Was Washington a Tyrant, Too?

Okay, so “tyrant” may not be as appropriate a word to use as when one describes Lincoln (“Great Emancipator,” indeed).

Consider, however, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. In brief, because Congress approved of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal policy (which depended on an increase in the size of the federal government), it taxed carriages and whiskey. Hamilton wanted to consolidate and then fund the national debt, and increased taxes were necessary. Of course, whiskey was a staple on the frontier, and was used as a form of currency. So the whiskey tax negatively affected farmers and frontiersmen, neither of whom could afford the tax.

And anyway, even if they could afford it, wasn’t the government stealing their money? Of course it was. Who cares if someone can "afford" a tax? That's not the point, and it never should be.

Anyway, the western frontiersmen refused to turn over their hard-earned property, a U.S. Marshal showed up to demand payment, and some liberty-minded men attacked a tax-collector’s home (these sorts of things happen when the government steals from its people). One thing led to another, and as Kevin Gutzman writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Washington “became the only sitting president ever to lead an army in person when he rode out toward the rebels.”

Different sources I read claim the young nation was generally happy with the result, which I find a bit hard to believe. The WR (1) showed the federal government’s “superiority complex” and (2) no doubt caused States’ Rights advocates (including Republicans such as Jefferson and Madison) to grow even more uncomfortable with the increasing scope of the federal government.

So—was George Washington a tyrant? Maybe that’s too strong a word, but he certainly believed in stealing other people’s property. I guess that makes him a thief.

In Defense of Rich Guys

Here’s something you’ll seldom hear: a middle-class guy defending a rich guy’s right to pay less taxes. . . .

I recently read a New Yorker article titled “Soak the Very, Very Rich.” In it James Surowiecki argues that the “super-rich” don’t pay enough in taxes. He thinks LeBron James should pay more in taxes than should LeBron James’ dentist.

He writes that “there’s a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates. (The most obvious bracket to add would be a higher rate at a million dollars a year, but there’s no reason to stop there.) This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue.”

Throughout the article, Surowiecki makes several claims. Here are a few:

1. He argues that higher taxes on the highest income levels would “make the system fairer.”

2. He says we need “tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue.”

3. He talks disapprovingly of the “yawning chasm” between the professional and the plutocratic classes.

4. He states that more tax brackets would “make tax hikes on top earners more popular”

5. He argues this would be “a powerful force for reforming the way we deal with inequality”

6. He says “a sensible tax system should draw more distinctions, not fewer.”

So: fairness, more money for the government to waste, class warfare, pandering to the “working family” (a sham title if there ever was one), eliminating inequality, and again more class warfare.

Am I allowed to call this guy an idiot? Is that too mean? Should I not do that?

Why does he want to punish success? Why does he want to provide equal things, not equal opportunity? Why does he want to steal from LeBron James to give to James’ dentist? Who is HE to decide what’s fair and unequal? How in the world will this make things better? No one ever wins when there’s no incentive to do so.

Maybe that’s the point, huh?

And who are these people? “This year a Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support, even among Republicans, for a millionaire tax.” Republican socialists. That’s what they are.

Fight real inequality. Protect LeBron James’ wallet. Don’t let the government look at LeBron and Steve Forbes and Bill Gates differently. They deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor as much as I deserve to enjoy mine.

See? A middle-class guy defending a rich guy. Class warfare, indeed.

Socialism in the Tea Party Movement? Yep.

Ouch.

There’s nothing like having your shortcomings pointed out to you. In an April 2010 article in the Christian Science Monitor, James Bovard (Freedom in Chains, The Bush Betrayal) smacks Tea Party activists around for being more anti-Obama and anti-liberal than they are pro-liberty. Of course, liberty is the whole reason the Tea Party movement exists—right?

It should surprise no one that the TP movement doesn’t REALLY advocate less government. Consider the following points Bovard makes after having visited a local Tea Party protest:

· One speaker argued our government must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (I’m not sure where he found THAT in the Constitution).

· The same author advocated torturing “enemy combatants,” which whipped up the pro-torture crowd.

· One speaker complained about what he felt was Obama’s deference to Islam.

· Another speaker raved about the wonders of the police force, conveniently forgetting to mention a recent case of police brutality.

· A bunch of Republicans got up and talked about economic responsibility while (again) forgetting to mention that “the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thus far equals the projected cost of the first decade of Obama’s health-care program.”

· None of the speakers referenced the illegal wiretaps Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.

· None of the speakers denounced George Bush’s Big Government bent: it was GWB who “championed the prescription drug benefit for senior [citizens] that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.”

There’s more, but I can't go on.

I’m embarrassing to be a registered Republican. Bovard points out the hypocrisy of the TPM, and though he never uses the word “socialist” to describe the TPers, that’s really at the core of the problem. The problem is this: TP “activists” are nothing more than practical Big Government socialists, intent on championing only those governmental programs which scratch their particular itch. Generally those fall into the realm of military spending. They conveniently forget the Constitutional mandate for a localized military which is much more defensive than a global police force. In fact, I remember seeing a U.S. Navy commercial recently—the new tagline is “a global force for good.” What? Where in the Constitution do the founding fathers argue we need to concern ourselves with peace-keeping missions overseas? But conservative eat that stuff up.

One of Bovard’s best lines is this one: “there is scant evidence that most tea partiers have studied the copies of the Constitution they generously hand out to bystanders.” Based on what I know about most conservatives (I’ve lived in their ranks for years), that doesn’t surprise me at all. A perfect example is that of a friend of mine, who has a Gadsden flag sticker proudly displayed in his car. While talking to his wife one day about a house they’re remodeling, I heard her complain about the previous tenants. Apparently they had not strictly adhered to their city code while renovating the house. That’s it right there: why in the world is it the government’s job to tell us what’s safe and what isn’t? Shouldn’t we have the right to decide for ourselves how we will renovate our homes?

Listen up, people: it’s all or nothing. You can’t have it both ways, and cherry-pick the issues you like out of the dozens of Big Government abuses we face every day.

Please—take down your Gadsden flag, read the Constitution, and only put the flag back up when you understand the original intent of the framers.

The Earth is the Government’s, and the Fulness Thereof

Let’s talk briefly about your unalienable rights: “the founders did not believe that the basic rights of mankind originated from any social compact, king, emperor, or governmental authority.” Of course we all know they believed these rights came from God. If a right doesn’t come from God, it can be taken away. And rights like that often are.

As a point of clarification, Skousen makes a distinction between unalienable rights and vested rights. A vested right is the “privilege” of hunting during hunting season (because the government has the right to tell you when you can shoot something). Unalienable rights are different: while we can give up our unalienable rights, no one can take them from us “without being subject to God’s justice. In other words, don’t kill babies, even if they’re not born yet.

Three unalienable rights often referenced are life, liberty, and property. I want to focus on the right to property. Some might think that means everyone is “owed” a house by God. No no no no no. That’s liberal thinking—equality of things, not equality of rights.

A correct view of property rights comes from R.J. Rushdoony, who states, “the absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s. The ownership of property does not leave this world when it is denied to man; it is simply transferred to the state.” State ownership of property is not a good thing: “the family is the major custodian of property in all history. To rob the family of property is to weaken its power.” And of course now you see the problem when the government takes people’s property.

And before you fall into the trap of thinking “property” only refers to your house and your caryou’re your lawnmower, remember this: your hard-earned money is your property, too. So when the government over-taxes you it steals your property. And remember what Skousen said: those who take our property will be subject to God’s justice.

I’m glad I’m not in Congress.

You Knew This Might Happen, Didn't You?

And now we get to the problem with the "Ground Zero Muslim Community Center."

Apparently the GZMCC may be subsidized by the government (from a Reuters article). Which means subsidized by your tax dollars. Which means your money may well be stolen so the government can give it to someone else (it really doesn’t matter who—Muslims or terrorists or welfare recipients or Pittsburgh Steelers fans). Apparently the GZMCC may qualify for “tax-free financing.” Again, that means they won’t pay taxes because you already have. Makes you feel good, doesn’t it?

The whole deal is complex, and I admit I don’t completely get it all, but when I see certain words I know what they mean. Like these:

· “Tax-free financing”

· “Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits”

· The center would avoid “taxable debt”

Here’s something from the Libertarian Party platform: “We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.”

That means no tax-exempt status for your church (which is a bad idea anyway because now you’ve just prostituted yourself to the government). It means no “tax-free financing” for mosques (or “Muslim Community Centers”). It means that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No religion should get special status from the government. Tax relief means (1) favored status and (2) someone’s stealing your money to pay for someone else’s religion. Neither is good.

You want to fight their right to build? Don’t. You want to fight their “right” to steal your money? Go right ahead.

Free the Ground Zero Mosque!

First, from the Libertarian Party platform: “Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.”

That means that I get to do whatever I want with my property. It means that I should be able to let my weeds grow 6 feet high if I want. It means the city shouldn’t come to my house and tell me I have to mow my lawn—or they’ll do it for me and charge me $250 for their services. The city shouldn’t come to my house and tell me I can’t have a privacy fence higher than 6 feet. The city shouldn’t come to my house and make sure my privacy fence is 6 feet back from the sidewalk. The city shouldn’t come to my house and measure how deep the postholes are for my privacy fence. The city shouldn’t force me to go to city hall and get a permit for the fence. And they sure shouldn’t charge me 40 stinkin’ dollars for the privilege of building a privacy fence on my property.

Seriously?

And since I hope you’re all nodding your heads and saying, “you’re right—that’s ridiculous,” let me also say that no one should tell me whether I can build a church on my property. Or a mosque. On my property. Or next to Ground Zero.

Ah—grasshopper. . . .

If it’s not right that the government climb all over and around and up into my business for a stupid privacy fence, then it certainly isn’t the government’s right to climb all over the folks who want to build the Ground Zero Mosque (I hate that name). And since I wouldn’t want some Muslim shouting that I can’t put up a church on my property, I better not shout about a Muslim putting up a mosque—no matter where it is. How can I tell someone what to do with their property if I don't want anyone telling me what to do with mine?

Now: is it “insensitive” to build that mosque (whatever that word means)? Yep. Is it stupid? Yep. Do I dislike it? Yep. Do I want them to build it? Nope. But whatever I want doesn’t matter. Because if what I want can stop that mosque, then someone who doesn’t like my church and doesn’t want me to build it could stop me from putting it up.

Get it?

It’s about liberty and your right to do whatever you want with your property, as long as you’re not depriving someone else of his liberty through the use of your property.

Let’s go back to the Libertarian Party platform: “individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.”

There you have it: the folks who own that land next to Ground Zero “should be free to make choices for themselves.”

As long as we all get that, and as long as everyone gets the same freedom regarding their property, it’s all good!

Starving the Crocodiles

In the 19 December 2009 edition of The Economist you will find an article entitled “The Silence of Mammon.” In it the author makes the point that business needs to better defend itself from its detractors. The author presents three fairly common defenses used by the business world when attacked.

First is the “don’t judge all of us by the poor judgment shown by some of us.” Of course, that can be said of every single occupation. For example: “don’t say everyone in Congress is bad—just look at me!”

Second, some business-types say “many firms are devoted to good works.” As the author says, this “smacks of appeasement.” This suggests “business has something to apologize for, and thus encourage[s] its critics to find ever more to complain about.” And then comes the line I enjoy most: “Crocodiles never go away if you feed them.” Sounds like the government.

The third argument posited is this: “business is a force for good”; that is, ‘Wal-Mart’s ‘everyday low prices’ save Americans at least $50 billion a year.” The problem with this argument is that it only focuses on “material well-being, and so fails to engage with people’s moral qualms about business.”

There are three infinitely better defenses, according to the author.

First, business is “a remarkable exercise in cooperation.” Everyone in the business community must work together. The author writes: “companies in fact depend on persuading large numbers of people [. . .] to work together to a common end.” Trust is built. Collaboration is emphasized. Relationships must be nurtured, and companies that want to continue must work to avoid too much turbulence.

Second, business thrives on creativity. When government gets out of the way business solves all sorts of problems. Look past Snuggies, Chia Pets, and the Clapper. Think of the organizational thread that put each of these on the shelves at Wal-Mart. The author cites Nandan Nilekani, who said that [computer giant Infosys’s] “greatest achievement was not its $2 billion in annual revenue, but the fact that it had taught [people] to ‘redefine the possible.’”

Third, companies provide political balance and stability. In fact, those who argue the power of business corrupts absolutely “actually have it upside down. Companies actually prevent each other from gaining too much power, and also act as a check on the power of governments that would otherwise be running the economy.” More and more countries are aligning with a “pro-business” sentiment, and freedom begets freedom.

The author ends with a great thought. He points out that many in the business community are reluctant to make these sorts of arguments, but he warns that “they would do well to become a bit less reticent: the price of silence will be an ever more hostile public and ever more overbearing government.”

Business needs to quit feeding the crocodiles. Then the crocodiles will quite feeding on business.

Steal from Peter; Give to Paul

Here’s a great section from The 5000 Year Leap: “Every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people. But suppose a kindhearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars, while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in a spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously he would be arrested for car theft. No matter what his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor if he liked, but that is his decision, and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor, who wants to play Robin Hood.”

Skousen goes on to compare our government to the kind-hearted neighbor. When the prosperous neighbor (and who decides what is considered “prosperous”?) loses his car because of the government’s action, he is doubly assaulted, because now the theft is legalized, and he loses his ability to appeal the theft in court—because that theft is legal.

Consider: why do you have a driver’s license? Seriously, now. What right does the government have to demand you have a little card that says you can drive. And what right does the government have to force you to pay for the privilege of owning that little card? If you had your way, would you go to the DMV, stand in line, have your picture taken, and wait for that little card to be laminated—all so you have the privilege of transporting you, your family, and you dog from one place to another? And if you had your way, would you pay for it?

Consider the Israelites, who gave p their rights to their property when they clamored for a king. Every Israelite suffered from the burden the king laid upon his people. And it is the same for us. Our administration claims it has not raised taxes, when in fact it has:

From an April 2009 post on National Review’s website:

“The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite [the administration’s] promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama’s tax promises in last year’s campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.” Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.”

When government takes views itself as Robin Hood, no one (including your car and your hard-earned money, and your future) is safe.

The problem for the kind-hearted neighbor is this: what happens when the government comes to confiscate his property in the name of the common good? Of course, the neighbor will screech about his right to his property, but once the right to private property is given away to the government, the government won’t give it back.

What else will they take before you’ve had enough, and punch Robin Hood in the mouth?

Mother Government and your 401k

I was talking with a friend yesterday; he’s very concerned about what’s happening in our country (and rightly so). One thing he said that stuck with me is this: he’s afraid that when everything gets worse economically (and it will) the government, having run out of money, will go after our retirement accounts.

Mr. Government: “here, Mr John Q. Public—since your 401k is pretty much the same as Social Security, why don’t we take that money and invest it for you? After all, we’ve been administering the SS program for decades, and we’re happy to take care of your money for you. And oh, by the way, we’re going to invest your money in U.S. Treasury bonds because China doesn’t want them anymore.”

Think that’s outlandish? Well, consider this line from a 17 June 2010 in the Beijing Review: “China's holdings of U.S. Treasury securities rose by $5 billion to $900.2 billion in April, the U.S. Treasury Department said on Tuesday. Total foreign holdings rose by $72.8 billion to $3.96 trillion.” Now consider these words from 247WallStreet.com: “What happens when China decides it no longer want to buy U.S. Treasuries? For those who believe that China will eventually use its holdings in long-term US debt to pressure America to keep open trade and not press too much on the value of the yuan, there is the evidence that the People’s Republic sold $21.2 billion in US paper in June. That brought the balance held by the world’s most populous nation down to $839.7 billion.

So it bought in April and sold in June? What does that tell you? And how many of you believe we’ll never get to a place at which China decides Treasuries aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, and starts selling? What will we do then? In case you didn’t know, China holds more U.S. Treasuries than any other country (Japan is next. And who among us thinks that Japan will buy what China is selling?). Does that concern you? It should.

So—the government arbitrarily takes the retirement money we’ve worked so hard to save and unlawfully manages it for us. Sound familiar? Our doom (at least one aspect of it) was officially signed into law on 14 August, 1935, when FDR signed the Social Security Act (H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress) approximately 3:30 p.m. Welcome, citizenry, to legalized theft and years and years and years of servitude.

Think your 401k is safe? Don’t bet on it.

(Don't) Tell Me Lies. (Don't) Tell Me Sweet Little Lies.

Oh. My. Goodness.


Have you ever been driving along in your car, enjoying both the day and the radio program to which you’re listening, and then have you ever started yelling at the radio in response to some baloney you just heard?

Well, I have. In fact, I did it yesterday on my way to work. I was listening to “Mike and Mike in the Morning” on ESPN, and the guest host (Eric Kuselias) was talking about the hot water into which former big league pitcher Roger Clemens has thrown himself (allegations of steroid use).

Kuselias was opining about Clemens and the trouble he’s in, and he had a few things to say about the situation.

One point he made was that Clemens’ lie to Congress (excuse me—alleged lie) is worse because he volunteered to go before Congress instead of being subpoenaed. My gripe with that comment isn’t the “dragged before/going freely” point, but with the fact he was even able to sit down before a bunch of pompous members of the ruling elite in the first place. Whichever of those numbskulls initially suggested they have hearings on steroid use in baseball should have been take to the wood shed out back of the Capitol. He should have been taken into a small coatroom and given some wall-to-wall counseling for even suggesting such a thing. Failing physical persuasion, he should have been laughed out of the room, and his constituents should have given him his pink slip in a recall vote the next morning.

Seriously? Who ever thought it was a good idea for the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to involve itself in drug use in professional sports? And for the love of Pete: where is this power written in the Constitution?

And if steroid use is on the table, why shouldn’t Congress involve itself in gambling in pro sports? That’s bad, too, right? And if they’re going for a “these guys are role models and we have to stamp out this bad behavior,” why doesn’t Congress drag all the porn stars into its hallowed chambers and spend weeks figuring out what to do about the porn industry?

Another point Kuselias made is that Clemens perjured himself before Congress and that’s really why he’s in trouble. Kuselias even said this (I scribbled it on my hand at the same time I was exiting the highway—a tricky feat, I’ll tell you): Congress is mad at Clemens for lying before such an august body. Kuselias, being Congress, said “‘How dare you? How dare you come in here and lie to us!”

Seriously? Seriously? Congress mad at someone for lying to its members? Well, excuse me. Hello, Kettle—I’m Pot. You’re black!

Oh my stars in heaven above.

The final point Kuselias made is this: he said Congress is mad at Clemens for lying, especially because he came into Congress and insisted he was telling the truth. Kuselias compared it to (and Mike Golic agreed) parents who are mad at a kid who lied to them but claimed he was telling the truth. While I get the analogy, and I suppose you do, as well, does anyone else get the irony? Congress acting like a parent? Congress acting as if it’s the mature adult and Clemens is the spoiled deceitful kid? Oh my. That’s an example of “Nanny State” thinking if I ever heard one.

Of course the sad thing is that neither Eric Kuselias nor Mike Golic ever got close to discussing the validity of Congress’ actions, or the fact it was all a bunch of grandstanding for the media and gullible constituents back home—most of whom at all this up like grape popsicles on a warm summer’s day. Congress has no right to involve itself in baseball (or the airline industry, or the car manufacturers, or “big oil”). And it certainly doesn’t have the right to get all high and mighty about deceit in its own house. I can’t even believe it.

Congress and the country that allows this sort of insane behavior makes me sick.

Principle of Liberty #6: All Men are Created Equal.

Let’s go back to The 5000 Year Leap.

“All men are created equal.” Now, that does not mean everyone gets a equally-sized chicken for every equally-sized pot, nor does it mean the “rich” should be soaked to ensure everyone is equal financially. It also doesn’t mean I’m as good a QB as Peyton Manning, or as good a writer as C.S. Lewis.

It does mean we are equal (at least theoretically so) in three areas: before God, before the law, and in our rights.

“Before God” is easy. He loves everyone unconditionally (Jesus’ death on the cross proves this). Before Him we are all dead in sin. And no one who accepts Jesus’ act on the cross is kept from heaven. God’s mercy doesn’t take into account a person’s race or sex or social/economic status.

“Before the law” is next. Clarence Carson (a Constitutional scholar) wrote, “there are no different laws for different classes.” Everyone gets a trial with a jury of their peers. Speeding tickets are handed out to the very rich and the very poor. Well--unless someone has a Courtesy Card.

“In our rights” is obvious based on the language of our founding documents. Read the Bill of Rights (as one example) to see the range of our freedoms. Skousen points to several areas, one of which points to a topic that sticks in my craw: he says our rights extend to “the taxpayer’s office, to pay no more than their fair share.” “Fair share” means a bunch of things to a bunch of different people, doesn’t it?

As Skousen finishes this section he notes the following: “there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have equal things.”

Those people couldn’t be more wrong. They’re everywhere, and they make life incredibly difficult, don’t they?

God and Socialism

So. Here you go, Republicans (can I say “conservatives”?). I trust you’ll read and take to heart what is here. And before you read this and discard it as a bunch of baloney, please ask yourself: “am I blinding myself to the truth?” One thing that really gets my kudzu-eating goat is when people vote their pocketbook instead of their Bible. Please remember our call is to serve and obey Him, not our mortgages.

Five Truths that Republicans Hate

By Joel McDurmon Published: July 2, 2010

On Wednesday Gary posted the list “Five Truths that Liberals Hate,” and it proved one of the most popular posts we’ve had in a while. While in total agreement with those ideals, and actually probably the most conservative guy at American Vision, I thought a little Tabasco for the Right was in order as well. So let’s hear it: five truths Republicans hate.

1. Most Republicans are as socialist as the Left. While not as socially liberal as the left—not advocating equality, gay rights, feminism, etc., etc.—Republicans have proven every bit as fiscally liberal with the exception of the last year or so when political convenience has changed their rhetoric. But try to get one to admit that social security and Medicare are socialist programs along the lines of Obamacare, and they’ll dance and dodge all day! It was Bush II who created Medicare prescription drug coverage at the cost of $550 billion, and only nine Senate republicans opposed.

2. Public schooling is a socialist institution, paid for like a social welfare scheme, where socialist teachers teach socialism to conservatives’ kids. It was designed as an anti-conservative institution and operates openly as an anti-conservative institution. Yet most conservative parents still mock homeschooling and refuse to put their kids in even a private school. Some Christians argue they’re salt and light—”we just need prayer back in schools!” The only prayer any kid should be praying in school is “Mom! Dad! Please! Get me out!”

3. There is no such thing as private property as long as property taxes and the threat of liens exist. Bad-mouthing Obama’s socialism rings hollow until you pressure your state, county, and municipal officials to abolish property taxes. Of course, you’d also have to argue against public schooling as well, for about 75% of property taxes go to pay for public schools.

4. There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, the outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party. These were men whom Republicans generally revere as well, Republicans: William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Elihu Root. Historically, big war has been carried out under progressive Democrats: Wilson got us into World War I, FDR World War II, Truman Korea, and Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam. Progressives love war inherently: it was one aspect that grew directly out of social Darwinism. Conservatives fight when necessary to protect their own land and freedom, except against property taxes, apparently.

5. Republicans were the original spend-and-tax, big-government Progressives, and remain so today. The same Republican men who nationalized the military, in order to fund their progressive ideals, created, promoted, and signed into law the Sixteenth amendment (national income tax) which had the side-effect of rendering the IRS a permanent institution. Taft got the act through Congress in 1909, the last state ratified it in 1913. The intervening presidential election was a contest of three men with the same ideals—Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and Taft—all of whom supported the national income tax. The same Republicans instituted the National Monetary Commission which developed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which Wilson also signed into law. In modern times, were it not for Obama, Bush II would reign as the spending and deficit king by quite a margin. The biggest spenders in recent decades were all the Republican presidents, including Reagan. Only Clinton in his first term rivaled them before Obama.

So there you have it. These are five truths that Republicans just have to hate! But thankfully, we have a God-given right to change our minds and become truly conservative. See my God Versus Socialism for a look at where the Bible stands on such issues, and how the U.S. already has adopted seven of the ten planks of communism straight from Marx’s Manifesto.

Whether it's hard for you to stomach, Discerning Reader, McDurmon is right. Here’s the original post. You can watch an interview with McDurmon on YouTube.

Truth for Liberals

The following list is too good not to post. I hope Mr DeMar doesn’t mind me sharing this. . . .

To help him and American Vision spread the message of truth, liberty, and the real roots of American liberty, please visit their website, which I've linked on the right side of the page.

What he shares are certainly true, and should make every left-leaning, thinking person take note. I hope (and I’m sure he does, too) that this list will induce change in lives, and therefore change in America.

Five Truths that Liberals Hate

By Gary Demar. Published: June 30, 2010

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Liberals don't like to hear these things, but they are as true as the sun rises and sets each day. And don't get too smug, conservatives. You’re next.

Escaping Tyranny

In Nullifying Tyranny the Kennedy brothers spend some time on the idea of “consent of the governed.” I never spent a lot of time thinking about that before. I always pinned it generally to democracy as opposed to monarchy, but the Kennedys go farther, and rightfully so.

They point to John Locke, Patrick Henry, and James Madison, all of whom argued that liberty takes precedence over government. As the Kennedys note, Locke argued that “when faced with a government that has overstepped its legitimately entrusted power, people of a sovereign community have a duty to withdraw from that threatening community.”

Locke feels that “the right of a people to withdraw from a threatening government, i.e., to secede, is a simple act of self-protection and of preservation of unalienable rights” (NT). he wrote, "Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it."

Is it not constitutional that, if a sovereign state of states, a republic of republics (a phrase the Kennedys use and one I like for its accuracy) feels threatened, and does not consent to continued governance by a threatening government, the sovereign state has the right to remove consent and remove itself from the threat to liberty?

Do you see why Abraham Lincoln was wrong? Do you see why the south was right?

Even More Government Interference

Content Warning: There's sarcasm in this post. Be warned.

Speaking of the government and seatbelts, here’s a disturbing story. . . .

From the Associated Press on August 16: “New motorcoaches would for the first time be required to have lap-shoulder seat belts under a proposal announced Monday by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.”

What’s the driving force behind that initiative? “‘Seat belts save lives, and putting them in motorcoaches just makes sense,’ LaHood said in a statement.” So it’s safety: “An average of 19 people a year are killed in motorcoach accidents in the U.S.”

19? That’s a lot! We definitely need to do something. . . .

But if you look at the statistics, an important point should be made clear. The writer notes that the motorcoach industry “transports 750 million passengers a year.” So let’s do the math. 19 fatalities out of 750 million. That’s a fatality rate of 0000025% per year (that number seems low to me—is my math right?).

Do you want to know how many people are killed in swimming pool-related incidents per year? Well, from the CDC website, it seems 1.4% of swimmers (in pools only? Does that include lakes? In oceans, too?) drown each year. At least, that’s the best I can figure from the stats I see).

So, 0000025% versus 1.4%.

It’s clear we need to ban swimming, too. or at least make all swimmers weat safety vests. or seatbelts.

And another thing: if it’s so terrible that we need to mandate seatbelts, why are we waiting three years before we start enforcing anything? If we act now we can save, on average, 57 lives between now and then. Don’t we care about those 57 people and their families? Are we so callous?

And yet another thing: why is it the government’s job to fix this?

And another thing: isn't taking a bus (like swimming) ultimately a voluntary act? No one's forcing people onto buses at gunpoint.

I hope you see the skepticism in this post. Of course every death is terrible, and there are 19 families per year who mourn the loss of a loved one. And I can't imagine what it must feel like to face that situation. But does that mean we need to strap every single person into a bus seat? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to set a “fatality percentage limit,” and regulate every activity that results in fatality rates of 1% or 2% or 3% or 14% or 20%? And I ask that question seriously. Naturally, to do so would be ridiculously difficult, and no one’s going to suggest or implement that sort of regulation.

Liberty versus security. It’s a pretty fair trade. The government needs to get off the bus.