Mike Huckabee claims he's ordained by God to be President

I guess if he fails in his presidential run God himself is to blame.

Almost overnite, Mike Huckabee has become the darling of the Religious Right in America. Christians are suckers for political a candidate who talks frankly and non-apologetically about his faith and says nice things every once in a while on the issue of abortion. Huckabee fits the bill to tenth degree and has all the charisma and vernacular of the Sunday morning minister he used to be.

It's no problem looking past all the questionable ethics of Huckabee's past for these people. Never mind his aggressive push for the pardon of a convicted rapist who went on to murder. Never mind the destructions of public property on his way out the door when he left office in Arkansas. Never mind he raised taxes during his stay there more than Clinton did during his tenure. Never mind the non-Christian attitude towards members of the media who cross his path. All these things can be easily brushed aside for a soft spoken southern baptist who "says what he believes" even if he doesn't act on those beliefs.

The fact that words speak louder than actions for the Christian Right is, of course, nothing new and Huckabees behavior as a Governor is not exactly earth shattering. Indeed, corruption in politicians is as common as politicians themselves (Ron Paul excepted of course). All these things can probably be tolerated as typical political shenanigans. I've come to expect those type of activities from politicians and have based a lot of my political philosophies on those expectations. Those dishonesties aren't the real problem with Mike Huckabee.

The real problem with Mike Huckabee is that he's a warmonger.

John Hagee is a Christian Zionist and televangelist. He's known for his books Jerusalem Countdown and more recently In Defense of Israel, a pair of books that make outlandish and fear-based claims about end times and biblical predictions. Like Huckabee, Hagee purports to know the very will of God in order to further his own agenda. In older days these type of men were known as charlatans, now-a-days we call them leaders in the Christian Right.

Hagee's evil beliefs are based on a twisted theology of fundamental dispensationalism is comprised of the belief that the nation state Israel is the fulfillment of Bible prophesy and that thus, it deserves full political and military support from the US. But any friendly gestures from the likes of Christian Zionists like Hagee or Pat Robertson are merely formalities, because the ultimate prediction is Armageddon VIA nuclear war and the conversion of the Jews that survive or some such nonsense I can't be bothered to fully learn. Of course all of his prophesies are dependent on war, so he preaches and writes and gives interviews encouraging preemptive war with Iran.

Worst of all, his theology is that which 99% of practicing Christians would instantly reject. Watch here as he openly claims Jesus Christ DID NOT come to Earth to be the messiah.



And this is a man who is shaping the politics of the Christian Right. And endorsing Mike Huckabee.

You might be wondering what any of this Hagee business has to with Mike Huckabee. Well Hagee's publisher and long time friend Stephen Strang is directly linked to Huckabee. Just before fall Strang's magazine The New Man endorsed Huckabee. Likewise, Huckabee added Strang to his Faith and Values Coalition, an event for which John Hagee was in attendance. Strang has written and supported Hagee's threat's to Iran.

The Huckster sounds eerily like Hagee in this interview with Wolf Blitzer making the case to first starve the children and poor in Iran in the same way we did to Iraq inbetween Iraq Wars I & II, then using a preemptive nuclear strike to bomb Iran into compliance with his will. Of course all this tough talk of preemptive war against Iran sounds altogether more frightening with the NIE report that came out recently saying that Iran has long abandoned it's nuclear program. Imagine what a preemptive strike would have done to our country's security and prosperity if Huck and Hagee had their way already.

Compare Huckabee and Hagee's warmongering tones to those of Ron Paul at a debate earlier this year speaking on the subject of preemptive war with Iran:

“I do not believe that [pre-emptive war] is part of the American tradition. We, in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or [to] go to aid somebody.

But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a pre-emptive nuclear strike, against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and pre-emption. [We have to] go back to traditions and our Constitution, and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.”

-Ron Paul

Who sounds like the true Christian candidate?

Fellow libertarian Christian William N. Grigg (one of my new favorite bloggers) recently posted on the ties between Hagee and Huckabee and posited the follwing:

"The only authentic conservative in the race, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, disqualified himself in the Christian Right's eyes by taking the teachings of the Prince of Peace too literally, and applying the Golden Rule to foreign policy. The Mullahs of the Mega-Churches, and many of their followers, are mortally offended by the notion that decades of bellicose interventionism by Washington might have something to do with the antagonisms that breed and feed anti-American terrorism."

....

"I suspect that if Mitt Romney is elected president, Hagee would have no difficulty reaching across the theological divide -- as long as Romney remains true to the gospel of militarist bloodshed. If Huckabee makes it to the Oval Office, it's likely that Hagee would be part of the Inner Court. Either prospect would be troubling to the Christian Right, were it more interested in defending Christian principles than in accumulating and preserving political power."

Amen to that.

Rudy supporters are really proud of their little warmonger!

This is an actual Rudy Giuliani support video. It's not a satire piece making fun of Rudy for being so gung-ho about war with... everyone.




In other news I am now on Facebook. If you're a Facebooker and enjoy Facebooking as much as I, show yourself.

Ron Paul is money

A pretty good interview with Tucker Carlson on his November 5th success.



The message is decentralization of power, and the movement is decentralized in nature.

November 5th!

Zombie Tag

Zombieslayer tagged me to motivate me to update my blog. That was like a week a go. lol

The object of this exercise is to list 7 things about myself and elaborate.

1) I am a Christian private property anarchist who, all things being equal, prefers: the Austrian School to the Chicago School, Praxeology to Objectivism, Rothbard to Rand, professional sports to amateurs, Coke to Pepsi, Wendy's to McDonald's, indie music to the RIAA, TV shows to Hollywood movies, and above all love to violence.

2) I am almost entirely socially inept. I've been told most people who know me assume I don't like them very much. While I'm sure that's true in some cases for the most part I love people. I just don't know how to relate to them very well, which I think is why the Internet is so attractive to me. It's not exactly how I want to be though, and I've made attempted to make strides over the past few years to learn why I am the way I am and change it. Which brings me to number 3.

3) I am extraordinarily introspective. I've spent large quantities of time over the past few years examining who I am, what I believe, what I want to be, the way things should be, etc. I ponder these things so frequently hardly a day goes by in which I don't come about something that I think needs to change. A feeling, a reaction, a thought process. I'm so self analytical that it often spills over and I start analyzing other people's thoughts, feelings, and reactions. This doesn't help number two really.

4) I am going to vote for Ron Paul next year. It may very well be the last time I ever vote in an election as I don't really see anyone else with the chance at actually sparking change the way Ron Paul does. I have very little faith for the Republic. I'm incredibly pessimistic about the prospects of liberty and the future of Liberalism in general. I believe the American Empire will be bankrupted in my life time. Sad really.

5) Despite my love for the recent television golden age, I don't have a TV. We haven't had one in about 5 years and I don't really miss it all that much except of the being able to watch the Bears and White Sox. But then that's always a good excuse to head over to my Dad's for a game which I usually enjoy quite a bit. Plus, due to number 2 it's probably good for me to get out of the house once in a while.

6) I've recently fallen in love with Rugby. I've never watched a match before just about three weeks ago when I downloaded a couple of matches from the World Cup that is going on right now. In fact it concluded today but I won't be able to watch it for a few days so PLEASE DO NOT let me know who won if you have any idea at all. Fantastic sport though and I've had an absolute ball watching the games.

7) I'm a big fan of office pranks. In fact I recently wrapped by friend's desk at work and all of his supplies in shrink wrap while he took a day off.

Socially inept, socially inept....

The So-Called Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis

Sorry all for the blog lapse again. If you're a long time reader here you know I go through stages where I don't write much. If you're new then you're probably not reading this now because you figured I up and quit. I didn't respond to any of the comments on the last post and for that I apologize. Bad blog form I know. I will say this, Godwhacker: absolutely brilliant ad. You need to find someone with some basic video editing skills and get that thing up on YouTube. Sadddie, yes come back to the blogging thing. Good times will be had.

To the rest of you I will try to form my own thoughts on the mortgage issue since the last time all I really did was post an article which is something I don't really like to do all that much.

Everyone will point the finger at the banks here (and believe me when I say banks in general are not AT ALL something I am fan of) but we must realize the sub-prime mortgage companies are losing their butts on this as well. So the question, as is the question with all recessions, depressions, panics or what have you, is how is it that all of these brilliant entrepreneurs who make their living by speculating market circumstances all of a sudden CHOOSE WRONG in a giant comedy of errors. An entire corporate failure on the part of an entire industry. I mean sure, at any given time you'll have some companies growing and some going under, that's natural in a free market, but what's not natural is for an entire industry to suddenly get really really stupid.

I said the "so-called mortgage crisis" because while this current market bubble has manifest itself inside of the house lending business, it is not at all specific to the mortgage business anymore than the tech bubble that popped after the 90's boom was specific to the computer industry. The crisis is not in mortgages or microchips, it's in our monetary system.

Our inflationary system pumps money into banks who in turn, at the beckoning of the FED who ARTIFICIALLY lowers interest rates, give out loans to borrowers who wouldn't be qualified under a NATURAL market-defined interest rate. This goes on for a while (market boom) until enough bad loans are given out and people who shouldn't have lots of money to invest do. Then the whole thing collapses due to the large number of bad investors in a given sector(market bust). It's really pretty predictable if you think about it.

On top of that banking itself is a flawed anti-capitalist institution that uses fractional reserve banking which CAN exist in a free market but would be much more rare if banks were in danger of actually losing their butts if they made bad decisions and people wanted to collect their money. Instead we have the subsidized system of FDIC, which protects banks from the dangers of risk and keeps bad banks in business instead of letting them go under like they're suppose to.

Tie all that to inflation in general which is way up and will continue to go up while we pay for the war (not to mention the BILLIONS(?) we are borrowing from China to pay for this fiasco of a foreign policy) and it's really kinda scary where this whole thing is heading.

Now, on the topic of "predatory" lending, it's important to remember that A) value is subjective and B) people act rationally in their own self interest. Once we understand that we can throw away all this unreasoned approach stuff. We know that the only way a loan (or any trade for that matter) to occur is for it to be mutually beneficial to BOTH parties. Now that loan may not look beneficial to YOU based on your value determination or rationale, but it is to the two parties involved based on their value scale and their rationale.

Therefore, any lending regulation ultimately results in the limiting of economic freedom, usually on the side of the borrower, who has the State deciding for them what is and isn’t “predatory” or financially responsible. As if those are objective values. All of this infringes on one of our most basic natural rights, which is even enumerated in the constitution, the right to contract.

For instance in Illinois we now have new lending laws that “protect” consumers, which in actuality limits what lenders can offer and therefore makes loans that might otherwise actually benefit borrowers illegal. This also leads to MORE fine print and MORE difficult to understand loans which in the long-term hurt consumers.

Take another so-called “predatory” loan, the cash advance payday loan. Sure these will have ultra high interest rates but if a borrower can pay them off quickly they can actually be quite beneficial as opposed to, say having their checking account overdraw and having to pay the bank for their overdraft fees. I hear all the time how these banks will charge upwards of $35 PER ITEM that is overdraft and if you have 5 or 6 items that go under which are just 5 or 6 each can easily end up with loans that have astronomical interest rates. If a person can get one of these payday loans to deposit the cash as the bank to cover their overdraft for a few days and pay of the loan as soon as they are paid they can easily save themselves a few hundred dollars. Now according to the government, the payday loan is “predatory” and the overdraft loan is moral and legal. I’m not critical of either as long as both parties agree upon the terms, but I see hypocrisy in making someone else’s subjective value judgment OBJECTIVE by calling one legal and one predatory. It’s rubbish.

Now it’s important to go back to my first few paragraphs here and remember, the reason borrowers and lenders have a hard time evaluating long and short-term risk and reward is due to the inflation and artificial interest rates determined by the Federal Reserve. So when that borrower signed up with his 3-year ARM it checked out with his value determination and rationale that it would end up benefiting him in the long run. But because the FED is unpredictable and because it is run by fallible humans (who act rationally in THEIR OWN self interest) it is harder to determine whether or not that long term investment is going to pay off.

Housing Market Problems

Things are looking bleak.

High-Risk Credit

by Ron Paul

As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage-backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.

More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.

The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.

In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.

The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.

We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.

As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.

Super short movie review

Superbad

Uh, not so good.

I came into this thinking it'd be a somewhat original film. Turns out it's about some kids trying to get beer and get girls drunk enough to have sex with them. I somewhat knew it was going to be crude going into it, but I was hoping it wasn't going to operate under the flawed premise that teenagers being crude is inherently funny. This is nothing but an updated American Pie.

Don't get me wrong, Michael Cera really is quite talented and funny and the movie does have plenty of laughs, but the overall product is nothing new.

Well, maybe I was foolish for thinking this would be a little smarter than lol drinky and OMG BOOBIES.

C-

New song - Old songs

New stuff out from two excellent bands, the Broken Family Band and Okkervil River. The first video is from the new Broken Family Band album, Hello Love. The second is from last year's Okkervil River EP, The Presidents Dead. It's not what you'd expect from the current political climate though, it's actually completely sincere like most everything else Okkervil River does. As a bonus we'll add some Man Man because... well because Man Man and therefore awesome.

The Broken Family Band - Love Your Man, Love Your Woman


Okkervil River - The President's Dead


Man Man - Feathers and Engrish Bwudd (Live)

War and Economy

There is a keynesian myth that perpetuates that war is "good" for an economy.

There is no way one can logically show that taxation, inflation, slavery, destruction, and mass murder (A.K.A. war) is good for an economy. Such a notion is usually based on some drawn out version of Bastiat's broken window fallacy. Or one might say war is good for an economy in the same way a hurricane or tsunami are good for an economy.

The usual line of reasoning is that war helps motivate "industry" by employing tank builders and gun makers. And that the aftermath of the destruction of private property results in new industry from the rebuilding.

This, as Bastiat said, is what is seen.

But consider what is not seen. Those tank builders and gun makers could have been bakers and cabinetmakers. They could have been producing for the economy in an industry that has actual consumer demand. Remember, those tanks and guns are funded my tax dollars, money extorted from the public at the point of a gun. That same money could have been used on cakes and kitchen cabinets if it was not necessary to steal it for corporate mass murder.

And what of the destruction and re-building? It is true that in the wake of destruction new construction will ensue. Clearly money is given to builders who are rewarded for their work. But at what cost? Couldn’t that money given to the builders just as easily be given to a different professional?

In other words the man whose house is destroyed by a stray bomb needs to use his own capital to replace his house. And while that money is given to the building industry, it could have just as easily been given to the auto industry. Isn’t it true that in the case of the house the man has gained no new pleasure or satisfaction from the house? Didn’t he have a house to start with and is now only wasting his capital to replace it? Couldn’t he have used it to purchase something new altogether to satisfy his needs and preferences? So we see that while this destruction may help one industry in particular it does not help industry in general.

War is the culmination of everything evil in Man. It is the absolute corporate failure of humanity. It is the death of reason, civility, and charity. It has no redeeming qualities.

No. Not. One.

We'd know all this if we taught Mises (who was right) in our schools instead of Marx and Keynes (who were wrong). But then the State tends to like schools of thought that perpetuate the myth that *WE* need *THEM*.

A few months a go Ron Paul had a little debate with Giuliani over foreign policy in the war with Iraq.

The crowd at the time was notably on the side of Rudy Giuliani.

Well the tides are changing...

Ronpaul
Uploaded by krs601

He's more confident.
He's got a consistent message.
The Romneys and Giulianis have no answer.
They look befuddled.

And most of all, he's the same thing he's always been.

Right.

Let's Not Kid Ourselves

Iran is no threat to America.

It's not apparent to our elected representatives in the Senate, however. Many of whom were elected with the sole purpose of ending the Iraq war, not starting a new one. Yet the Republicans and Democrats voted in a 97 to nothing vote to censure Iran for their alleged part in arms sales to sectarian groups in Iraq.

We're also positioning a new floating war fortress off Iran's coast and conducting secretive CIA missions of "non-lethal covert operations against Iran using propaganda, disinformation and the squeezing of Iran's international banking transactions."

Also we're holding Iranian diplomats hostage, apparently. Why?

I've said it before, but it seems more obvious now and it's worth repeating; We're already at war with Iran, they just haven't faught back yet.

Meanwhile Iran's economy is on the verge of collapse. President Ahmadinejads printing money like it's going out of fashion to pay for their dreaded nuclear program, and the inflation is beginning to take it's toll on prices. Early this month the government enacted rationing on it's gasoline after price controls caused shortages. (price fixing always cause shortages, btw) The result was mass protests by the Iranians.


Iran is no threat. They hardly have an army, no real navy or air force. They'll run out of money long before they'll be able to produce any WMD's. Yet we seem on a collision course for war with them with the Republican and "anti-war" Democrats leading the way.

Test Results

Well the scan results came back kinda good, kinda okay.

The good news is that Emily's neck is completely free of any cancer. This is great because the masses in her neck absorb a lot of the iodine before it has a chance to get into her lungs, so everything she is given from this point out will be concentrated in her lungs. This also means for sure that there will be no more surgeries in the foreseeable future.

The okay news is that Emily still has some thyroid cells left in her lungs. This is okay because there is actually less than there was 6 months a go, and even more less than there was a year a go. So we know the radiation treatments are working. However, she will have to receive another does of radiation, which is always dangerous and increases her risk of long term cancer re-occurrences.

The next step is to admit Emily Monday morning where she will drink a large does of radioactive iodine. Then she will sit in isolation for 3 days while we can only see her for a half hour per day. The hard part of that from the last two treatment has been that the doctor ordered a catheter and an IV for the three days. This time around he is going to go without those so Emily will be much much more comfortable. She doesn't mind alone time all that much because she's a bit of a loner like her old man. :)

Other than that it's another 6 month wait to do another scan and see what our progress is at that point.

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments on the last post!

Emily Update 7-11-07

On Monday we took our daughter Emily to Loyola to take a "tracer" dose of radiation which is absorbed by only thyroid cells. Since she had her thyroid removed last February any thyroid cells left in her body will be cancerous. Tomorrow morning we will take her back the hospital for a scan of her entire body looking for any of the radiation left in her from the tracer.

The hope is that this scan will come back negative and we need not endure another dose of radiation treatment. If there is any thing left in her lungs we will be heading back on Friday to admit her for three days of isolation and her third dose of radiation in the last year. Which will be followed by another 6 month wait while the radiation does it's work then we start the process again looking for more thyroid cells.

This is pretty much the course of treatment we're in right now until things come back different.

Crystal and I are honestly pretty tired from this entire situation. Since everything started 16 months a go we've lost a lot of sleep, a lot of energy, and as anyone who's dealt with week long hospital stays and radiation treatment knows, a lot of money.

We'd give anything to see a clean scan tomorrow so we can begin to put this chapter behind us. But if not, we'll continue with whatever course of action our radiologist recommends and be grateful for the fact we've been so fortunate as to have an amazing doctor help us through this whole thing.

Well I've been blog lazy again. Plus I've been listening to a couple of lectures on Mises which are 15 hours each, so you get the picture there. I'll try to post something substantial soon, but in the meantime I give you to evolution of Frank Black.

Small (*warning bad bad words*)


Medium


Large

Sweden's Heavy Metal Obsession

It seems that in Sweden, the country many people mistakenly title the "Highest Standard of Living in the World," you can't name your child Metallica though if you listen to enough of it they'll subsidize your paycheck.

Man gets sick benefits for heavy metal addiction

A Swedish heavy metal fan has had his musical preferences officially classified as a disability. The results of a psychological analysis enable the metal lover to supplement his income with state benefits.

Roger Tullgren, 42, from Hässleholm in southern Sweden has just started working part time as a dishwasher at a local restaurant.

Because heavy metal dominates so many aspects of his life, the Employment Service has agreed to pay part of Tullgren's salary. His new boss meanwhile has given him a special dispensation to play loud music at work.

"I have been trying for ten years to get this classified as a handicap," Tullgren told The Local.

"I spoke to three psychologists and they finally agreed that I needed this to avoid being discriminated against."

Roger Tullgren first developed an interest in heavy metal when his older brother came home with a Black Sabbath album in 1971.

Since then little else has mattered for the 42-year-old, who has long black hair, a collection of tattoos and wears skull and crossbones jewelry.

The ageing rocker claims to have attended almost three hundred shows last year, often skipping work in the process.

Eventually his last employer tired of his absences and Tullgren was left jobless and reliant on welfare handouts.

But his sessions with the occupational psychologists led to a solution of sorts: Tullgren signed a piece of paper on which his heavy metal lifestyle was classified as a disability, an assessment that entitles him to a wage supplement from the job centre.

"I signed a form saying: 'Roger feels compelled to show his heavy metal style. This puts him in a difficult situation on the labour market. Therefore he needs extra financial help'. So now I can turn up at a job interview dressed in my normal clothes and just hand the interviewers this piece of paper," he said.

The manager at his new workplace allows him to go to concerts as long as he makes up for lost time at a later point. He is also allowed to dress as he likes and listen to heavy metal while washing up.

"But not too loud when there are guests," he said.

The Local spoke to an occupational psychologist in Stockolm, who admitted to being baffled by the decision.

"I think it's extremely strange. Unless there is an underlying diagnosis it is absolutely unbelievable that the job centre would pay pay out.

"If somebody has a gambling addiction, we don't send them down to the racetrack. We try to cure the addiction, not encourage it," he said.

Henrietta Stein, deputy employment director for the Skåne region, is also puzzled by the move; "an interest in music" is not usually sufficient to qualify for wage benefits.

"Certain cases are confidential but in general there is always a medical reason that is well-documented," she said.

Tullgren currently plays bass and guitar in two rock bands and says that he tends to get a lot of positive reactions for daring to be himself.

"Some might say that I should grow up and learn to listen to other types of music but I can't. Heavy metal is my lifestyle," he said.

RON PAUL'D!

Not exactly a substantially informative video but it made me crack up laughing.

From 1988

The Gun Post, Part Two

You can view part one here.

Continuing on the notion of natural rights, the right to self-defense is perhaps the most basic of all. In fact, you cannot have any other rights without first having the right to protect your most basic of possessions, your body. Surely the right to life enumerated in the Declaration of Independence is inseparable from the right to self-defense.

The most obvious extension of the right to self-defense is not arming as many people as possible or restricting guns to private citizens, but rather allowing individuals to decide for themselves the best means of self-protection. There is no one size fits all solution to defense, and best person to decide for you how to protect your person is you, not a non-responsive overbearing government that can only pretend to know specific solutions to a broad number of individual situations.

The ignorance and arrogance towards the natural right of self-defense in the anti-conceal carry lobby is the most infuriating of all positions. They think not of society, but only of themselves. Because they are in a stable and most likely affluent environment they see no need for others to protect themselves. They think a quick call to 9-1-1 is the only defense a person should ever need. These are the Rosie O’Donnell types who are more than willing to trample on the rights of others as long as it doesn’t affect them.

Lastly, the misogynist position on guns is control or abolition. Why? Because males physically have advantages over the vast majority of women when it comes to strength. Most men, stronger than most women. In society, the only thing that can, when it comes to an attack, create 'equalization' is a firearm. White men have tried to keep guns out of the hands of all downtrodden and oppressed peoples, they tried to keep them out of the hands of the "negros" post-slavery, they tried to keep them out of the hands of the Jews during the Nazi reign of terror, and even today, they and the morons that support anti-firearms restrictions attempt to keep guns out of female hands. If we de-armed society tomorrow, we'd still have to worry about the worst of all arms control... the trained and fit arms of aggressive and idiotic males. Society would be at the mercy of the physically strong in all matters as the lack of equalization that firearms bring would then unleash the oppression of numbers (gangs) or strength (most males vs. most females).

So what of all the gun violence in American then? Surely the numbers tell us that we are more apt to kill with a gun than any other industrialized nation in the World.

If people were really interested in curtailing the use of guns to end the life of others they’d attack the source of that violence, not the symptom. Simply repealing our unnecessary and oppressive drug laws would eliminate, almost overnite, the vast majority of needless violence in this country.

Switzerland has MORE guns then the United States; they actually issue the same assault weapons that have suburban moms in America fretting day and nite over to their citizens. Yet the Swiss don’t even register on statistics measuring homicides using firearms. Gun control advocates who rattle off statistics need to explain these numbers before they can use their selective figures to 'prove' guns cause more violence.

The Europeans I work with tell me the solution to America’s societal ills is more government control. Stricter drugs laws, stricter drug laws, censorship of our media, even prohibitions on our right to petition government. This, to them, is a ‘conservative’ approach. The conversation usually starts off something like, “You know, America is the greatest country in the World, but….” Followed by some sort of logic in which we should change our laws to be more like Europe. Ignoring the obvious conclusion that being NOT like Europe is the very thing that apparently made us “the greatest country in the World.”

Less government intrusions in our personal matters is the forward and progressive course of action. It is the true liberal approach. When government intrusions like unconstitutional drug laws create more violence, the solution is eliminating the government intrusion, NOT adding more nanny state regulations turning us more and more into a 1984 style regulated state in which “Big Brother” tells us what to eat, drink, smoke, where to go, what to think, who to interact with, and ultimately when to die.

America was, at one time, the greatest nation on Earth. And while most people can name something from the other side of the aisle that has tarnished our status, few can see that it is the sum of government itself that is the problem. Until we stop attributing moral value inanimate objects like guns and drugs, and start recognizing the truths that were the foundation of our nation, we'll only regress not progress.

The Gun Post, Part One

It is sometimes said in Libertarian circles that if you could just get the anti-drug people to see that drugs are okay, and the gun control people to see that guns are okay, then the vast majority of people would be Libertarians. I’m not sure how true this is, but I suppose for the average American anyway those two issues are pretty paramount to their formation of left/right thinking, at least where moral issues are concerned. I’ve already delved into the issue of drugs here, and today I will give a go at my thoughts on firearms.

This was going to be one post, but as I wrote more and more I decided to post in two parts. This first part will have to do with the legal and philosophical issue of guns rights. The next part will have to do with the more practical aspects of firearms and violence.

It seems to me the first issue one must examine in dealing with firearms is rights. The standard line of reasoning for gun advocates is to appeal to the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the second amendment. However, to do so shows an incredible lack of understanding on what the constitution is and the philosophy of the founding fathers.

Our country was founded on the philosophy of Liberalism. We are not a country spawned from nationality, but rather one born from a philosophy. That philosophy was that all men are created equally and with the same natural rights. Rights that can neither be given, nor taken by a governing State. They are indeed unalienable; they cannot be taken away, they can only be infringed upon. They are dependant on no other person to obtain, as the only requisite for having them is human DNA.

Understand that any time something is needed to obtain a so-called “right”, such as a permit, license, or the express written consent of Major League Baseball it is no longer a right at all, it is a privilege.

After the country gained independence from Britain the Founders were so frightful of government they formed an extremely limited, loosely bound confederation of States rather than an overarching strong Federal government. The problem came when the States began to print too much money to pay off debts to France after the Revolution and in order to curb inflation some proposed instating a new Federal government that would have the power to coin money over the States. Thus, the U.S. Constitution was written and sent out to all the States for approval.

Immediately objections were raised, the Anti-Federalist claiming that the new government would have too much power. To answer these objections the Federalist Papers were written as a series of essays that are basically a comprehensive commentary on the entire constitution. One of the biggest objections to the constitution was that, while it did limit the powers of the government, it did not offer any written protection for the rights of the People.

Ultimately, the answer to this criticism was the Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton, whom I am not much of a fan of, was astonishingly correct in his assessment of the faulty nature of such a listing of rights in the Federalist No. 84.:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

So to put that bolded piece in modern terms it might say, “Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of individuals to own whatever firearm they choose shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions on owning inanimate objects may be imposed.” And yet we’re currently living in an age where the constitution has been completely circumvented and those very restrictions HAVE been imposed.

Hamilton was afraid that the government could use the limited amount of rights listed in the Bill of Rights to make the claim that rights are, in fact, limited. That they were dependent on the government itself to be granted. To make sure this would never happen, the framers included the ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights to give any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the People or the States, NOT the Federal government. Ironically, these amendments have been discredited by modern day statist for being too ambiguous and giving too many rights to the people, the very thing they were designed to do.

Without question, the myth that has been most debilitating to liberty in American history, is the myth that our Bill of Rights gives us our rights. This myth is why we have people dissecting the language of the second amendment trying to figure out it's true intent, whether it is meant to provide rights to individuals or to a collective mass. However, this is totally irrelevant, because the power to restrict gun ownership is not given to the Federal government in the Constitution.

Please limit comments on this post to the issue of gun rights. The next post will delve into the practical issues of guns and society; there we can talk all we want about violence and such.

Part two now posted here.

A Pretty Good Way to Spend a Weekend

Taking before pictures probably would ave given this a bit more of a dramatic effect, but since I didn't just imagine a lot of really tall weeds where the mulch is now.







And if anyone can help me and identify this ground covering I will offer them a very special ePrize.