opinions pertaining to the different topics. Even I got caught up time to time in dissecting specific words or phrases that, by themselves, mean something different that when taken in context. The fact is, in reality, freedom and liberty, allowed you to do so. This is also a definition of freedom and liberty. Not just a man’s right. Freedom and liberty is more than a catchy word or phrase. It is America. It is who we are. We have our detractors….yes. Our leaders have used these words and phrases out of context in foreign ventures….yes. Our leaders are using these words and phrases to reinvent the wheel and the wheel is not broken. Our freedoms and liberties are being used to usurp our freedoms and liberties. ( read that last sentence again, but slowly). But, we, as a people, as lawful citizens, as a Nation can stop this erosion of our freedoms and liberties. As noted, it will take time but you cannot start until the first step is taken and that first step is to quit being philosophical and to quit whining and to quit saying it is too late. It is NOT too late….yet.

    We have one basic freedom and one liberty that is still viable. OUR VOTE. We can change things. We can educate. Everyone on this blog knows what freedom and liberty means or they would not be here. EVERYONE of you knows. We have a way of life to preserve and not be taken away. Notice that I am not using labels of liberal or conservative. Stifling productivity, Robin Hood approaches, eliminating individualism by legislation are all failed systems in this world and we all know this. No one out there can name another country this very day that has the same freedoms and liberties that we do. Get involved and quit sitting idly by and complaining and protesting.

    What am I doing? I have a website that is being started that will post articles and inform people of the meaning of the bills and laws that are being passed. I have over 3,000 email recipients that will post it and forward it. Perhaps it will catch on. It will inform people of the cost of social programs that are being forced down our throats. It will inform people of the rights and freedoms being eroded because of political correctness or in the name of equality. A word that has been dissected to miniscule pieces that the true meaning has been lost. In addition, I am becoming politically involved in campaigning for candidates that believe in fiscal responsibility and that understand that free enterprise is the backbone of this country and not the social pariah that is being forced on us now. I am doing all of this and doing a full time job as well. It can be done.

    This is what freedom is and this is what liberty is….

    D13

    (footnote to USW…I got long winded and, please, delete this if it is too long).

    • Another footnote to USW…you have my email address and I would like to write some articles as a guest but would need your advice. Can you email me how I can send you something…you have my solemn Texas Oath and Special Forces promise, I will not divulge your private information anywhere.

      D13

    • To be so deeply disappointed in one day is painful. I think I will go mow the lawn and work it off.

      • Don’t forget to edge.

      • Black Flag says:

        JAC,

        Old friend, do not despair.

        The illusions for so many are so deep and ingrained that it is very painful to the people to dispel them.

        Many have given (and taken from others) flesh and blood in the name of these illusions – it threatens to break their hearts and crush their minds to believe that such a loss was for merely a mirage.

        We cannot pull them any faster down the road then they are able to travel. Remember, they suffer every step they take as the leave their fog and the light hurts their eyes.

        Be patient – but we just need to keep at them to keep going – even with very small steps.

        • You think I might be trainable? How have you been, BF…hope your day is well for you.

          • Black Flag says:

            Yes, you are trainable which is why the illusions hold such great power.

            These illusions have been pounded into the people from the day they were born.

            It was pounded into you by your parents – who had it pounded into them.

            Your teachers took up the task, and pounded you some more – because it was pounded into them before you.

            Your friends chipped in, and pounded you some more – because they had been pounded too.

            Nearly everything you read, said the same thing – trust the illusion.

            With such a relentless assault, even the most bizarre illusions start to seem real.

            From my own experience, it is incredibly hard to stand against such an assault, without looking upon one’s own beliefs to be, perhaps, the illusion.

            It’s like everyone is saying you’re insane – but you don’t think or feel that you are insane!

            But, does an insane man know he is or isn’t?

            It seems his only test is the reaction from his environment and the people around him, and it is relentless in its claim against you! If you are not like us and believe our illusions – you are insane!

            It is very, very, very hard to resist – and much easier to submit, to believe, it is you who is wrong.

            So, how does a man know he is not insane when the world overwhelming claims he is?

            By holding steadfast to his own, core, immutable moral principle

            I know I am not insane – regardless of the illusionists claim – because I am steadfast in my principles of action and belief.

            As long as I act and believe consistently and powerfully with my core principle, I must be aligned with the Universe and God.

            And one man, aligned with the Universe, is infinitely more powerful then the millions of illusions that are thrown against him.

            I am not here to train anyone.

            I merely question.

            What do you believe, and why? and is it consistent to your core belief.

            To answer me, you need to know what that core principle – your real core, immutable, principle actually is….

        • Thank you for your concern and kind words.

          Lawn is now low and flat, weeds are dead, patio washed, compost pile is cooking.
          Almost 5 hours of work, a cold shower and now much better.

          Sometimes my old want to beat the bulldookey out of something needs an outlet. Thank God the Plants Rights folks haven’t made it immoral to chop grass and rip weeds out by their scrawny little roots.

          I won’t share the names I assigned to each giant thistle that went flying back over my head. And I love adding a little extra by mowing over the pulled and chopped just to make sure they are REALY DEAD.

          Upon reflection, while putting on the water at the end, I did realize that there have been many here who have made significant changes in their views since we all began working on the big picture some 4 months ago. In reality, it is quite amazing that many have come to understand just how big a task we have ahead.

          Nothing like killing innocent and defensless plants to bring a man peace of mind.
          OTFLMAO….OK maybe a little to tired to laugh that hard.

          Thanks again for the pep talk.
          A cold beer will be raised to all this evening. And one extra for the Big G-Man.
          JAC

          • JAC says: Thank God the Plants Rights folks haven’t made it immoral to chop grass and rip weeds out by their scrawny little roots.
            —————-
            Wait for it…it is probably next. Someone will try to say they have a soul.
            _____________________________

            JAC says: Upon reflection, while putting on the water at the end, I did realize that there have been many here who have made significant changes in their views since we all began working on the big picture some 4 months ago. In reality, it is quite amazing that many have come to understand just how big a task we have ahead.
            ———————

            Yes. You are correct. In my short tenure here, I have seen the same and while everyone does not agree and sometimes gets the desire to “beat the bulldookey” out of something, it does make for great looking lawns, etc. We have a great task ahead of us…just different methods of getting there. Perhaps all the methods have one purpose….to affect good change.
            _______________________________________

            JAC says: Nothing like killing innocent and defensless plants to bring a man peace of mind.
            OTFLMAO….OK maybe a little to tired to laugh that hard.

            ———————–

            Haven’t been out of the military long enough to adopt the weed standard…How about some militant Taliban to whet my appetite until I can settle into a more serene lifestyle. I am having withdrawals.

            Have a great day.

    • D13,

      Many thanks for your service.

      Great post, thanks for expressing yourself so well.

      How about your website address? Many here are looking forward to viewing.

      • The web site will be finished in two more days…it is being completely redone and as stated previously, it will even have a problem solved on illegal immigration, thanks to BF. He is the one that gave me the idea. As soon as it is finished I will give everybody the address. Right now, it is a work in progress. Just a couple more days and it will be ready. Thank you for your patience.

        Many thanks for your comments.

    • Great post D13. I would love to be one of the email recipients to receive and forward your efforts. Let me know how to go about that.

    • Black Flag says:

      “Freedom and Liberty is something that is earned”

      No, sir.

      It is something you have that can be taken away. You fight to keep it, not earn it.

      If you get this backwards, you get it wrong. When you get it wrong, you make a critical mistake in assigning actions. Then, you destroy what you are trying to save.

    • Colonel D13,
      Thank You for your service to our country, and Thank You for your service to the men & women you’ve commanded (from one of your previous posts).

      We may disagree on many things politically, but I agree completely with your assement of the USA. For all of our problems, there are 100 times as many things we all should be thankful for. It’s important to keep the proper perspective when discussing issues here.

      Thanks for the reminder!

    • So your view of Liberty is the lack of barbed wire and armed guards?

      Been inside a public school lately? The armed guards are on the inside and many even have the doors locked to all outside visitors. And now the armed guards put in the school to protect the children are being used to spy on, search, arrest and discipline the children. Boy that is some Liberty I can get behind.

      As for others who have Liberty, I was surprised none of my northern cousins jumped in, so I will and at the top of the list is:

      CANADA

      But so they don’t feel lonely lets add:

      NEW ZEALAND
      AUSTRALIA
      JAPAN
      TAIWAN
      SOUTH KOREA
      INDIA
      TAIWAN
      VIET NAM
      TOO MANY NEW STANS TO REMEMBER
      GERMANY
      POLAND
      NETHERLANDS
      FRANCE
      SPAIN
      PORTUGAL
      FINLAND
      NORWAY
      SWEDEN
      SCOTLAND
      ENGLAND
      IRELAND
      WALES
      GREENLAND
      ICELAND
      BRAZIL
      ARGENTINA
      PARAGUAY
      URAGUAY
      CHILE
      COLUMBIA
      COSTA RICA
      JAMAICA
      PUERTO RICO

      Of course this is using the criteria you described as real freedom and liberty.

    • Amazed1 says:

      BRAVO….BRAVO, very few have seen what you have seen. It seems to understand the value of a right you have to be in jeapordy of losing it. Very few in America truly appreciate what our founding fathers tried to give us.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Look forward to the website

  15. D13

    Keep it up brother!

    Let us know the Web site address, I for one will read it.

    I too believe we have time and we can influence change.

    CM

    • And so you fall in behind the leader who has just spoken against your very position posted above.

      Yes, action to slow the rot is good and perhaps necessary. I do not know for sure if slowing it or accelerating it is best when it comes to resurrecting true Liberty. I share everyone’s fear of what will happen if we let it fail completely. That is human nature. But we need to be careful that we are not fighting to just keep a small variation of the same problem going.

      I want REAL CHANGE, I want LASTING CHANGE

      I WANT FREEDOM

      JAC

      • Gotta start somewhere, my friend. Why not elect the people that think like you do?

        • Black Flag says:

          Because the people cannot elect the people who think like he does.

          To be the master of the Ring of power must mean you are beholden to power over others.

          You become what you wish did not exist.

      • JAC;

        Not sure who your are addressing in your reply, me, D13 or both.

        I wish everyone would start a reply with whomever they are replying too. It would help in coordinating the responses.

        CM

        • CM:

          I was addressing you this AM and usually make sure to address the respondee. I admit to being overcome with an attack of sever frustration and took one last shot before attacking two weeks lawn growth and many taller weeds. I apologize for the confusion.

          Got done about 30 minutes ago, so that ought to tell you something about the task. Lets just say I am feeling alot mellower at the moment. Although the blood still hasn’t returned to my fingers from using that old weed cutter. Should improve the power in my golf swing though.

          It seemed to me that D13 must making a case that was inconsistent with yours but then you seemed to be supporting his argument in total. Perhaps I was wrong. Just make sure you read his whole post again carefully to make sure you are really aligned.

          Again, sorry for being a bit pissy this morning.
          JAC

          • JAC;

            I believe that by nature and by design all men are good, it is their individual decissions that take them down the wrong or right path.

            D13 has a strong and endearing heart for this country believing that we can turn the tide. His frustration lies in experiencing a once great nation torn apart by apathetic and somewhat indignant people

            I think his main point was to wake up the general population inorder to hasten the revolte.

            Although I do truely believe our discussions of philosopy are critical I don’t think initiallizing a movement or re-training will be detrimental.

            Many great ideas started as just that, an idea or belief, and wound up a historical event.

            Those freedoms and liberties we celibrate on the 4th, veterans day, memorial day and others can be the founding principals of a change in the population.

            “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history” Gandhi

            CM

            BTW: Hope your day improves, your grass grows slower and those efforts today enable your golf game.

            • CM

              Your explanation is more aligned with where I thought you were in your thinking. Thanks for clarifying.

              And thanks for the kind words.
              Day is very good now, again.
              Best to you
              JAC

            • Thanks CM… that is where I was trying to go. Remember, I am new at this blogging and, as a Colonel, have to remember that what I feel should be common sense, is not. I know that my experiences have made me a no nonsense type of man. It is not that I disagree with changing and educating, it is that we are short of time. Philosophers have a great insight but we do not have time for too much talking.

              Anyway, I am glad that I contributed to JAC’s pretty lawn. I want some credit here, JAC. YOu did the work but I increased your frustration level to the point of making you, your wife, and neighbors happy…not to mention the beer.

  16. Black Flag says:

    GarthD

    You’re byline demonstrates precisely what I repeat constantly on this site.

    “Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral”

    Garth, Taking from Peter is immoral – period – I doesn’t matter whether or not Paul is paid.

    Unless we are exactingly clear on our moral principles – it matters not one wit what system is created – we will rationalize some immoral action, and it will undo us all.

    • BF:

      I know we disagree on this.

      I did not establish this country but I accept the basis so I am willing to have some taken from Paul for those things constitutionally allowed for in the federal gov’t.

      It is within my principles. It is all part of my contract with the gov’t, even tho they have broken the contract many times over.

      I served to keep the country free and I am willing to pay those who are serving us now.

      The monies they take for services not Constitutional are immoral whether Paul gets paid or not.

      Missed you yesterday.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

      • Black Flag says:

        By what principle do you hold that allows you accept such basis?

        You state it is within your core principle, but I cannot tell – however, I am merely supposing that it will not be within your principle but contradicting it.

        I will bet that all you’ve done is rationalize the contradiction.

        • BF:

          “By what principle do you hold that allows you accept such basis?”

          I did not establish this country but I accept the basis so I am willing to have some taken from Paul for those things constitutionally allowed for in the federal gov’t.

          As of this time, I have not worked out one core principle so it fits into the many that I do have.

          Keep working on me and I will work on myself and I may find that core.

          Can a person have a core that is within the framework of a gov’t that they accept?

          Can a core have any exceptions?

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter can be immoral – if it pays Paul (a parasite) it is immoral

          • Black Flag says:

            Re: Exceptions

            If there are, then it isn’t your core.

            Your core principle is immutable – beyond debate – beyond question – the basis to make moral decisions; it cannot be judged!

            Any ‘exception’ is a contradiction to your principle – it is in the contradictions of man’s beliefs that human evil is born.

            You make an exception to your core principle – you have made evil.

            Re: Core within framework of government.

            It depends on what your core is, and what your definition of government is (and if that definition meets its reality).

    • Flag,

      Starting to wonder if you are talking about me behind my back, with all these illusion references?

      “The illusions for so many are so deep and ingrained that it is very painful to the people to dispel them.

      Many have given (and taken from others) flesh and blood in the name of these illusions –
      Yes, you are trainable which is why the illusions hold such great power.

      These illusions have been pounded into the people from the day they were born.

      Nearly everything you read, said the same thing – trust the illusion.

      With such a relentless assault, even the most bizarre illusions start to seem real.”

      So whats up with that? LOL

      Something I think will interest you, according to the Weather Channel this morning, Bill Gates has proposed a way to try preventing hurricanes. And because of who he is, its being taken seriously. Supposedly, he thinks large barges with very powerful pumps could pump warm surface water (82degree) down and pump cold (40 degree) water up to the surface. Since the warm water is the energy source for the hurricane, it would dwindle.

      My thoughts are, he does not realize how big the ocean or a hurricane is,
      theory is great, but we cannot pump enough water fast enough with today’s
      technology.

      • Black Flag says:

        So whats up with that? LOL

        You were wish to chose such a Netizen-name 😉

        Something I think will interest you, according to the Weather Channel this morning, Bill Gates has proposed a way to try preventing hurricanes.

        At least King Canute thought his ministers were a joke to claim that the King had command over the Earth and Sky and he proved them wrong.

        Maybe Gates is starting to believe his own press.

        And because of who he is, its being taken seriously. Supposedly, he thinks large barges with very powerful pumps could pump warm surface water (82degree) down and pump cold (40 degree) water up to the surface. Since the warm water is the energy source for the hurricane, it would dwindle.

        My thoughts are, he does not realize how big the ocean or a hurricane is,
        theory is great, but we cannot pump enough water fast enough with today’s
        technology.

        The new God = humans. We can do anything, the People cry!

        😆

        A single hurricane rains more water then the entire human consumption of the USA in a year.

        Riiiigggghhhhtttt – we can stop hurricanes – suurrrre!

        Don’t ever bet against Nature

  17. National government continues to grow at rate of 60,000 to 70,000 jobs per month.

    “Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral”

    Is this a good example Garth?

    • Ty:

      “National government continues to grow at rate of 60,000 to 70,000 jobs per month.”

      To me this is a good example as Peter is paying the 60-70,000 Pauls. Although it depends on what the Pauls are being paid for.

      The Constitution allows for Defense of the country. That requires taking from Peter but Paul is not being paid for something that is not Constitutional. In this case, I accept the parasite. The founding fathers thought we needed defense and I agree it is a cost of Freedom.

      As D13 said above, where else but in America.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

  18. I certainly applaud everyones comments, the learning never ends. I often find myself at odds with myself, do I want to become an activist and join the list of people with D13, or do I want sit back and let this pathetic government fail and fight like hell to survive. I’m equally prepared for both, but would activism simply delay the very thing that would allow a change to occur?

    As I said earlier, organizing the vets of this country would allow for a powerful alliance, but for what purpose could that alliance be best utilized? I just can’t see removing the current members of government and replacing them with the same system in place. That is not change to me, just futility. So many questions, so few answers.

    I think I’ll have a celebratory cocktail to ponder this, as I have managed to live a full 44 years today. An amazing feat indeed!

    G!

    • Bama dad says:

      Wow still a young one. Happy birthday dear sir. Ah to be 44 again.

      • Thanks BD, It’s been one heck of a ride so far, and looks to be even more interesting down the road. Hope today finds you in the best of spirits!

        G!

        • G-Man; I forgot to wish you a Big Happy this morning. Got frustrated way to fast. But done mowing and beating the OOMPAH out of the weeds so feel better now.

          A very Happy Birthday from the Big Sky country.
          JAC

          • Thanks JAC, I spent most of my day here, and enjoyed it. I feel very fortunate to be a part of this small group of people, and find much joy in knowing I am not alone in my beliefs. Everybody here has my respect. I will toast all of you as the night progresses. Peace!

    • A very happy B-day to you sir!

    • Black Flag says:

      Make sure you send your Mom roses – she did all the work 44 years ago. You were there just for the ride.

      Ponder deeply the basis of your moral action. Everything you believe and act upon comes from that source. True, you may contradict your own self for some pragmatic (but typically, short term) gain. That is a human fault – nonetheless, it does detract from the truth of your core belief.

      Find that core, analyze it, understand all of its implications.

      Then live it. Live with Principle over Pragmatism.

      Then, and only then, real change will occur.

    • HAPPY BIRTHDAY G-Man

      Oh to be 44 again, I forgot what that was like to be 44, so many things happened since then for me. Let’s see here if I can remember. No gray hair, no wrinkles, body didn’t sag, could see without my glasses, now I can’t, especially close up, could move quicker than I can now, was a lot thinner then, didn’t have arthritis, do now, had more teeth then, than I do now, oh yea, my hair has gotten thinner in spots too. Don’t get me wrong I still have a head of hair, just thinner. I guess that does it.

      G-Man, do enjoy your day. Instead of having just one cocktail, live it up and have 2 instead.

      Judy

    • Thanks to everyone for the kind wishes. I feel younger already LOL. On a lighter side of things, my first act of defiance came very early in life, I was facing the doctor, fresh out of the womb, and had to pee! Guess who got a bath? My Mom said I’ve been a hellraiser ever since. I’m glad I’m not a young child today, to many problems in this society. I’m raising my youngest daughter as a single parent, she is 17 going on 30. How come when teenage girls grow boobs they lose their brains? And at what age do the brains return? Darn, more questions to ponder, LOL.

      G!

      • I always thought it was the boys that lost their brains when the girls grew boobs.

        • I just didn’t want to admit that part! Busted again RLMAO!

        • USWeapon says:

          well played, dear Jennie, well played.

          • Thanks, I think both views are true.

            earlier today there was a request on how to submit a guest article. I would like that info as well, if you don’t mind. I would like to write about PTSD, and it’s reasons and how it works in the minds of those that deal with it.

            Peace!

            G!

            • USWeapon says:

              I look forward to that article. I suffer slightly, however my father suffers greatly from PTSD.

  19. First D13 excellent post.

    I am a person that came from a family that didnt have money, but we were installed with the backbone of hard work, respect for others, religious beliefs and love for this country.
    I like alot of my family has served in the US Military, and have seen first hand that others do not have what we have here. I would change that for anything. We all fly American Flags out in our yards and have have stickers on our cars. Ones that stand and have tears in our eyes when the anthem is sung. Not using that time to use the restroom.
    All but one of my aunts/uncles never went to college. But they all have managed to have become successful business owners. They did with hard work and the underlying theory that Customer Service and respect is what really matters. Along with work that they take responiblity for their own lives.
    That is the family I love and learned from.
    Having that background, I have learn to respect all people of this country. I might not agree with your path in life, as you might not agree with mine. That is why we live here.
    Voting, to me, is a right that I cant believe we as a country do not excerise in force of numbers. I sit in amazement every voting cycle when I see the low numbers of people who vote. I always take voting day off and help people get to the polls. I never ask who they are voting for, that is their right. I just want to help people act on their right.
    Now as I start my own business I have even more respect for the country I believe. Even if we are completely off course at the moment.
    But as a gay women of this country I have seen the other side of this coin. But this will not ever stop me in pursuing my dreams of making this country better.

    Ellen

  20. Excellent post, USW. I think everyone wants freedom, unfortunately we have such a hard time giving to anyone else.

    I think the way we change back to America as it ought to be is to change public understanding and sentiments back to the idea of freedom and rights as explained in the Declaration of Independence. It’s already happening and unfortunately the process is hastend by encroachments on our personal freedoms more than by anything else . . . so thanks, Bush, thanks, Obama, you’ve given America new hope, in a way you never planned.

  21. True Story…..

    Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on theback. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall.

    When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.

    The complaint:
    ‘Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base:

    Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M, a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special?

    Any response would be appreciated.

    The response:

    Regarding ‘A wake-up call from Luke’s jets’ On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four- ship fly by of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.

    At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer’s recount of the fly by, and because of the jet noise, I’m sure you didn’t hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son’s flag on behalf of the President of theUnited States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured..

    A four-ship fly by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense offreedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.

    The letter writer asks, ‘Whom do we thank for the morning airshow? The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.

    Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you….JesusChrist and the American Soldier.
    One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

    Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.

    USAF

    • LittleOleLady :

      Brought tears to my eyes.

      Thanks to Capt. Jeremy Fresques, Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. and you.

      GarthD
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

    • All I have to say is amen

    • LOI, Having been to several of these services, It’s hard to maintain oneself during the playing of TAPS, but when the the lead jet flies straight up in the missing man formation, forget it. It’s a very emotional event, and a very fitting tribute. The Commanders response was perfect.

      G!

    • This story reminds me of a letter to the editor that appeared in our paper a couple of years ago, where a woman wrote in to complain about the noise of the flyover done during a 4th of July celebration immediately after we had sung the National Anthem. She was apparently just out for a leisurely bike ride that was interuppted by these “war machines”.

      “God is Great; Beer is Good; People are Crazy”

    • Judy S. says:

      LOI

      Just reading your post brought tears to my eyes, in fact they’re still watering. Thank you for sharing that.

      We live close to the Reno-Tahoe airport, and we used to have those jets take off every single day for the first few years of living here. I would get chills running through me because I would be like little girl going to the window just to see them fly over our house. Yes, we were right in their path, just like with the regular airlines now. Anyway there would be anywhere from 4 to 6 jets at a time that would fly over, I just loved it.

      Sure they were very noisy, but so what, only lasted for a few seconds. Now, just every once in a while there might be just a few that fly over, then that’s it. Maybe I feel this way because my dad was in the Air Force during WWII. He used to take us kids flying when he had his pilots license when we were younger.

      Anyway, they started building more homes and apartments around the airport, and more people started to complain about those jets and all the noise they’d make when flying over. So, they tried doing a different route, but that didn’t work, bothered other people on the other side of the airport. So now, they can’t fly them in and out of Reno like they used too, I think they go out of Stead and Nellis now. I miss seeing and hearing those jets fly by everyday like I used too

      I say, if you knew the Airport was there when you bought the house, then why did you buy it? The Airport was there first. Why should they have to change and conform to you because you don’t like the noise? MOVE. Maybe what they should do, is sell those places to the deaf, that way no body complains. No disrespect to those who can’t hear, just trying to make a point.

      That’s all I have to say on that.

      Have a good rest of the day.

      Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      The last American to die for freedom fell in 1865 – and his side lost the battle.

      Since then, as Gen. Butler would attest – the military have been a goon squad for mercantilism.

      Too bad the men dying can’t see that – perhaps, then, they’d stop dying for bananas and oil.

      • BF, Do you see men dying for freedom in our future? I believe we are on that path. What say you?

        G!

        • Black Flag says:

          A horrible day will fall upon us if we, truly, need to kill and die to be free.

          Such a path is most certainly possible – sadly, violence is the ‘final solution’ when the reason of men fails.

          • When reasoning becomes a oneway path, failure is sure to follow.

            I should copyright this statement, LOL.

    • Bama Dad says:

      When I was a child living close to a Naval Air Station there were signs all around that said:
      Jet noise, the sound of freedom!

      Also jets could break the sound barrier over the continental US, had lots of windows rattling back then.
      OK here is a test for everyone. What is the only winged craft that is allowed to break the sound barrier over the continental US today during peace time?

      • Judy S. says:

        Bama Dad

        How about the space shuttle? If I’m right, do I win a prize?

        Judy

        • Bama Dad says:

          Correct, you are to smart. Sorry no prize.

          • Judy S. says:

            OH drat the luck.

            I remember when we lived in Burbank, Calif, and when the shuttle would land, you could actually hear the sound shortly after it landed. I know Edwards Air Force base is considerably far from there, but we did hear it. I would have the TV on, watch the landing, then after wards, heard the boom, boom sound it made. It was quite exciting to see, even if it was on TV.

  22. I went to my Congressional Representatives office today as part of the TEA Party rally against Obamacare. My Representative was not there but I asked them:

    Isn’t Health Care a subject that is for the several States to decide since the right to legislate it is not given to the federal gov’t? They said: “Well we have Medicare”. I said “Two wrongs do not make a right.

    Obama comes straight out and says that Health Care is a right. He is so wrong.

    When a Republican Representative from Wyoming was asked: “Is Health Care a right?”, she gave a puzzled look and said: “This is not the plan we need”. When asked the same question again, she gave the same answer.

    I told this to my Representative rep and then said: “She couldn’t answer because both parties want federal control of Health Care.

    Our Representatives and Senators would have nothing to do if they only legislated that which the Constitution grants to them.

    They all have to go!!!!

    By the way, there were 40 TEA Partiers at my Reps office (Kenny Marchant) and I just heard on the radio that there were 300 at the office of one of my Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison). It was more confrontational at Senator Hutchison’s office as she is more moderate. Moderate means she is willing to take Peter’s money to pay Paul but just not as much as Democrats are taking.

    There was MSM coverage at the Senator’s office. Will have to see if anything gets to the TV.

    GarthD
    Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral — where did Mary go — the group is still touring

  23. Passing a Health care bill that will not work or one that we can not afford is lacking any common sense to me.

    I saw a clip of Nancy Pelosi on TV today doing a push to pass this bill. Plain scary.
    Reproter asked: Will the hike on the higher income families pay for the healthcare package?
    Pelosi: Yes, it would. But we wont need it because the savings we are going to have with the bill will pay for itself.
    Reporter: So why raise taxes if the savings from the bill will pay for itself.
    Pelosi: Well if we need it, it will be there. If we dont we use the renvue for something else.

    What? Take about fuzzy math! So let me get this straight. You have no idea what is going to happen when you pass and put in place this bill. But you are going to hike taxes for the yeck of it?

    Nice

    • Ellen, There are some key words in her statements that need touched on. The first is “savings”, I don’t recall the government ever being able to save money. Is this the demise of our senior citizens and the beginning of a new pill popping society. Forget elective surgery, just take vicodine for pain and you will be fine, till your liver falls out.

      I’ve always disliked the term “pain management”. To me it’s nothing short of legalized drug dealers.

      Since I’m on the topic, lets ration healthcare as well, only a select few get it and the rest must wait extended periods of time, just to get a pain pill that they don’t need anyway. Great way to erode our society and get more people dependent on Big Brother.

      This may answer your question as to why more people don’t vote, the choices are pathetic, and the results are most likely devestating.

      Have a great day my friend!

      G!

      • JayDickB says:

        “Since I’m on the topic, lets ration healthcare as well, only a select few get it and the rest must wait extended periods of time, just to get a pain pill that they don’t need anyway. Great way to erode our society and get more people dependent on Big Brother.”

        What do you think the liberals have in mind? Rationing, of course. It’s the easiest way to reduce costs.

        If people (especially the press) had half a brain, they would ask themselves:

        When did the government ever figure out how to reduce the cost of anything while maintaining the same quality?

    • Secondly, the taxes on wealthy families not being needed should be against the law. It’s nothing but an example of redistribution of wealth, that will put our country in complete failure, as stated earlier today. Get your guns loaded, your gonna need them!

  24. Judy S. says:

    I read today that Joe Biden said we have to spend money, otherwise we’ll go bankrupt. Excuse me, but aren’t we there yet?

  25. Black Flag says:

    Kenneth Boulding:

    “If the human race is to survive it will have to change more in its ways of thinking in the next twenty-five years than it has done in the last twenty-five thousand.”

    • I would say thats a true statement. Bet he never had a teenage daughter, he’d realize the improbability of that happening.

      • Black Flag says:

        Well Mr G-Man, this is Mission Impossible, not mission difficult.
        Difficult should be a walk in the park for you.

        • BF, I thought at one time that my thinking and values couldn’t change. Over the course of the last few months, I learned that I was wrong. I believe that all problems can be solved, even the seemingly impossible ones. When someone says “you can’t fix this problem”, I thank them, and prove them wrong over time. Thanks for all your input, it certainly makes me think “better”.

  26. Judy S. says:

    Way off topic here, But this is for anyone who has cats and dogs. This is a must read, and tell me how true this is. Hopefully this will make you laugh like it did me. Hope it will brighten you night and weekend.

    Judy

    __________________________________________________________________
    To be posted VERY LOW on the refrigerator door – nose height.

    Dear Dogs and Cats,

    The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. The other
    dishes are mine and contain my food. Please note, placing a paw print in the
    middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it becoming your food
    and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.

    The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack Beating me
    to the bottom is not the object. Tripping me doesn’t help because I fall
    faster than you can run.

    I cannot buy anything bigger than a king sized bed. I am very sorry about
    this. Do not think I will continue sleeping on the couch to ensure your
    comfort. Dogs and cats can actually curl up in a ball when they sleep. It is
    not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other stretched out to the
    fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and
    having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space is nothing but
    sarcasm.

    For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom. If by some
    miracle I beat you there and manage to get the door shut, it is not
    necessary to claw, whine, meow, try to turn the knob or get your paw under
    the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I
    entered. Also, I have been using the bathroom for years — canine or feline
    attendance is not required.

    The proper order is kiss me, then go smell the other dog or cat’s butt. I
    cannot stress this enough!

    To pacify you, my dear pets, I have posted the following message on our
    front door:

    To All Non-Pet Owners Who Visit & Like to Complain About Our Pets:

    1. They live here.. You don’t.
    2. If you don’t want their hair on your clothes, stay off the furniture.
    (That’s why they call it “fur”niture.) 3. I like my pets a lot better than I
    like most people.
    4. To you, it’s an animal. To me, he/she is an adopted son/daughter who is
    short, hairy, walks on all fours and doesn’t speak clearly.

    Remember: In many ways, dogs and cats are better than kids because they:

    1. Eat less
    2.. Don’t ask for money all the time
    3 Are easier to train
    4. Normally come when called
    5. Never ask to drive the car
    6. Don’t hang out with drug-using friends 7. Don’t smoke or drink 8. Don’t
    have to buy the latest fashions 9. Don’t want to wear your clothes 10. Don’t
    need a “gazillion” doll a rs for college.

    And finally,
    11. If they get pregnant, you can sell their children.

  27. This may or may not turn out to be true

    It did not work in Russia. What makes the chosen one believe that it will

    work here?

    Certainly something to ponder

    This Professor is a Genius

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never

    failed a single student before,

    but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s

    socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a

    great equalizer.

    The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on

    Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the

    same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the

    first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

    The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little

    were happy.

    As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had

    studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free

    ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was

    happy.

    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never

    increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings

    and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that

    socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the

    effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no

    one will try or want to succeed.

    Could not be any simpler than that.

    Have a good evening

    Judy

  28. Well, I don’t know where everybody went, but do have a good weekend.

    Hope to see you all here tomorrow.

    Take care everyone.

    Judy

  29. USWeapon,

    To get back to your original post.

    Liberty is not built on the doctrine that a few nobles have the right to inherit the earth. No. NO! It stands on this principle: that the meanest, and the lowest of people ARE, by the unalterable and indefeasible laws of god and nature as well entitled to the benefit of the air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear as the nobles or the king! THAT is LIBERTY. And Liberty will reign in America!

    Hasn’t a new “noble” class been formed in America? The wealthy, that includes conservatives, moderates, liberals, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats? Aren’t they denying (or maybe limiting) the middle and lower class’s entitled benefits?

    I’m trying to use John Adams words to start a discussion, not a fight!

    These are the thoughts that lead me to my current political beliefs, which I still constantly question.

    The concentration of wealth in America in a small percentage of the population denies the masses their “pursuit of Happiness”?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    I’m not so sure the Founding Father’s were talking about ALL MEN. They did not consider slaves to be part of ALL MEN, and they did not apply ALL MEN to include women. ALL MEN referred mostly to landowners and the aristocrat class.

    The electoral college selecting the president and state legislators selecting senators were both ‘checks’ against the common man gaining to much power in the new government.

    There’s a lot of talk here about definitions of government and moral core value/principle, mixed in with the Constitution. At times you, JAV, BF, and a few others talk about how great the Founding Fathers were, and at other times you talk about their short-comings and errors.

    So what’s your definitions of government, core value, and how a new government should be created (or not created per BF)?

    • Black Flag says:

      Aren’t they denying (or maybe limiting) the middle and lower class’s entitled benefits?

      Wealth is only one part of the requirement to join the elite – Obama did not come from wealth.

      Wealth is not a measure of ‘noble’.

      The concentration of wealth in America in a small percentage of the population denies the masses their “pursuit of Happiness”?

      Only if you believe wealth=happiness.

      It does not.

      I’m not so sure the Founding Father’s were talking about ALL MEN. They did not consider slaves to be part of ALL MEN, and they did not apply ALL MEN to include women. ALL MEN referred mostly to landowners and the aristocrat class.

      They sure did!

      But as we struggle here – their definitions distracted them. They struggled to define “Men” so to exclude one group or another.

      It seems the same struggle here regarding government. Once the definition became clear, everything else was clear too.

      The electoral college selecting the president and state legislators selecting senators were both ‘checks’ against the common man gaining to much power in the new government.

      It doesn’t matter who gains power – the power is evil.

      There’s a lot of talk here about definitions of government and moral core value/principle, mixed in with the Constitution. At times you, JAV, BF, and a few others talk about how great the Founding Fathers were, and at other times you talk about their short-comings and errors.

      They were men, not Gods.

      They held their illusions, too.

      It is incredibly difficult to hold on to core principles in a very pragmatic world.

      Men often chose to compromise – and usually it ends with contradicting ones principles. Men justify this by saying “Oh, its really small and not really that important – the bigger picture is important”, rarely understanding the impact of such rot over time.

      • BF,
        I agree Obama did not come from wealth, but there’s a very small percentage of people that have the tools to make the big step he did.

        Wealth does not equal happiness, but it helps!?!? You don’t have to WEALTHY to be happy, but having some “wealth” in general gives you a more comfortable life, gives you options to make changes/improvements to your life.

        Pragmatic / compromise vs principles…

        I hadn’t really thought about this as a contradiction. A pragmatic approach that requires compromise is ‘necessary’ if two or more people are to get along…but does that mean everyone is compromising their principles…

        Do you think everyone would/could arrive at the same core principle and therefore be able to ‘get along’ without compromise? Or if everyone had a solid core principle, they wouldn’t necessarily need to be the same for everyone to ‘get along’ without compromise?

        • Black Flag says:

          Todd

          I agree Obama did not come from wealth, but there’s a very small percentage of people that have the tools to make the big step he did.

          He had help – tremendous help – but that’s another story.

          Wealth does not equal happiness, but it helps!?!?

          NO!

          Wealth is absolutely neutral to happiness!

          Some of the greatest myths about happiness and wealth pollute society.

          If wealth/fame or any worldly acknowledgments had anything to do with happiness – then why do so many ‘stars’ and ‘rich’ kill themselves?

          I have been “rich” and I’ve lived in the back of a van on the street.

          Let me tell you – happiness is 100% a state of mind

          Failing to understand this is why so many will pervert their principles for mere wealth – believing they will be happy in the end

          In the end, it never happens

          You achieve ‘happy’ when you are aligned with the Universe and your own principles!

          Every great teacher tells all of us this universal truth… but we are all so reluctant to believe them.

          Pragmatic / compromise vs principles…

          I hadn’t really thought about this as a contradiction. A pragmatic approach that requires compromise is ‘necessary’ if two or more people are to get along…but does that mean everyone is compromising their principles…

          No.

          Almost 99.5% of the decision you make – whether this way or that way – will make no difference to your principles.

          “Should the wall be painted white or blue?”

          Obviously, no principle is invoked.

          But once in a while you will be challenged.

          The challenge will be:

          Do I screw him, or do I play fair – even if playing fair may mean I lose?

          All of us will get this question at least (probably more) times in our lives – in many, many different ways, means, and questions.

          What will be your answer?

          Do you think everyone would/could arrive at the same core principle and therefore be able to ‘get along’ without compromise?

          Nope.

          There are an infinte number of right answers to the questions of the universe.

          I am not so egotistical that I have the one right answers.

          But what I can do is respect your right answers. I merely test your actions against your answer to make sure you are consistent.

          If you fail the test of consistency, you are evil.

          However, if we find conflict in our own core principles – we have a duty to mitigate that conflict.

          We work hard to find our common ground, and share our standing there.

          We also work equally as hard to avoid each other where we have conflict – and stand apart and never impose upon each other – so that we never have to resolve such conflict by violence.

          • BF,
            I think you read quite a bit into my “Wealth does not equal happiness, but it helps!?!?” comment. I didn’t mean WEALTHY or RICH, and I didn’t mention Fame or worldly acknowledgments. But all other things being equal, having enough wealth to live comfortable helps.

            So if Wealth has nothing to do with happiness, then why are you so opposed to taxes? Why not just give the government 70-80% of your wealth and income, and live happily on what’s left?? 😉

            Do I screw him, or do I play fair – even if playing fair may mean I lose?

            In my younger days, I’d screw him GOOD! But now, I’d rather face the challenge and win, or take the loss and learn from it.

            We work hard to find our common ground, and share our standing there.

            We also work equally as hard to avoid each other where we have conflict – and stand apart and never impose upon each other – so that we never have to resolve such conflict by violence.

            Very good – I really like this. But can it work in very large numbers in society…when trying to establish laws…I guess so, as long as the laws are the bare minimum.

            Things like Zone Laws infringe on individual rights for the “common good”. So do you consider those wrong/evil?

            • Zoning laws in a moral society would be unneccesary.

              The rare offender would be dealt with in civil action if his offense did in fact impose on others in a way that undermines their rights.

              That is the hard part that is in need of some serious expertise. We need some good legal philosphers and scholars working on this with us.

              • JAC,

                Zoning laws in a moral society would be unneccesary.

                Yes, but we’re not there yet…

    • USWeapon says:

      Hasn’t a new “noble” class been formed in America? The wealthy, that includes conservatives, moderates, liberals, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats? Aren’t they denying (or maybe limiting) the middle and lower class’s entitled benefits?

      I see your point on this and I have often attempted to discern the difference in my own head as I wrestle with the issues before us in today’s political world. I don’t think that the wealthy (which I am certainly not one of) have created a class similar to the nobles of that period. I do believe that the media has attempted to portray them as such. So many of the wealthy are big in philanthropy and doing more to help. They don’t act like the King. And the principle to stand on is freedom, which was Adam’s point. The wealthy in America certainly have advantages that the poor do not. But they are not the ones taking liberty away from people. If we were to ascribe such horrors as their doing, then we would certainly have to shed the chains of government entirely, would we not? The government in America does far more to usurp the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness than the wealthy! and I mean thousands of percents more.

      But let’s attack this a step at a time. Do the wealthy get that way on the backs of the poor. To an extent, yes. They provide a job and a wage for that job. The product of that labor makes them wealthy. If that product fails, they take all the loss as well. The spoils or consequences are theirs to bear. But the point is that we cannot compare the wealthy today to the nobles of that time. The wealthy are not what is preventing other Americans “the air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear”. I feel like blaming the wealthy is a cop out for the left, and too easy a cop out. I simply don’t understand how anyone can lay the blame at the feet of the wealthy. That isn’t a shot at you, I am merely trying to articulate what I am thinking, perhaps poorly. Let me provide an example:

      Oil companies. We see them as the wealthy who are getting rich off the back of the poor. On average, 20 years ago the oil companies were making roughly ten cents of profit on a gallon of oil. Today they get roughly 4 cents profit on a gallon of oil. This does add up to significant amounts of money as we see in their record profits. But the federal government taxes the people over a dollar per gallon of oil. And the state governments tack on another dollar. Yet they have absolutely nothing to do with the exploration, pulling from the ground, refining, transporting, or delivery of that oil. For doing NOTHING, the government gets two dollars of pure profit on that gallon of oil to spend as they see fit. Meanwhile the oil company that did all the work gets 4 cents of profit. Who exactly is it then, that is acting as the noble class and getting wealthy at the expense of the poor? The wealthy or the government?

      And that is how I see the world. How can we fault the giant oil companies for getting such a modest profit from their labor? Sure it adds up to a gigantic number in the end, but Exxon getting $11 Billion in profit is because we use a massive amount of oil. If they are making $11 Billion for all their work, the federal government is making $275 Billion on those same gallons, and did nothing to earn it. It isn’t the wealthy that are being the nobles and getting in the way of prosperity in America, it is the government.

      The estimates today are that by the time we pay all the taxes we pay, starting with roughly 35% of our wages right off the top in income taxes and then using what’s left to pay property taxes, sales taxes, air taxes, whatever taxes, at the end we end up with: Roughly 70% of the money we make is being taken by the government in the form of one type of tax or another. Uncle Sam gets 70 cents of every dollar I earn with my sweat and I get 30 cents. With that being the case, how is it that we blame the wealthy for our situation? It makes no sense to me.

      • USWeapon,
        I’m not saying the current ‘wealthy class’ is the same as past ‘nobles’, are not philanthropy, or they act like the King.

        I feel like blaming the wealthy is a cop out for the left, and too easy a cop out.

        I feel like blaming the government is a cop out for the right, and too easy a cop out…

        I’m not blaming the wealthy for all the problems in America, but it seems like many of the posters here think the wealthy are the “answer”. If we could just get rid of all/most government interference, with hard work we could all be wealthy. And that’s what the wealthy want you to think – cause if you succeed in getting rid of all/most government interference, it’s the wealthy that will flourish, not the common man.

        I understand your oil company example. But you left out one important part. The board of directors, executives, and high-level managers are paid HUGH salaries, stock options, and other benefits, all before the 4 cent a gallon profit is arrived at. And this goes on at most large companies across the board – whether they are making a profit or not. Just look at the compensation being paid on Wall Street for the last few years.

        For doing NOTHING, the government gets two dollars of pure profit on that gallon of oil to spend as they see fit.

        From your point of view, wouldn’t this definition applies to every single tax?

        These taxes are used to build roads so we can all drive our cars, use more gas, make more profits for the oil companies, and more taxes for the government. Without taxes, the oil companies wouldn’t be able to sell as much gas and make the huge profits…

        Who exactly is it then, that is acting as the noble class and getting wealthy at the expense of the poor? The wealthy or the government?

        I’m guessing your answer would be government. But the government isn’t getting wealthy – I think they’re pretty deep in debt right now.

        the federal government is making $275 Billion on those same gallons, and did nothing to earn it.

        Right, the government doesn’t ‘earn’ taxes. You’re trying to apply business logic to government. They’re not the same thing.

        It isn’t the wealthy that are being the nobles and getting in the way of prosperity in America, it is the government.

        Like I said above, if you succeed in getting rid of all/most government interference, it’s the wealthy that will flourish, not the common man.

        Roughly 70% of the money we make is being taken by the government in the form of one type of tax or another.

        Do you have a link or source for this?

        • JayDickB says:

          It is true that the government is not getting wealthy. But the people running government are not interested primarily in monetary wealth, they are interested in power. Power is their wealth, their currency. If an opportunity arises, they will go after wealth, but as a means to get/hold/expand power. In fact, they will do anything they can get away with to get/hold/expand power.

          This is true of all politicians and even bureaucrats. Beware of the idea that the “career government official” is a benign being with no agenda.

          • JayDickB,
            What makes you think “the people running government are not interested primarily in monetary wealth, they are interested in power”?

            You’re making a pretty big generalization about ALL politicians and bureaucrats. I agree some are after power, but they know that power in government won’t last for very long. They use their government service to set themselves up for cushy jobs after government – lobbiest, think tank, author, corporate boards.

      • JayDickB says:

        USW – I agree with your analysis, but one factor you did not address is the influence wealthy people have on government policy and action because of their wealth, in other words, the power their wealth gives them.

        Of course, some of this exertion of influence is self defense, but many wealthy people, especially in big business, have adopted government influence as part of their business strategy. If government didn’t do so much stuff they shouldn’t, there would be less opportunity for the wealthy to have such influence. Viva VDLG!

    • Todd,

      “Aren’t they denying (or maybe limiting) the middle and lower class’s entitled benefits?”

      How are the wealthy denying or limiting anything? They pay more than their fair share of taxes. Obama wants them to pay even more. But take an honest look at who and how they attack the wealthy. AIG issued 165 million in bonuses with the governments approval, and congress howled for blood. Freddie & Fannie were given 210 million and it was not mentioned.

      “Hasn’t a new “noble” class been formed in America?”
      If so, then it’s been created by our government. A rich tax dodger, like Wesley Snipes, goes to jail. A government tax dodger become treasury secretary.

      And just what do you consider entitled benefits? I argue with Flag that a government, and therefore some sort of taxes, is necessary. He thinks we would function best with no government. I think you and I will differ in what we feel
      everyone is “entitled” to.

      True story, recently a young man (18)came to me asking for a job. He was living in his car, about as rock bottom as you can get. I offered him a job sweeping, cleaning the bathrooms, etc.. He refused. So what do I “owe” him?

      The wealthy, that would be me in this case? Aren’t they denying (or maybe limiting) the middle and lower class’s entitled benefits? Should I hire him for a job he is not qualified or able to do? He’s not an electrician, welder or painter. I hire un-skilled and give them that training, and increase their wages as their skill increases. Yes, truly, I am a bad person, come punish me Obama, oh, he’s already here.

      • LOI,
        Did you happen to read this line:

        I’m trying to use John Adams words to start a discussion, not a fight!

        I was trying to start a discussion about John Adams, his beliefs, and the constitution and how it might apply to today’s world, not a partisan fight…

        How are the wealthy denying or limiting anything?

        They control the means of production, which means they control when and where MOST people can work. And because many people get health insurance thru their job, they have limited options to change jobs (pre-existing conditions, lapses in coverage, etc).

        “Hasn’t a new “noble” class been formed in America?”
        If so, then it’s been created by our government. A rich tax dodger, like Wesley Snipes, goes to jail. A government tax dodger become treasury secretary.

        This makes no sense, and your example is weak and comparing apples to oranges.

        And just what do you consider entitled benefits?

        Entitled benefits came from John Adams comments. That’s one of things I was hoping to discuss…

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          All ~ I am equally interested as Todd in what all think Adams meant by entitled benefits. Please do share.

          • Unalienable rights and the happiness and prosperity (spiritual not just money) that flow from them. Think of the other meaning of entitled. As in having a title to, ownership, not as in must be given.

            This is the way these folks wrote in the day. Adding little flourishes in there speech and writings. Such was the comment about General Welfare in the constitution. It was like an exclamation point. It could be interpreted to say “And for the genreral well being, long term survival, prosperity and happiness of a country of free men.”

    • Todd:

      If the following were true: “The concentration of wealth in America in a small percentage of the population denies the masses their “pursuit of Happiness”?”

      then no one would ever be able to crawl from the bottom to the top. But since we know they can, your assumption must be False. And I for one, am an example. I am not among the “rich” as are often deamonized but I have more wealth than my entire family did at my birth and since, combined. I want for nothing financially. Yet based on the stated assumptions of so many on the left today I should never have been able to achieve this. So their final insult is always, “well your white”.

      Now let me make this clear. I am not accusing you of such a tactic. I am simply stating how almost every conversation on this topic ends once I start giving examples of successful poor people who somehow made it. When I start listing minority success stories then the final trump card is played. “Well there are exceptions to every rule”.

      We also forget about how many of the super rich of decades past don’t even exist today. Their families squandered what ever wealth they inhereted and eventually they are back with the rest of us. Thus I don’t think they form a class of any sort.

      And for more see my response to Ray regarding Equality below. I think you are leaning on outcomes not opportunity to become all we have the potential to be. Those potentials may differ, but we are born with the right to reach for the gold, whatever that might be.

      Now I would like to address this: “I’m not so sure the Founding Father’s were talking about ALL MEN. They did not consider slaves to be part of ALL MEN, and they did not apply ALL MEN to include women. ALL MEN referred mostly to landowners and the aristocrat class.” There was no “aristocratic class” in the true sense. The founders, as an entire group, expressed concerns for tyranny by the majority and the minority.

      Because of their studies and experiences, and quite frankly the proximety in history to monarchy,etc, they expressed equal concerns for the oppression of the poor by the rich and “landed” as well as of the rich by the poor who could use a democratic form of govt to vote themselves the treasurey. They were primarily concerned with building a govt that could not be used by MEN to oppress the rights of others. And as we now know, they failed in that effort.

      And many did consider slaves to be part of All Men, but unfortunately, again due to the times they existed in, some of them also viewed them as property. And others viewed the interference of government with another man’s property as a higher moral violation than the act of slavery itself.

      “The electoral college selecting the president and state legislators selecting senators were both ‘checks’ against the common man gaining to much power in the new government.” You forget that the electoral college only applied to the office of President and Vice President. It was developed primarily due to the spread out nature of the country and lack of rapid communications. But note that the college was based on representation of the people by their elected officials. Senators were selected by the legislature to represent the State’s interest. The House to represent the people as a whole. This was not done to oppress or suppress anyone. I urge you to read the various letters surrounding ratification of the Constitution, both for and against.

      It was one of the greatest awakenings I have experienced in my life. It is well worth the time needed to study them.

      Best Wishes for a good weekend.
      JAC

      • JAC,

        I didn’t say “no one would ever be able to crawl from the bottom to the top”. But it does limit many people’s opportunities – those who do not have your intelligence, drive, determination.

        But the Wealthy control the means of production, which means they control when and where MOST people can work. And because many people get health insurance thru their job, they have limited options to change jobs (pre-existing conditions, lapses in coverage, etc).

        Also, see JayDickB comments above:

        USW – I agree with your analysis, but one factor you did not address is the influence wealthy people have on government policy and action because of their wealth, in other words, the power their wealth gives them.

        Of course, some of this exertion of influence is self defense, but many wealthy people, especially in big business, have adopted government influence as part of their business strategy.

        I am not accusing you of such a tactic. I am simply stating how almost every conversation on this topic ends once I start giving examples of successful poor people who somehow made it. When I start listing minority success stories then the final trump card is played. “Well there are exceptions to every rule”.

        If you not accusing me of using this tactic, then why bring it up? Would you like to hear the stupid things I hear from many people on the right?

        • Todd:

          Your statement regarding the ability to become wealthy was in fact an absolute as written. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not mean it so.

          Yes, we are not all equal in our potential. What freedom brings is the chance to discover and develop that potential. Our freedom to do so is that same as the rich persons.

          First of all, I don’t know who you consider wealthy but I don’t think “they” control 100% of the means of production and they certainly don’t control all the jobs. And they absolutely don’t control which job you want, wish to acquire and are willing to take.

          Your insurance example is mixing apples and organges here. How did companies come to offer health insurance? It was the power of unions. The idea spread to an ignorant population who listened to the propoganda regarding the utility of health insurance. Govt enabled, hell demanded this to happen and now you are infering that it is all the rich’s fault. Your looking to the wrong spot for the source of the problem.

          I do want to address the comment about the rich and their ability to control govt. Yes, it is those with the ability to pay the blackmail that get the favors. So why blame the ones being blackmailed? The sickness is in a govt that does not support freedom, it is not the other way around.

          Remove the power to inflict pain upon the people and the people will not need to defend themselves. We will all be much more equal than we are under a system that supposedly creates more “fairness” in the system.

          At some point you and others need to see, I hope, that the more we have asked govt to make life fair, equal or just, the less of these values we seem to have in our society. At what point will our rational mind finaly conclude that doing more of the same is “insane”?

          As for the discussion points about success I brought them up to try and draw a bigger picture and linkage for all to see. I think we all include thoughts and comments aimed at the broader audience, not just the person we are talking to. That is all that it was. But let me ask you. Do you ever remember making those same comments in response to a similar discussion? I know I did once upon a time.

          More on rich folks and control of the economy. If the govt is not setting up artificial barriers to market entry, there is little the existing rich can do to control the means of production for very long. There is enough wealth for anyone or group of anyones to create new businesses within existing segments or to start new segments. Remember the DotCom boom. Whole new segment over night. Funded by the middle class and lower wealth tier primarily. I learned this lesson from a very smart and very rich lady on a flight to New Zealand many years ago. She told me and my partner “there are alot more people in this world with alot more money than you can imagine”.

          Now, if our govt continues down its current path to its eventual, inescapable, conclusion, everything I just wrote could become fiction. Because what is happening right now is an accumulation of wealth never seen before in this country. Once govt decides to start paying the bills, our wealth will be taken and given to the others. We will be allowed to keep working in our govt assigned jobs at our govt assigned wage so that we can keep paying the govt assigned taxes. They may even let us live in govt assigned and owned housing. But then again, maybe not.

          I urge you to try and cast off all you fear about free markets and a free society. Just start from scratch to envision how it might look. Don’t try to fit the existing paradigm into an entirely different dimension.

          And it comes to this simple fact. If you want govt to smooth out the bumps for some, then you are giving govt the power to impose your views/values upon others. You are, by your representative, initiating force on others. You do not really want freedom.

          You must eventually get to a place where you are willing to accept the turbulance that comes with freedom. If you can not, you will never have it.

          The Best to You
          JAC

          • JAC,
            My statement wasn’t an absolute. There was a question mark at the end…it was an attempt to start a discussion.

            I’ve read your response many times. The only thing I feel is that I’m being preached at or lectured too. There’s no room for discussion in your response – you’re telling me where I’m wrong, what I should be thinking, and the answer I should arrive at.

        • Todd:

          P.S. you don’t have to share all the stupid things you hear from conservatives. I think I have heard them all as well.

          But if you wish to share for the benefit of others I will understand when you throw it in the conversation. Just remind me if I forget and overreact to something.

  30. TexasChem says:

    Please explain to me your reasoning behind your belief that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle a homosexual couple to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.It seems to me to be a serious case of conflicting interests.Homosexuality by its very definition goes AGAINST the laws of nature…that is why I have never understood the whole gay pride thing.What is prideful in having a lifestyle that doesn’t allow for the continuation of our species?DUH USW!I mean a really BIG DUH!Get off the koolaid.Just say NO!

    I do beieve that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.However, I also believe that with the option of choice they can give up those rights through their choice of poor/wrong/bad decisions.EXAMPLE:Thieves, murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc.

    The koolaid has been passed around much more than I thought amongst you gentlemen.I hear from a lot of you on this blog that we as a society should be tolerant of others.In your endeavors to be moraly just you are placing yourselves in the path of an out of control freight train.HINT:”ISLAM”

    I on the other hand have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance and can vividly see the harm coming from this derailment.I will continue to show others evidence of its destructive force.

    We the American people have tolerated the intolerant to the point that our society is now in jeopardy from our just nature.Stop drinking the koolaid please, for our childrens and grandchildrens sake if not for your own.

    • TexasChem says:

      I think a lot of you are uneducated with Islam so I will educate you.The following excerpts are taken from political islams website.

      Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

      All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).
      Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

      Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

      Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

      Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

      These Five Principles can be put in five words—Trilogy, politics, kafirs, dualism and submission. These five words bring clarity and ease of learning about political Islam.

      Up until now Islam has been hard to understand because it seemed complex and contradictory and did not make sense. But, once you see how the Five Principles work, everything falls into place. Complexity becomes simplicity. Chaos becomes order.

      All CSPI books are based on these Five Principles.

      1. trilogy
      The Trilogy contains three books—

      The Koran is what Mohammed said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah said. But the Koran does not contain enough guidance for one to be a Muslim. The Koran repeatedly says that all of the world should imitate Mohammed in every way. Mohammed’s words and deeds are called the Sunna. The Sunna is found in two different texts—the Sira and Hadith.

      The first source of the Sunna is the Sira which is Mohammed’s biography. The most authoritative version is by Ibn Ishaq.

      The other source of the Sunna is the Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed. There are several versions of Hadith, but the most commonly used is by Bukhari.
      So the Trilogy is the Koran, Sira and Hadith.

      2. political islam
      Political Islam is the doctrine that relates to the unbeliever, the kafir. Islam’s relationship to the kafir cannot be religious since a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them The religion of Islam is what is required for a Muslim to avoid Hell and enter Paradise.

      The Trilogy not only advocates a religious superiority over the kafir—the kafirs go to Hell whereas Muslims go to Paradise—but also its doctrine demands that Muslims dominate the kafir in all politics and culture. This domination is political, not religious.

      As mentioned earlier, the Koran has 61% of its text devoted to the kafir. The Sira (Mohammed’s biography) has about 75% of its text devoted to the kafir and jihad.

      Islam’s success comes primarily from its politics. In thirteen years as a spiritual leader, Mohammed converted 150 people to his religion. When he became a political leader and warrior, Islam exploded in growth, and Mohammed became king of Arabia in ten years.

      Islam has a complete doctrine of how to treat the kafir that is found in the Trilogy.

      3. kafirs
      Non-believers are so important that they have several names. Christians and Jews are called People of the Book or infidels. Other religious names for non-Muslims are atheist, polytheist, and pagan. But the Koran uses one word that includes all of the religious names. That name is kafir, an Arabic word.

      Kafir is usually translated as unbeliever, but that translation is wrong. Unbeliever is a neutral word. The Koran is very clear about the kafir. Indeed, the Koran defines the kafir by how it speaks of them. Kafirs are the lowest and worst form of life. Kafirs can be robbed, murdered, tortured, enslaved, crucified and more. Later in this chapter, more of the Koran’s doctrine of the kafir is given in some detail. But the key point is that a kafir is not only a non-Muslim, but also a person who falls under a different moral code from the Muslim.

      The Koran is devoted to the division between those who believe Mohammed, Muslims, and those who do not, kafirs. This grand division of the Koran means that there are two points of view of the Koran—the view of the Muslim and the view of the kafir.

      4. dualism
      The third principle is duality, and is unique to Islam. As an example, here is a verse from the Koran:

      109:2 I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, and you will never worship what I worship. You to your religion, me to my religion.

      This sounds very tolerant, but this verse was written later:

      9:5 When the sacred months are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way. Allah is gracious and merciful.

      Now we have absolute intolerance. This contradiction is normal for the Koran and is even addressed in the Koran. The solution to contradiction is called abrogation where the later verse is better than the earlier verse.

      The logic here is very important. Since Allah is perfect and the Koran is the exact words of Allah, then both contradictory verses are true, but the later verse is better or stronger. This leads to dualistic logic where two contradictory facts can both be true.

      5. submission
      Islam means submission and Muslim means one who has submitted. It is clearly stated in the Trilogy that all kafirs and their civilizations must be annihilated. Mohammed’s success depended on violence to persuade kafirs that he was the prophet of Allah.

      Submission is political, as well as religious. Islam demands that kafirs submit in every aspect of public life. Every part of kafir culture is an offense to Allah.

      • Black Flag says:

        Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed.

        When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

        Sounds like the New Testament – a life of one man, manipulated, rewritten, altered, and analyzed to be the foundation of Christianity – which, today, has no resemblance to what Jesus taught or believed.

        Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

        Much like the Jewish texts – and the foundations of Christianity – were; laws (politics) and morals to command believers actions.

        Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

        Gee, just like modern Christians – those who believe in Jesus will be saved; and those that do not – will be damned.

        Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

        Of course, Christians hold much the same view – as exampled amply in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places.

        Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life.

        Isn’t that what we are talking about in the big picture?

        Submitting to politics?

        Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

        Of course, anyone can twist this however way ones wishes – because –

        The word Islam means: peace, purity, submission and obedience.

        In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.

        I always find it terrifyingly amusing that Christians rant and rage against a religion whose very basis is ‘submission to God’ – it reminds me of someone hacking off their own arms.

        Islam’s relationship to the kafir cannot be religious since a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them The religion of Islam is what is required for a Muslim to avoid Hell and enter Paradise.

        Does this not strike you as eerily identical to the premise of Christians?

        …that one is required to believe in Jesus as his savior to avoid Hell and enter Heaven?

        Christians and Jews are called People of the Book or infidels.

        But why do you leave out the reason why?

        People of the Book is a level of respect for Christians and Jews for Islam sees these groups as sharing the same religious ancestor – Abraham.

        The real difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simply this:

        Jews believe their Savior has not come. Thus, they do not ‘believe’ in Jesus or Mohamed, nor recognize either as a Prophet.

        Christians believe Jesus is the Savior and a Prophet but that he is the last one forever.

        Muslims believe Jesus is a Prophet as is Mohamed, and they believe Mohamed is the last and final Prophet forever.

        So, it is really a matter of ego – each religion believes theirs is the final version.

        Kinda a funny, huh? I mean, think about it.

        The entirety of God has been discovered and known, and there is no more as of either: 1000BC with Moses (Jews), or 5AD (Christians) or 500AD (Muslims).

        So there is no religious learning for – oh – 1500 years…. 😆

        Sorry if I step on toes – but it is strange thinking… we can progress technically, scientifically – discover the beautifully bizarre universe for the last 1500 years – changing the way we see the Universe (God) in all its mind-blowing magnificence…

        BUT we can’t learn any more spirituality because we know it all already!

        It’s like humans learned everything in science in 1600’s and nothing new can be discovered! And if it is, its evil and wrong!

        TexChem, every complaint you level at Islam is a complaint against Christianity, and Judaism or any other established and static religious belief.

        That is why I said – every assault you level at Islam is a direct attack upon Christianity as well.

        All establishment religions hold that they are exclusive to God – of course they would say that because they want memberships.

        Memberships separates “Us from Them”. All groups do this. Religion is no different.

        Control over many is established by hierarchy of power within exclusive memberships. You see it in religion. And you see it in politics.

        Can’t you see that the fight between Dems and Reps is precisely the same fight as between Islam and Christians!

        “Their” people are always wrong – and “Our” people are always right….

        Open thy eyes and see the truth, TexChem!

        People believe what ever they wish – I have no anger, fight, or complaint upon any religion or religious person.

        We all need, at times, a belief that there is something greater then the immediate experiences we are suffering so to help us through to the other side.

        Without it, many of us would have given up and died long ago. Me included.

        But to rage against another for such a religious belief is a great tragedy and horror.

        Such an attitude will only end badly – for all of us.

        • Black Flag says:

          And by full disclosure – by the strictest meaning of the word – I would be probably classified as Islam.

          I hold that no man has all knowledge of God (the Universe).

          I hold that it is man’s task to discover all knowledge of God (the Universe).

          I hold that submission to the Laws of the Universe is my core principle – the Universe does not hold contradictions – it is The Fundamental Law of the Universe – it is by this, that no contradiction exists, that the Universe created itself (see Stephen Hawking).

          So, I do submit to the Laws of the Universe – its Primary Law.

          There exists no contradictions in the Universe

        • TexasChem says:

          “Open thy eyes and see the truth, TexChem!”

          I have BF and am trying to open yours to the dangers this religion poses in this day and age.

          Christianity has evolved in my minds eye over the centuries into a peaceful, tolerant way of life.Islam has not.Islam has never been a peaceful religion.Their religious leaders very edicts condemn the western world and our way of life demanding war(Jihad).

          As a christian I do not force my beliefs upon anyone.I point out the benefits to the wisdom contained within scripture and allow others to make their minds up based on their own thought process.I do not treat non christians in a violent manner.

          Oh and I am not ranting or raging BF! 🙂

          I am having a discussiuon.

          • Black Flag says:

            I vehemently disagree with your opinion of Christianity.

            It is hardly peaceful, nor tolerant.

            It is very much a “you are with us or against us” religion – even today.

            Again review these messages:

            Everything and every phenomenon in the world other than man is administered totally by God-made laws, ie. they are obedient to God and submissive to his laws, they are in the State of .

            Man possesses the qualities of intelligence and choice, thus he is invited to submit to the good will of God and obey His law, ie, become a .

            Submission to the good will of God, together with obedience to His beneficial Law, ie, becoming a , is the best safeguard for man’s peace and harmony.

            Any complaint about that?

          • TexasChem says:

            BF you know as well as I do that the Abrahamic religions have teachings that are relative to one another.

            I do agree with those scriptures from Islam that you have posted.I do not agree with the following though and I am fairly certain you do not either.

            “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (K, 9:29).

            The Koran clearly justifies treating Christians, Sabaeans, and Jews as second class citizens and even fighting them in an aggressive war.

            “Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, except those idolaters who have honored their treaties with you and aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. Allah loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and pay the alms tax, let them go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful. And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection, then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.” (K, 9:3-6)

            Islamic theologians agree that in Arabia, during the conquests of Prophet Muhammad, religious toleration for idolatrous pagans was nonexistent. Given a choice, they could accept Islam and live or they could reject Islam and be killed. This can be accepted as a confirmation by extremists that according to sura 9:3-6, Muslims are expected to kill infidels in jihads.

          • TexasChem says:

            “It is hardly peaceful, nor tolerant.”

            My christian beliefs are peaceful and tolerant.

            • Black Flag says:

              Yours maybe

              but that does not include other Christians.

              I will not defame this blog by posting the Christian Aryan Brotherhoods view of religion.

              Get my point?

          • TexasChem says:

            You are not understanding what I am saying.I do not have a problem with someone having a religion other than mine.

            I have a problem with a religion that condones violence and represses peoples civil rights.I have a problem with someone stating they will commit genocide upon an entire race of people based upon their religious beliefs.Don’t you?

        • BF: We all need, at times, a belief that there is something greater then the immediate experiences we are suffering so to help us through to the other side.

          Without it, many of us would have given up and died long ago. Me included.

          But to rage against another for such a religious belief is a great tragedy and horror.

          Such an attitude will only end badly – for all of us. …. very well stated . c

  31. USW,
    After thinking how best to answer this, for me, troubling issue you brought forth, it comes to this. Fences make good neighbors. As good neighbors do not distract one another either with one’s isms or noise, so DC has no role to legislate this. As more an originalist than not, I feel our Constitution provides the laws and protections to keep sense and reason in place. We can be always be cheery people and still respect one anothers’ private beliefs and space

  32. Our founding fathers set up our constitution and republic and I feel they did a pretty good job even though there are flaws. The Civil war and the ongoing Progressive Movement derailed the Constitution and Republic. The liberal fascist Democratic Party is cherry picking socialism, fascism and communism to build their view of a utopian society. The Republicans appear to be always on the defensive countering expansive government programs but all they really do is slow down our descent into tyranny. Every tax they pass and every law they create takes away some of our freedom. The system and both parties are totally corrupt. I do not believe that playing within the system will change anything and by this I mean writing your Congressman, tea parties or voting within the dominant two party system. I’m not sure what will happen when Cap and Trade and Nationalized Health Care passes but it isn’t going to be good for our country and may lead to the collapse of the USA.

    I would like to see JAC, Black Flag and USWeapon layout a proposal for the VDLG party. I like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism as a basis for the VDLG. We are running out of time and need to start acting. My two cents for what it’s worth.

    • Black Flag says:

      What founding moral principle do you believe the VDLG supports?

      • Birdman says:

        I’m not that good at this. Individual rights: a right is anything I can do as long as it does not impact upon your rights or impact your freedom. Capitalism and private property.

        • Black Flag says:

          So spend a few moments understanding the implications of such a principle.

          Can you tax?

          • Birdman says:

            The issue of taxation is open. We could limit taxes to national defense, which would have to be defined.

            I’m really not sure what VDLG is. I’m requesting that you, JAC and USWeapon spell it out for us to read and think about. The 3 of you probably have some common ground on limited government. Let us see what you propose.

            • Black Flag says:

              So why do you contradict your position – that is “do not impose” by declaring that I “have to pay” for ‘national defense’?

              Why do you suppose I think that is valuable?

              • Birdman says:

                I agree that there is a contradiction if everyone is taxed for national defense. If VDLG continues the nation state concept, then the state must be protected from enemies. If capitalism is going to thrive, investors need to know that their investment is safe and that the country will not be invaded and taken over by another country. There needs to be some stability in the new government. We have enemies and will always have some enemies.

                I think this would have some value to you.

              • Black Flag says:

                see # 24

              • Black Flag says:

                34,/b>

  33. Ray Hawkins says:

    One guy’s struggle to understand all this……..

    Are many of the rights referred to mere philosophical constructs whose application is also a function of externalities and environmental factors one may have less control over than someone else? Are men are created equal – the abstract of this may be true, the reality and application never has been since those words were first written or uttered. But let us assume that the abstract of these thoughts and ideas are true – what then of those that cannot enjoy the fruits and bear the same burden as you? When does social darwinism actually kick in? Do I look upon the newborn of a mother in a rowhome off Kensington Avenue in Philadelphia and believe for a moment they will have the same opportunity to enjoy the fruits and hardships of freedom and liberty? Has that day old infant already been socially darwinized? Would D13 take a stroll off of MLK or Malcom X Blvds in Central Dallas and have the same thoughts as he did from his walk around a perhaps more fortunate neighborhood – and remember please – I am referring to the fruits and hardships of freedom and liberty (Or USW – maybe a walk around Tryon Street and Sandy Avenue in Charlotte). The abstract may endure of hundreds of years – I’m not convinced the application and reality do.

    Thanks!

    • TexasChem says:

      Ray, good post.
      Excellent topic.

    • JayDickB says:

      Ray – I was always taught that all are created equal under the law. One can argue whether that was really true when the declaration was signed, but I believe it is something our country honestly strove for until affirmative action and political correctness were invented.

      It is an ideal we should continue to strive for — equal treatment under the law. That doesn’t mean equality in other areas; that’s too much for government to handle.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Jay – I don’t necessarily disagree – I suppose I ask if it is really possible (or relevant) for us to be created equal in the abstract if the actuality in practice is that we are not (something we must always strive for rather than something that just ‘is’). Hopefully I am not being too obtuse.

        Look forward to responses – will check in later – off to a company picnic where I can get drunk, talk politics and be obnoxious (well – that is if anyone gives a shit about politics or what is happening). 🙂

        • Oh but we are Ray:

          It appears you are stretching the concepts of born with equal rights to cover the jar of equal ability and then to how that may affect equal opportunity.

          That is whay Mr. Jefferson was so careful to use “pursuit of” in his compromised version. The original of course was “own property”.

          All men are created with the same unalienable rights. We are all born with the same right to pursue to the best of our ability.

          Now of course if you are unlucky in birth, say a slave child, your rights are impeded within months of your birth.

          We must also remember that the entire declaration of rights of man, which predated the Dec of Indep. is a proclomation relative to Governments effect on man. I often see folks try to take this concept out of this context in order to somehow prove freedom is not applicable.

          The key point is that only Govt can impede or constrain the exercise of these rights. Without the power of govt, one group of men can not impede the rights of others for very long. It is the monopoly on the use of force that allows govt to either directly through its actions or indirectly through its silence and/or support of other’s actions to impede the rights of others.

          With respect to your indirect reference to fairness of opportunity, that is why I often state that freedom/liberty is required for man “to achieve his fullest potential as provided by his creator”. It may not have the flair of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness but I think it more clearly states the meaning. And it can apply to the single or group.

          Have fun and drink lots of water before bed tonight.
          JAC

          Nothing there about equal ability to enjoy, waste, use or lose. Just that we all have them at birth.

          • Black Flag says:

            I will admit the following:

            The biggest challenge I have with JAC is that I almost always agree with him

            The challenge is: he doesn’t always agree with me.

            When he aligns with me – I find my gun empty of bullets.

            When he does not – I find my gun full of blanks.

            🙂

            • You are so kind today. I hope you are gentle with me when we get to the heavy lifting.

              The Best to You and Yours
              JAC

              • In quick retrospect, I do you a disservice to even make such a request and I would not in truth expect anyting but your best.

                For it is the opponent who fights the hardest to the finish that we have the greatest of respect.

              • USWeapon says:

                Amen JAC…. I far more appreciate those that are the hardest in combat with me. I learn the most from them. And for that, I can thank both you and BF, who often push me the most.

                Just when I think I have a concept really nailed….. there you two are to cut the main support structure out from under my argument. LOL

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            JAC:

            “Without the power of govt, one group of men can not impede the rights of others for very long. It is the monopoly on the use of force that allows govt to either directly through its actions or indirectly through its silence and/or support of other’s actions to impede the rights of others.”

            Realizing I am not firmly defining government – I do not think government is required to impede the rights of man for either very long or indefinitely.

            • But alas poor Ray, and here I cut the leg out from under my own stool, give me one example in the last 10,000 years where it did not happen.

              If it has been so to date, then we have a difficult task proving that it is NOT REQUIRED. But I share the optimizm and hope to prove that IT IS THE NATURE OF GOVT TO TRY, BUT THAT IT CAN BE PREVENTED.

              Also please note that I used the words “that allows govt”. I did not say it “required”. That would be our dear friend BF if we think of the word “required” as in we are required to act according to the nature of the entity called govt.

              Let me ask you, do you agree with the statement I made? The one you show in quotes here.

              Do you agree that it is the nature of govt to impede the rights of some and/or all?

              Hope your weekend was good.
              JAC

  34. Black Flag says:

    Allow me to reference a good acquaintance of mine: Dr. Gary North.

    HOW TO CREATE A NEW WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY

    For several months, there have been news reports of announcements by bureaucrats in China and politicians in Russia about the need for a new reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

    One suggestion: substitute the non- currency known as the SDR (special drawing rights) of the non-governmental, non-central bank IMF (International Monetary Fund).

    No bureaucrat or politician recommends that his own nation’s currency replace the dollar. This is strange, on the face of it. The United States possesses a unique series of advantages as a result of its reserve currency status. These include the following:

    1. The government can rely on the Federal Reserve System to create money out of nothing to buy U.S. Treasury debt, and then repay foreign central banks with this newly created counterfeit money.

    2. Americans can buy imported oil in newly created dollars.

    3. There is a huge market for its Treasury debt (at about 0% per annum), corporate debt, and even stocks, which foreigners and foreign central banks buy, thereby funding the nation’s gigantic trade deficit.

    4. The world’s commodity futures markets are priced in dollars, making it more costly to trade in other currencies.

    National governments possess the advantage of being able to pay off their domestic creditors with fiat money.

    Why wouldn’t they all love to do the same to foreign creditors? The United States has been doing this since about 1940. Why let the United States retain this monopoly of creditor-stiffing?

    I can think of one obvious reason why no politician recommends his nation’s currency. The suggestion would be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. “Use the [ ]? Is he serious?”

    Then the critics would publish a laundry list of reasons why no one in his right mind would use that nation’s currency as its primary foreign currency holdings. The critics would be correct.

    The U.S. dollar got its position fair and square: by staying out of World War II until the British government was clearly broke economically. Hitler then committed the second stupidest political decision of the 20th century: he declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, which he was not obligated to under the Axis defensive pact, since Japan had attacked the U.S. (The stupidest decision was Hitler’s decision to attack the USSR in June of 1941.) This let the United States enter on the side of Britain, knowing that the U.S. would replace the British Empire as the dominant player in international affairs after the war. Roosevelt self-consciously scuttled the British Empire, and Truman completed this policy. (The best book on this Otto Scott’s long-neglected masterpiece, “The Other End of the Lifeboat,” published a quarter century ago by Regnery.)

    THEN THERE IS GOLD

    There are no reports of any bureaucrat, politician, or central banker who recommends a return to gold as the world’s reserve currency. There is a reason for this. Gold served as the world’s reserve currency prior to World War I. It kept national governments and central banks in check. When they inflated, gold flowed out. Their monetary bases declined in response to the outflow of gold. This transferred control over domestic monetary policy to foreign central banks, gold speculators, and foreign currency users, such as commercial bankers and specialists in international trade.

    This transferred sovereignty over money from the nation state to international speculators who put their own money at risk for forecasting incorrectly. They could make large profits by correctly forecasting a nation’s devaluation of its currency. When they believed a nation’s monetary policy was becoming inflationary, they would pull the plug. They would exchange currency for gold.

    Central bankers hated this when it happened to them. But they put up with this system from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 until the outbreak of World War I in the summer of 1914. Stable money reduced the risks of currency depreciations. World trade grew rapidly as a result. Prices were approximately the same in 1914 as they had been in 1815.

    The price of this price stability was the reduction of control over currencies by politicians and central bankers. This was a political price that politicians always resented. It interfered with their ability to use newly created money to buy votes and weapons.
    No central banker or national political leader is calling for a return to the gold coin standard, where citizens and foreigners can pressure governments to stop their legalized counterfeiting.

    Nevertheless, it is possible for the central government of any large trading nation to establish its currency unit as the world’s primary reserve currency. The dollar’s position has not been based on gold since August 15, 1971. On that day, Nixon unilaterally took the United States off the gold-exchange standard. There would be no more gold sales to foreign governments and central banks at $35 per ounce.

    I offer this strategy to any national political leader and his successors.

    THE CRUCIAL PRESS RELEASE

    Let us assume that the head of a central bank decides that his bank will become the next Federal Reserve System: the dominant central bank on earth. He issues an announcement.

    Beginning tomorrow, this central bank of will no longer buy or sell the debt of our government or any other government. It will also not buy or sell any other form of debt or equity. We are freezing the bank’s currency operations. To verify this, we have created a new Website that makes available all information relating to the bank’s asset holdings and daily operations.

    The bank has shut down its currency-trading desks, domestic and foreign. The employees have been offered an opportunity to take an early retirement at full pay. Any of them who refuse the offer will no longer get a pay raise. They will be assigned the task of answering inquiries by staff members of the Parliament and the media.

    The central bank will no longer attempt to influence interest rates, long or short. Since the bank will no longer buy or sell assets, it has no way to back up its official announcements on what the overnight inter-bank interest rate ought to be.

    The central bank will no longer lend to commercial banks that offer collateral.

    This policy is permanent. It will take five to ten years for us to prove this, but prove it we will.
    We will fund existing internal operations from the interest received on present holdings.

    It is our intention to replace the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency. To prove that we are serious, we have removed all of our gold from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and had it shipped to our national vault. This will confirm the rumors to this effect that began six weeks ago.

    All that is necessary to establish a currency as the world’s reserve currency is a central bank that is immune to domestic politics and which follows the press release to the letter on a permanent basis.

    The same result could be achieved even more rapidly by a joint press release by the head of the central bank and the Prime Minister.

    The news of this press release would have leaked out for weeks. This would merely confirm the rumors.

    THE ECONOMIC FALLOUT

    Initially, most investors would not believe the press release. They would assume that the central bank will buckle, i.e., knuckle under to government pressure.
    The nation would soon be in a recession. Interest rates would climb. There would be no counter-cyclical policy. Commercial banks would go bankrupt. These would include the largest banks.

    The economy would contract. Labor unions would call strikes. Production would fall. Unemployment would rise. The bad investments that had been made in terms of the assumption of monetary expansion would produce losses.

    As banks went under, there would be monetary contraction. Solvent banks would face a domino effect, since they keep deposits in other, insolvent banks.
    There would be no bailouts. The national equivalents of Bank of America, Citigroup, and J. P. Morgan would close their doors. There would be a money panic. There would be a run on the bad banks.

    The economy would be an a serious recession and maybe depression within six months.

    When it became clear that none of this forced the central bank to go back to its old ways, money would begin to flow into the solvent banks. These banks would gain the reputation of being survivors.

    The pain of recession has been too great for any political regime or any central bank to resist since 1933. This is why we live in an age of price inflation. Resistance to market-adjusted prices is universal, especially among economists, whether Keynesian, Chicago, or supply-side. They all preach salvation by inflation.

    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

    The U.S. dollar would begin to fall against the reformed currency. There would be ups and downs, because no one would really believe that any central bank and its government would stick to such a scheme.
    The reformed currency would move toward a new status: “paper gold.” That is what the original IMF SDR’s were called in the early 1970’s. This was dismissed by one hard-money writer as the equivalent of glass diamonds. So SDR’s have proven to be.

    The national government would be forced on domestic saving and international demand to sell its debt. On the one hand, investors would expect the new plan to be abandoned as soon as the government runs out of low- interest buyers. But if the bank stuck to its guns, investors would change their view. On the other hand, foreign central bankers might decide to buy the debt of the reformed currency nation. The nations’ export sectors would want to sell more goods abroad. By creating new money domestically, the foreign central bank would lower the value of its currency, making its exports even more attractive. This would lead to a beggar-thy-neighbor competition among rival central banks. That would make reformed currency look even better.

    It would become apparent over time that the reformed currency’s value is due to supply and demand for an asset with a fixed supply. This might take two years. It might take five years. But, year by year, word would get out: this currency is the equivalent of gold. Investors will not have their wealth undermined by the central bank’s policy of monetary expansion.
    Private investors seek a profit. An appreciating currency lures in private capital.

    Currency futures markets would begin to adopt the new currency.

    If the oil-exporting nations began to sell in the reformed currency as well as the U.S. dollar, the world’s markers would see an advantage. “Buy the reformed currency and wait for its appreciation to lower the price of oil.” Those holding dollars would suffer comparative losses.

    Central banks are not profit-seeking. The directors do not own the banks, nor do they represent profit-seeking investors. They are not under pressure to buy high- yielding assets.

    At some point, however, central banks would move out of depreciating dollars into the reformed currency. Why? Because of political pressure. Word would get out that the dollar is a loser’s game. Central bankers do not want to be identified as losers.

    THE COST OF REFORM

    The reason why the BRIC nations — Brazil, Russia India, and China — do not want to see their currencies replace the dollar is because central bankers and politicians are Keynesians. They believe in salvation by inflation. The few Chicago School economists in the staffs are convinced that the central bank can and should inflate to forestall a recession. That was Milton Friedman’s main legacy to the modern world as far as the modern world’s leaders are concerned. He blamed the Federal Reserve System for not inflating, 1930-33.

    This is why we see no candidates to replace the U.S. dollar. Any of the BRIC nations could establish policies that would elevate its currency to number-one status. But the price is too high. It is as high as adopting the gold coin standard. It would mean the end of monetary intervention.

    The modern world believes in salvation by inflation. So has every civilization except one: the Byazantines, who had a stable gold currency for a thousand years after 325 A.D.

    The cost of reform is too high for central bankers and politicians. That cost is the restoration of monetary freedom. None of them is willing to pay that price.

    CONCLUSION

    The IMF’s non-currency cannot replace the dollar in the world’s currency markets. So, every currency is counterfeit. The investor has to decide which fiat currency will be best over his lifetime.

    They are all bad choices.

    ——

    The point of his article in two sentences: We had a global currency – in gold – and it was thrown away because it prevented governments from doing what they do best; that is, stealing from and thus destroying their economies.

    No government will support a return to such system unless forced too (ie: it collapses)

    We are doomed to fiat currency – get used to it.

    Therefore, learn everything you can about fiat currency so to manipulate it to your advantage.

    There are many ‘knowns’ about fiat currency that can help you avoid pitfalls as well as thrive. Governments know this, and act on them – do not bet against them, but with them.

    • JayDickB says:

      BF – Good post. Very interesting.

      Small addendum: To further compound the problems of going off the gold standard, the congress, in 1978, enacted the Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act which officially charged the Fed with encouraging a robust economy as well as maintaining price stability. These often conflicting goals are, in part, the cause of the boom and bust cycles we have had in our economy ever since.

    • pop quiz black flag 😉 — I’m trying to remember something I read and can’t even create a google search that takes me close — In the 60’s (70’s?) a man in Britain inherited some entailed property. The details of the entailment gave him an idea for creating((?)) some form of something related to currency (warrants?). The man is still in jail – either in the US or the UK. I think I came across this on one of the fringe sites and I’ve been looking off and on all day and striking out. Anyway, you’re amazingly well informed on an amazing number of topics, so I thought — why not …. please & thank you c

  35. Black Flag says:

    Birdman said

    I agree that there is a contradiction if everyone is taxed for national defense. If VDLG continues the nation state concept, then the state must be protected from enemies. If capitalism is going to thrive, investors need to know that their investment is safe and that the country will not be invaded and taken over by another country. There needs to be some stability in the new government. We have enemies and will always have some enemies.

    I think this would have some value to you

    You thinking what may be right for me is not a right to think for me.

    I may thrive regardless of who every wear a piece of metal on their head. Why would I spend money preventing one head vs. another under such as stupid piece of metal?

    Why would you assume such a right to force me to act otherwise?

    Remember my premise – contradictions on our principles creates evil.

    Are you a party to, or a warrior against – evil?

    • Birdman says:

      I am against evil. I was trying to answer your question of why taxation for a national defense may be valuable to you. I believe you could thrive in any environment.

      I still believe in individual rights. Perhaps there is another way for VDLG with individual rights without taxes.

      • Black Flag says:

        So, let’s push forward.

        How are you going to pay for defense, without taxes?

        • Birdman says:

          Assuming that national defense is important, a tariff can be placed on foreign imports to help fund for a national defense. If that is still regarded as a tax, then I don’t have another option in mind.

          • Black Flag says:

            By what right do you assume that you have to interfere with the free trade between two people by ‘tariffs’?

            • Birdman says:

              I understand your point. There is no right.

              I’m calling UNCLE.

              • Black Flag says:

                NOOO!!

                Don’t give UNCLE!

                I am seriously watching USWep and JAC’s push for VDLG – I am honest in the hope that these two genius will come up with something that someone like me can agree with.

                I have great hope.

                Do not abandon them!

                Work out of the box – what can we do and still be moral?

              • Birdman says:

                Let me think about a way to provide funding for some limited government services and still be moral. That’s a very difficult task.

                I don’t think anarchy will work. I still like the idea of VDLG. I thought that you, JAC and USWep were all working on a plan.

                I’m not giving up on VDLG.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ah, the state of the situation must be described!

                I was honored by these two esteemed gentleman to participate in their quest for VDLG.

                I am from a position that their task is futile. Their invitation is to test themselves against me – they believe (especially JAC) can organize a consistent moral basis.

                Frankly, I don’t think they can.

                BUT, I think these guys (and many others that participate on this blog) are more than capable of proving me wrong. I would rejoice to be wrong on this topic!

                So fight for them. They have a core – strong and immutable – that they are building from – and I, most among many, await such a grand and glorious situation!

                Believe me, its hard and dangerous work having to avoid the fangs and claws of the beast.

                I’d love a beast that sees me as a friend instead of the “Ultimate Enemy”

              • Birdman

                It would be more accurate to say that WE all are going to work on the plan. While I have some ideas on where to start they are just that, A START.

                Some time ago I asked BF to use his intellect to help us come up with ideas that would fit the moral foundation. As he said above, his biggest value is in testing our ideas to make sure they are consistent. But I think he also has a little chest of ideas hidden away that we may get to peek at once we get the foundation built.

                Remember his idea of a lottery to pick our Congressional representatives? Stuff like that is priceless.

                You and others here form a wealth of experience and knowledge from which we need to borrow to develop both moral and workable answers.

                You are already doing great work, keep it up.
                JAC

          • Find ways to make it voluntary.

            Wink, wink!!

            • Birdman says:

              I was thinking about that as an option. I’m not sure how to make it work.

              • Black Flag says:

                Think harder.

                Here’s a thought:

                In one of my personal, darkest days I was under direct personal threat to my life (and more importantly) the lives of my family – from government! I was at war with government power – and I was winning! A part of the people that had their livelihood based on what I was attacking actively undertook particular threats against me in order to 1) stop me or 2) intimate me to reevaluate my positions.

                I happened to engage a ‘leader’ of this violent group.

                Of course, alone, he was respectful. Of course, I knew he was the one who ordered the attack on my family.

                Here, face to face, was the man who ordered and demanded grievous harm upon my wife and child. I’ll leave you to your own thoughts about what that may mean.

                But I challenged him on the same basis I challenge you, or JAC, or USWep!

                By what right do you hold that makes YOU and your needs superior to my needs!

                He had no answer. He was embarrassed. He stammered – and he knew he was being watched.

                His excuses were weak – but typical. He invoked the ‘greater good’ and all that nonsense – but no one – and I mean NO ONE there bought his rationalization.

                He was polite enough – and said all the right things to politics – that is, “We can work this out…”

                He knew I was never going to move from my position – but he had ‘politics’ to consider.

                I kept my family sequestered in a 5-star hotel even after that – I did not trust him.

                But, for me, it was a pivotal moment.

                Principles will always win over mere pragmatism eventually.

                Our human challenge is – can we survive long enough to enjoy the win?

              • How about the Fair Tax proposal?

                In my opinion it is not perfect but certainly comes closer than any I have seen from “the experts”.

                Then there is the tax for filing contracts with the State in order to protect access to the courts in case of unresolvable disputes. Your choice whether to insure access or not. Again not perfect but close.

                How about a poll tax to be paid voluntarily? If VDLG truly is VDL perhaps more folks wouldn’t have heart burn supporting it with a small contribution.

                And maybe in this last one lies the real clue. Just as with BF’s antagonist, if principles are solid and moral then they will be supported.

              • Birdman says:

                Some good thoughts. I’m not sure that the fair tax will meet the moral test if everyone is still forced to pay it. The poll tax would be voluntary — if you want to vote then pay the tax. I’m still thinking about how to fund for national defense. That’s a huge amount of money but if national defense is trimmed down to defense of the USA only then the military could be greatly reduced. If we pulled all of our forward deployed troops out of the world, that would shrink the budget. How far you go with national defense is a debate in and of itself.

                If everyone pays a tax, be it VAT or a national sales tax, that is fair but is it moral because everyone is forced to pay it. I don’t think BF would want to be forced to pay a tax. If a national defense tax was voluntary and a voluntary bill sent out yearly to all citizens recommending that they voluntarily pay X % of their income, some would pay and others would not.

                During WWII, bonds were used as a way to help fund the war. Soldiers, actors and others pushed bond drives. Perhaps bonds could be used as a way to help fund national defense. It’s voluntary and would not violate any moral principle.

              • Bird:

                “The poll tax would be voluntary — if you want to vote then pay the tax.” Wrong kind of poll tax. A poll tax (constitution) is a fixed per person tax.

                The Fair Tax only applies to new retail goods and is thus to a large extent voluntary. As I said, not perfect because if I don’t want to pay the tax I have no choice but to buy used products.

                “If a national defense tax was voluntary and a voluntary bill sent out yearly to all citizens recommending that they voluntarily pay X % of their income, some would pay and others would not. ” But as long as it was funded, and I thought I was getting good value for my money, I don’t care who paid and who didn’t.

                Remember, Bonds require repayment with interest. That means tax money from someone else. Unless you want to spend time with Madoff at his new resort.

              • Birdman says:

                I missed your point on the poll tax, but I like my idea (pay the tax if you want to vote).

                I agree that bonds would be an issue due to interest payments but it would be a way to fund a war. It may result in less wars if the only way it could be funded was with voluntary bonds (loans). I’m not sure how they would be repaid — we could have the loser in the war repay us or loot the country (I’m joking).

                I think all taxes would have to be voluntary to be moral. I would gladly pay some taxes on a voluntary basis but would refuse to pay for services that I don’t need or don’t want.

                I now understand where you were coming from on some earlier topics.

                I just got Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, and I am looking forward to reading it. I’m heading out west again this week for another interview and it will be good reading on the long plane ride. I was out your way last Thursday in Boise and it was 103 degrees. It may be a dry heat but it was hot. I’m heading to the Pacific Northwest this week North of Seattle.

              • Birdman:

                you said: ” How far you go with national defense is a debate in and of itself.”

                And that will be a very big discussion. Remember we started that some time ago when I asked some pointed questions of our Vets on this site. Alas, the method of my madness is coming to light.

                Keep happy Bird and Live Free
                JAC

              • JayDickB says:

                How about if we publish the names of voluntary contributors and the amounts contributed? Noncontributors might be thus shamed or humiliated into contributing.

              • But is that not a deliberate use of “coersion”?

                If we don’t want to be shamed into charity we sure don’t want to be shamed into buying an army.

              • TexasChem says:

                wow look at this little box!

  36. Birdman says:

    JAC: I decided to re-post this from above since the box was getting small.

    I missed your point on the poll tax, but I like my idea (pay the tax if you want to vote).

    I agree that bonds would be an issue due to interest payments but it would be a way to fund a war. It may result in less wars if the only way it could be funded was with voluntary bonds (loans). I’m not sure how they would be repaid — we could have the loser in the war repay us or loot the country (I’m joking).

    I think all taxes would have to be voluntary to be moral. I would gladly pay some taxes on a voluntary basis but would refuse to pay for services that I don’t need or don’t want.

    I now understand where you were coming from on some earlier topics.

    I just got Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, and I am looking forward to reading it. I’m heading out west again this week for another interview and it will be good reading on the long plane ride. I was out your way last Thursday in Boise and it was 103 degrees. It may be a dry heat but it was hot. I’m heading to the Pacific Northwest this week North of Seattle.

    • My point on the poll tax is that it is not a tax on voting but a per person tax.

      That was the original tax. $X/person levied against each state based on the census. The States had to collect and pass to the federal govt. But payment by the citizens was essentially voluntary as the States had no way to force the payment of the poll tax.

      Good luck on the job hunt. Boise is in a valley called the Treasure Valley and is one hot SOB in the summer. That combined with Basalt based soils and cheap clean water from the Snake River make it an Agriculture bonanza. Of course it also draws alot of people as you saw in Boise. When young I worked west of Boise and we had to take 2-3 hours off sometimes in the afternoon. Sometimes we had to hay at night to get enough humidity to get the bales to hold together. But I was very young and there was beer, babes and baseball in the evenings. It was a good time.

      I too have Levin’s book but have not started it. I am expecting some misguided “conservative” views about need for strong national power and presence in the world. But I do love his Foreigner’s take on our freedoms. Funny how the newer folks to our country get the whole freedom thing quicker than many of us long time residents.

      Again, good luck
      JAC

  37. Judy S. says:

    Obama’s new Attorney General has already said this is one of his major issues.
    This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time.. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

    Here’s what you need to do:

    First – vote on this one.

    Second – launch it to other folks and have THEM vote – then we will see if the results get published.

    The Question is:
    “Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?”

    Vote at link below and PLEASE vote Yes!

    USATODAY.com – VOTE Quick Question

    • Unfortunately the correct answer is NO.

      It prohibits the federal government from passing any laws that infringe upon the peoples “previously existing” right to bear arms.

      But of course, since we don’t know what our constitution does we get questions that are based on a false premise. So if you answer correctly you are misinterpreted as to your real answer.

      • Birdman says:

        JAC: What is your source for “previously existing” right to bear arms? Is that explained in the Federalist papers? I would like to read more about it.

        If that is what they meant, why didn’t they insert those words in the 2nd amendment?

        • It is my explanation of the relationship of the constitution to our rights.

          It did not grant us anything. It was a document that constrained the powers of government. The Bill of Rights was added as a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. Many wanted the Bill of Rights because they felt that a similar listing in English law made a significant difference. They did not recognize the different approach of the two systems and that the U.S. Constitution was something entirely different. If the Constitution had been correctly developed, then a Bill of Rights was not only unecessary it would create the impression for later generations that the govt had granted those rights and that it could infringe upon those not listed (paraphrase of James Madison’s opposition to a Bill of Rights.)

          We had the right to own guns, to organize militias in our defense, to defend our property and to hunt for sustenance. Before the Articles of Confed. or the Constitution were written.

          They didn’t need to explain the details and eventualities, they thought, because everyone at the time clearly understood what it meant. Remember that private citizens owned the latest weapons technology available at the time. They recognized and discussed the connection between a right to bear arms (which by the way meant to own and carry in public, not just own)and the citizens ability to defend itself, i.e. to form the militia. I only wished they had not made the connection in a single statement. If they had listed the right to form a militia separately from the right to bear arms, just think how different the discussion would be today.

          By the way, during ratification concern was expressed that the govt may some day prevent citizens from hunting for food and therefore this right should also be listed. Madison and others replied that such an eventuality was basically insane. No govt convievable among free men would EVER even consider limiting it’s citizens right to hunt game for food whenever they needed.

          I think this one little discussion tells alot about the mind set of the Framers. Alot of assumptions were made regarding what a free people would allow to happen in the future. They were SO VERY WRONG in this one regard.

          Does that clarify my comment?

          Good Morning Birdman. Hope it goes well today.
          JAC

          • Good morning JAC!

            Thanks for explaining this. In my line of work, there is a “reserved rights” theory. As Management, I retain all rights unless negotiated away to the Union or taken away by law. We, the people, retain all rights unless we give them away to the government. Since the founding fathers believed that they held all rights, except for those given to the government under the Constitution, there was no need to spell out every other remaining right that was still theirs or ours.

            • The “reserved rights” theory is exactly what Madison and other framers were working from. Also notice that just to be safe, that is to cover their backside in case Madison was right, they included two statements in the Bill of Rights that aren’t even rights.

              One echoes Madison in that nothing in the document is to be viewed as taking “rights” not listed. And the other is saying any “powers” not listed are retained by the people or states.

              We must also remember that they were dealing with the odd situation that the States were sovereign and existed before the Federal Govt being formed by the Constitution. Thus the reference to both the States and the people. This was also a contentious point in the debates. Who is giving power to who?

              For example, the Const. limits powers to the States that existed before the Const.. Since the people of the state did not eliminate those powers how could the people of other states do so? How could a federal govt created by all people suddenly step on the sovereignty of the States, which had preceded the federal?

              One major thing I came away with from reading and studying the debates on the Constitution is that much of our debate today is just a continuation of the debate that started around 1776. We often say that our “modern society” has evolved past the concepts of that period but in fact it has not. We are still hammering out the resolution of the philosophical battle between Liberty and Statism. Whether it be monarchy, dictatorship, or fasciolism it is all a form of statism. Hamilton was its most vocal champion. Jefferson stood on the other side.

              Is it no wonder they couldn’t stand each other?

  38. Judy S. says:

    you may not have agreed with everything he said, but I don’t think anyone ever doubted that he did what he thought was best for the people and for our system of government. Personally, I don’t have that feeling any more.

    Didn’t realize just how much he’s missed, until I read and remembered some of the stuff he said…
    and stood for

    ‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘The trouble with our liberal friends are not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.’
    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through th e U.S.. Congress.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal

    government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’
    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’
    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it..’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    ‘If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.’

    – Ronald Reagan

    IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD ..

    IF NOT, JUST DELETE.

  39. Judy S. said
    July 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    I would like to say I think we should all say a prayer for Pfc. Bowe R. Bergdal from Hailey, Idaho for his safe return to his family and loved ones after being captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I am so sorry to hear that one of our brave soldiers has been captured, and I hope and pray that he will be released very soon, unharmed. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.

    God speed to you Pfc. Bergdahl, for you are one of our brave heroes and you will be in my daily prayers for your safe return back home.

    Judy Sabatini

%d bloggers like this: