Archive for July, 2009

Why Justice Matters

July 29, 2009

The Black Panthers camped out in front of a polling station—with weapons. They threatened people who came to vote.

The case was taken up by the Bush administration. The defendants lost. Then the Obama administration lets them go, scot free, for purely political reasons. (link)

Without justice, something changes in our society. Instead of people reporting crimes to the police, and allowing the justice system to do its work, they will take matters into their own hands, acting as police, judge, jury, and executioner.

See, the right to defend oneself and one’s property is unalienable. We are temporarily allowing the government to use some of our unalienable rights to make our lives better by taking care of the messy stuff for us. The moment that trust is broken, then the government no longer governs. It’s not political theory, this is political fact, seen countless times all over the world.

Next time the Black Panthers do this, I won’t be surprised if shooting breaks out between the people and the Panthers. Why? Because the people know that the Obama administration won’t do anything to protect the voting rights of the people, leaving the people to fend for themselves.

This is the kind of thing that leads to civil wars.

Who will be to blame? President Obama. If he merely enforced the law and brought criminals to justice, people from both sides of the aisle would trust the system to work. Unlike President Bush, who fiercely pursued both republicans and democrats caught breaking the law, President Obama intends to only pursue Republicans, and those Democrats who no longer serve his purposes.

Bumps on the Road to Smaller Government

July 21, 2009

As we plot a course from where we are as a country to where we need to be with smaller government everywhere, we discover that our success is the failure of many institutions and mindsets in our country. Let’s list the enemies of freedom and how they are fighting to keep government big.

First on the list are corrupt politicians. I define corruption as simply this: Abusing your power for personal gain, even if that personal gain is your political success. When a politician uses his power to steer money to his supporters, he is corrupt. Every politician who sends bacon home to his district or state is corrupt. They simply must go.

Next are those who expect their politicians to be corrupt. Anyone who sends a penny to a politician expecting money in return from the government is as much a part of the problem as the corrupt politicians.

Unfortunately, the first two categories contain a significant chunk of the American public. I believe, however, that it is still a minority of the country.

The next group that lies between us and our goals of smaller government are those who vote expecting something for nothing. These are they who expect someone else to pay their bills, whether they be heat, electricity, rent, or medical bills. These are also those who claim to be charitable but are doing so with other people’s money. The bottom line is that government can solve no problem in our society. Only individuals acting in the interests of society can do so, and then only when they act freely according to their own conscience. In other words, food banks, hospitals, and so on, cannot succeed if they are run by the government. They can only succeed when they are accountable solely to the conscience of the people who support them.

This category contains a very large minority of the public, and perhaps even a majority. However, the way to defeat this group is with education. It is easy to see how government charity is no charity at all but tyranny. It is easy to prove with the words of Jesus himself that forced charity is no charity. In fact, it is easy to show that by forcing people to be charitable, we are denying them salvation.

The next speed bump are those who use government to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. These are they who seek regulations favorable for their particular company or bail outs or subsidies or tax breaks. These are not they who are seeking fairer and more modern rules to govern their industries and standardize trade for the sake of efficiency and lower costs. It’s hard to see the difference, and it takes careful attention to changes to your industry to see what is happening.

The final speed bump are the corrupt unions that seek government to empower themselves at the cost of their union membership and their companies and industry. Let me give you an example: The National Education Association is supposed to be a union representing the teachers. However, it is an organization representing socialism and government-run education. They have destroyed their industry, the moral of their teachers, and the quality of education everywhere. This is not because they are a union, but a corrupt one. They have sought and obtained special protections and support from the government so that they can continue to abuse their power and hurt their union members.

The most significant example of these corrupt union’s behavior is the issue of card check. These unions would like to be able to watch potential members vote to form a union, which is clearly immoral and unjust. They are seeking the power of government to do so.

There are thousands of unions out there whose sole purpose is to protect their members through representation. We don’t read about these unions in the newspapers, and they rarely, if ever, go on strike. This is because they work with the managers of the companies that support them rather than seek to destroy them. They also don’t spend much time lobbying government for special protections. Rather, they spend their time examining upcoming regulations and ensuring that it will make life better for their members and not worse.

These unions are opposed to card check legislation and understand that the unions exist solely at the mercy of their members and the success of the companies they work for.

Kudos To Arnold

July 21, 2009

My #1 issue that is more important than anything else is dramatically slashing the size of government at all levels. This is done only through dramatic cuts in spending, particular extra-constitutional and socialist spending. The fewer bureaucrats there are, the happier we, the people, will be.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is not my kind of Republican on pretty much every issue out there. He sits on the far left of the political spectrum, further to the left than many democrats.

However, he has won a victory for the cause I most believe in. He has crushed the Democratic Party in California and extracted a deal that will dramatically reduce the size of the California state government.

Congratulations and salutations are in order. Any politician from any political persuasion that simply reduces the size of government deserves my praise.

Morally Bankrupt

July 16, 2009

The medical bill being discussed in the house right now is proof that our government is morally bankrupt and has exceeded, plainly, the limitations within the constitution.

The social contract between our federal government and the people is broken. The federal government described by the constitution simply no longer exists. It has become a tyrannical institution which enforces its will by throwing money around—money stolen from the people or printed without a care in the world.

I don’t think democrats understand the significance of this, and neither do many republicans. Today, the Declaration of Indepence of 1776 can be written, simply substituting the King of England with the federal government, and listing the grievances it has inflected on the people of this great nation.

There are several ways in which we can correct this, without bloodshed. One is through voting out the corrupt and voting in a new class of the corrupt. However, since the restrictions on their behavior outlined in the constitution no longer apply, this is unlikely to get the results we need.

An alternative is to amend the constitution itself. There is a way to amend it that is actually quite easy. The people themselves organize a delegation to amend the constitution and then ratify the amendment put forward. This is the same method used to write the original constitution, a method that cannot be written into any constitution since it is a right the people have and the people can never relinquish to anyone or anything.

What would such an amendment read like? It would put the power to constrain the federal government to its dictated boundaries into the hands of the states and the people, acting individually, in a way whereby any violation of the limits will lead to the dissolution of the government.

Sotomayor: Perjury

July 15, 2009

Sotomayor is lying. She is lying to the senate and the American people. She doesn’t believe most of what she is saying, except to believe that perhaps we might buy the lie and accept her as one of the 9 justices we turn to to settle grievances with the federal government or between parties in different states.

Why do I say she is lying? Because she is. She sounds like a Scalia, Alito, or Thomas, not the type of judge she truly is. She is contradicting her stated beliefs, her past speeches. She hasn’t said she has changed, she is talking as if those things never happened.

My question to Sonia Sotomayor is this: If the senate sustains your nomination, and it turns out you lied about any part of your testimony, should you be impeached? What if another judicial nominee told such tall tales and was discovered after sustaining. Should that other judge be impeached?

I doubt her two answers would be the same, since she has trouble understanding what justice truly is, and what the statement of fact “God is no respecter of persons” truly means.

Perhaps we can get her more simply. Ask her, plainly, “Where do the people’s rights come from?”

If she says “God”, then continue. If something else, then expose how rights given by anything but God can never be rights since rights cannot be revoked.

Then ask her, “Where does government come from, and what are they for?” If she says, “from the rights of the people, to protect the rights of the people”, then continue. If she says anything else, then ask her what the meaning of the preamble to the constitution is, and under what conditions the constitutionally established federal government can be dissolved. Then ask her, if she cannot see any way that the federal government could ever be dissolved, whether God gave her or anyone else the right to trample on other people’s rights, and what recourse they have when they do, and how such a system will ever lead to anything but revolution. Has God established her as an elect leader, a crowned princess or queen, to lord over His subjects on behalf of Him?

Finally, ask her, “What does a supreme court justice do?” If she does anything but quote the constitution or plainly interpret it according to the common understanding of the words at the time they were written, then ask her the final question: “By what authority do you suppose you are allowed to do anything you pretend to want to do as a supreme court justice? Because, ma’am, you have just told us that you have no authority to do those things.”

And if she agrees with all the above according to the common understanding of our Founding Fathers, then it is time to expose all of her writings and rulings which contradict what she said, closing with the question, “Why should a liar serve in any position of any government?”

Morality and Politics: A Match Made in Heaven

July 13, 2009

The left, and the corrupt right, want morality as far away from politics as possible. Why? Because when you mix morality and politics together, you get something wonderful: freedom. And the left and the corrupt right want nothing like that for the masses.

Sarah Palin is a woman with a mission from God, like our Founding Fathers. I praise God that she has chosen her path, and that path is to destroy the corruption and outright immorality at the highest levels of office in our land.

Let me explain to you what is immoral about Washington D.C., Olympia, and all other hotbeds of political activity. It is simply this: Government is an evil, and evil the same way killing and robbing and living off the labor of others is evil.

The Founding Fathers recognized this, openly, and talked, boldy, how to subject government and keep it within limits so that it can do the only moral thing government could ever do: simply protect the rights of the people and that’s it.

The Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document, today as back then, that outlines, in a clear way, the role of government and man’s right to rebel and destroy said government. It is quite clear: Man has rights, God-given and unalienable, and government exists simply to protect those rights. Man has the right to abolish government, should he so choose, and when men rise up to do so, there is no tyrant in the world that can stop them.

The Constitution of the United States is a document that creates a new kind of government, the slave government, a government created with a specific purpose and within certain constraints it can never justify violating. The moment that any politician from any party, no matter how popular or no matter how expedient the need, violates the smallest condition of that contract, is the moment that the government becomes immoral and ceases to be legitimate and must be abolished.

When politicians openly flaunt their flagrant violations of that sacred document, and do so as if there is no other way, they flaunt immorality. Like the drunk who is boozing it up on main street, or the John who is shouting and waving his money in the open, this is an immoral act of the worst kind, because it violates the sacred contract of trust between man and his government.

I intend to continue to point out the immorality of our government today. No longer does it even pretend to represent what it was created to represent. No longer does it even consider the largest of rights of the individual as something worth considering. And the sacred document that created the government is ridiculed and construed as something it plainly is not.

Our government is evil:

  • Evil for spending future generation’s money on pet projects and vote-buying schemes.
  • Evil for disregarding the sacred rights God conferred to Man.
  • Evil for supposing they are justified in rationalizing away any word of the constitution.
  • Evil for pretending that they know better than the people.
  • Evil for writing one set of rules for them and their friends, and one set of rules for everyone else.
  • Evil for living off of the blood and sweat of anyone else in our land.
  • Evil for refusing to stand up in the international community for the individual rights of man and American independence and sovereignty.

These things must end, the same way lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and adultery must end, if we intend to have any peace in our country. It must end simply because it is wrong, was always wrong, and will forever be wrong.

We must not sustain Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. She has little regard for the law and even less regard for the individuals who aren’t Hispanic. We need a strict constructionalist, someone who looks at original intent and regards with the highest respect the sacred rights of the individual.

We must not allow the budget to continue, even for another year, unbalanced. We must cut spending dramatically, eliminating the evils of Medicare and Social Security, because they are fed by the labor of the people as slaves feed their masters.

We must demand that the federal government is limited to the specific items listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, at the bare minimum level, only on what is absolutely needed. That means Cap and Trade, medical reform, etc, must disappear.

We, the people, must demand that our representatives read and follow the constitution exactly as it was written. Anything more or less is evil.

Only You Can Prevent Tyranny

July 10, 2009

Smokey the Bear says, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Smokey’s right. Everyone who steps anywhere near a forest needs to be careful with fire. That’s the only way you keep the forests from burning down every few days.

Our government is similar. “Only you can prevent tyranny.” There is simply no other way to ensure that we don’t have tyranny at home than every man, woman, and child doing what they can to not be part of the problem.

And what is the problem? Simply this. Whenever you expect the government to rob someone else and give the money to you or someone you care about, you are causing tyranny. Case in point: All the welfare programs in the federal, state, and local governments. Every time you ask government to step in, take money from one person, and give it to another, you are causing tyranny.

So stop that.

Instead, government should only collect taxes and spend them on things that actually benefit the whole. Heck, things like roads and police forces are borderline tyranny, since it can be argued that these are things that don’t really provide a benefit to everyone.

Things like courts and justice systems, militaries and regulations to regulate (not limit) trade in the free marketplace, however, are things that benefit everyone. Only for these things can the moral argument of collecting taxes to fund them be justified. Even then, taxes should be kept to the bare minimum.

Only you can prevent tyranny by asking your government to do less.

Repeal Medicare

July 10, 2009

Want to save trillions and bring down medical costs across the nation?

Repeal Medicare.

Where Libertarians Get it Wrong

July 9, 2009

I am all for a free society where government is simply unnecessary. This is the only kind of society where we can truly be happy and productive, free to do what we wish with our lives. On this point I agree with libertarians and anarchists.

However, there is a “gotcha”. See, you can’t have a free society without a moral people. In other words, unless the people in the society behave in moral ways—ways that naturally benefit themselves and the people around them—freedom isn’t a good thing. Giving freedom to rapists and murderers means that people will end up raped and murdered. Giving freedom to robbers and liars means that we will be robbed and lied to.

The Founding Fathers and the American people understood this. They knew that unless they were virtuous enough to govern themselves, they were better off having a corrupt king and a corrupt government extract taxes from them and grind them into the ground. The alternative was societal suicide.

What is “virtuous enough”? I believe it is simply this:

  1. Do I behave in a moral manner, despite the laws or because of them? If I consistently choose the moral path despite the laws, I am virtuous enough to govern myself.
  2. Do I expect government to hurt others to help me, or to simply create the conditions of justice by punishing injustice? If I only expect government to punish injustice, then I am virtuous enough to govern myself.

Those two things above, when practiced by the vast majority of the people, mean that government becomes unnecessary. If we are all virtuous ourselves, then we need no law because we will choose morality over immorality the vast majority of the time. If all we expect is justice, and we have a keen sense of justice, then I and my neighbors can practice vigilante justice in a just way, without government support.

The ancient Israelite society, before the kings, was governed in just this way. There was no government because they had the law of nature and morality and they obeyed it, for the most part. This meant they needed no government since they could easily govern themselves. When injustice arose, it wasn’t difficult to raise the necessary army to punish injustice and right the wrong.

If you want libertarianism to succeed, you have to first become moral and just yourself, and then preach the same morality and justice to others. In other words, you’ve got to get religion and become religious, and preach religion. This means that prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah were working towards the same libertarian goals we share when they preached repentance and punishment for sin.

Once people are moral enough, then we will naturally realize our libertarian or anarchic society together.

The foundation of a society based on individual liberty is individual righteousness.

On Sarah Palin

July 9, 2009

My final verdict on the Sarah Palin resignation: It is right.

Governor Palin is two things: One, the governor of Alaska. Two, Sarah Palin.

The people of Alaska deserve an need a governor who can govern appropriately. Sarah Palin was that governor. Today, she is not. Not because of anything she has done, but because of the vicious and evil attacks against her, against all that is just and good and moral in this country. She has become the de-facto lightning rod of evil and tyranny in this country.

So Sarah Palin made a wise decision.  Rather than allow the people of Alaska to suffer for her decision to stand up for what is right and thus become the lightning rod, she is going to allow someone else who is competent and capable to be governor. That is a humble sign of maturity, to step aside when you are no longer the ideal person for the job.

Now that Sarah Palin is freed from the governorship, she is free to fight the only battle worth fighting: exposing evil for what it is and standing up as an example of righteousness. That is what she intends to do. That is the fight of the true statesman, and that is what she has become.

Like the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, we need only a handful of Sarah Palins in this world to turn America back on track. One righteous person does much more good than a million evil people can do evil.

Let us all follow the example of Sarah Palin. Let’s make a decision to first stand for righteousness and then to keep standing, no matter what the cost. Should we decide to do so, our future is guaranteed to be glorious and peaceful.

I pray to God that He will support her as she carries the cross into battle against the hordes of evil who are attacking her.