Have you Forgotten? The Government is YOUR Servant.

Our Founders gave us the mechanism to stay true to and enforce our Constitution:  COMMON LAW GRAND JURIES.  Here is an article written by Rodger Dowdell of Manatee County, Florida on his research into a method,  method long used, to bring our wayward government under the control of the people.  The people are responsible for the government because the government exists to serve We The People.  In our history, we know how to do this.  This article looks into how we did it.     

1.      What is American Exceptionalism?

All human societies throughout history are of only one design, a pyramid with the rulers at the top and the People at the bottom , working for the rulers, be they Kings, Lords, Dictators, etc. Our Founders took that conventional design and inverted it by putting "We the People" as the highest ranking Sovereign. Then , below We the People are the States that the people created. The lowest ranking sovereign created in the design by our Founders is the Federal Government that the States created, which our Founders called at the time the General Government. So We the People are the highest ranking sovereign, the Consentors, and the States and the Federal Governments are our servants. WE ARE THE KING'S BENCH! ( the King's Bench was the supreme level tribunal in existence when the Declaration of Independence was signed and the link to the King as our sovereign was severed). 

Another way to think about American Exceptionalism is to think about the system one minute before our Declaration of Independence was signed and one minute after it was signed. One minute before signing, the highest ranking sovereign in the system in America was the King of England. It is the highest ranking sovereign that decides what is law and what isn't law. Now think about our situation one minute after declaring independence from the King. Who now is the highest ranking sovereign in the system?  Our a founders could have asked George Washington to be our King, but instead they decided that the highest ranking sovereign in this new nation would be We the People. We the People became the Kings! Furthermore, when we Kings meet as our Common Law Grand Jury, we meet as the highest ranking court of record in the land. This means that not even the US Supreme Court can review a decision made by one of our Common Law Grand Juries.

2. According to our a Constitution, who has both the authority and the responsibility to decide if an Act passed by Congress or any action by any government official or entity is Constitutional?

Although most Americans assume the Supreme Court of the United States owns this responsibility, it does not. Nowhere in Article 3 of our US Constitution , where the Judiciary is defined, is the US Supreme Court given any authority or responsibility to decide about the Constitutionality of an Act passed by Congress or rulings or Executive Orders from the Executive branch, or unconstitutional judicial decisions. In fact, our Constitution would probably not ever been ratified if the sovereign States knew an element of the central government, the Supreme Court, would be the arbiter of disputes between the States and their creation.Only the States and We the People have both the authority and the responsibility to decide if an Act of a Congress, an Executive Order, an agency rule or regulation, or judicial decisions are Constitutional.

3. Who are the parties to the contract we call our Constitution?

Our Constitution is a contract between 13 fully sovereign States that, through this contract, created a General Government with very limited, Enumerated Powers ( Article 1, Section 8). Note that We the People, the highest ranking sovereign in the system at the time, are not a party to this contract, and instead are considered beneficiaries of this contract.

4. Who is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in every County?

Unlike Hollywood scripts, every County Sheriff outranks the most senior officer from any other agency, including the FBI and our military leaders, etc.

5. According to our Constitution, what are the only 5 things that the Federal Government can enter a State to enforce?

The Federal Government is only authorized to enforce treason, treaty violations, piracy, counterfeiting, and establishing Post Roads within any States borders.  Why do we have a Federal government with 76 armed divisions coming into the States enforcing all kinds of Unconstitutional Acts, statutes, Rules, and Regulations?

6. As founded, does the USA have a Common Law or a Civil Law legal system?

The USA was founded as a Common Law nation. Progressives have created a separate civil system, referred to as statutes. Statutes were originally created to tell government workers what to do, but Progressives have mutated statutes to attempt to make us believe we must obey and conform to their system of statutes. Instead, we are natural persons, one of We the People, and not subject to statutes unless we agree voluntarily to be subject to them.

7. What is the main difference between Common Law and Civil Law legal systems?

A civil law system is based on the assumption that elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats are smart, moral, and honest enough to write a set of laws that will enable a just, productive, and happy society to flourish. Under a civil law system, the State is the highest ranking sovereign.  In contrast, common law systems assumes we aren't that smart, moral, and honest and therefore our laws need to come from observing nature , and therefore called Natural Laws.  In our Common Law system, We the People are the highest ranking sovereigns.  Two principles of Common Law are

1. For every injury there must be a remedy

2. For there to be a crime, there must be a victim whose body or property has been injured and

the State can not be the victim.

Three important values of Common Law are Justice, Honor, and Mercy. Justice in Common Law is synonymous with virtue.

8. What is the difference between a law and a statute?

Under our Common Law system, our laws come from nature and a few but profoundly common sensical.  Statutes come from governments and are intended to tell the government employees how to do their job.  Statutes do not apply to We the People unless we voluntarily give our permission

9. What is the definition of our main problem?

Some think our Constitution is faulty and needs some new Amendments, for example, from an Article 5 convention and then our problems will be fixed. Although our Constitution isn't perfect, the evidence suggests it worked really well while it was embraced and enforced. This suggests that the root cause of our problems does not lie within our Constitution itself. It therefore defies all logic that by simply adding some new Amendments all of a sudden our governments will embrace and enforce the newly modified Constitution when they continually trample on the current version.

10. If our Constitution is ok, what are root cause(s) of our “out of control” unconstitutional government behavior?

Simply put, we stopped enforcing our Constitution and our politicians oaths of office. We lost the main enforcement mechanism that the Founders designed into our system to decide whether an Act of Congress is Constitutional or not, the States and We the People. Why did we lose this critical enforcement mechanism?  In the case of the States, the political leadership generally is only concerned about accumulating more power and more money while remaining a member in good standing of the Monolithic Extractive Elite Ruling Class. Basically, they learned they could gain more money and power by going along with the Unconstitutional Federal behavior rather than by enforcing our Constitution to stop it.

In the case of We the People, the Progressives did a great job cutting out our Constitution from the majority of our educational processes while burying our Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) in 1946 , causing We the People to frankly fall asleep.

It is simply up to us, We the People , to wake up and take back our CONSENTORS role, using Common Law Grand Juries in every one of our 3141 counties to root out corruption and Unconstitutional behavior. Remember, WE ARE THE KINGS BENCH !

11. What is our current strategy and why is it doomed to fail?

Federal Government is a broken system with very strong and very bad incentives in place, and the major root cause is the loss of the States and We the People as the correction mechanism to hold our governments to our Constitution, the highest law of the land and simultaneously hold our politicians accountable to their oaths of office.

Our current strategy is called a “Hero strategy” which is to say we work hard to elect candidates that make promises but do not follow through on their promises. How many times have we worked hard to elect candidates who say all the right things and promise to vote conservatively, swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, and then once in Washington they get captured by the system and become moderates or even liberals voting for all kinds of Unconstitutional Acts? This is defined as our Hero Strategy, which is to think if we work hard enough, we will be able to hire enough “heroes” to go to Washington and straighten it out. This strategy is not working nor can it work, simply because the reality is our system of government is a truly broken system that must be repaired, and the repair MUST be to fix the root causes, which is the lack of the CONSENTORS acting to keep the Acts of Congress within Constitutional bounds while holding our politicians accountable to their oaths of office.

Simply put, our current strategy does not address the root causes of our problems.

No matter how many heroes we send, we cannot evade our duty as " CONSENTORS" to repair our system back to its original design if we want to restore our Constitution. We spend large amounts of energy and money to get candidates elected only to have them succumb to the existing incentives and start voting to optimize results for the Monolithic Extractive Elite Ruling Class.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned us that this day would come when duty to the political party was more important than duty to our country.

Summary:

If our Constitution is agreed by all to be the Supreme Law of the Land, why is it not being enforced?  We lost the primary enforcement mechanism originally designed by our Founders : the States and We the People, THE CONSENTORS : Why ? Monolithic Extractive Elite Ruling Class buried the Common Law Grand Jury in 1946 by calling it “obsolete” while We the People were not paying attention!

12. History of our Common Law Grand Jury

Because many of our Founders came from England, the USA was founded with a Common Law legal system. This is in contrast to the nations on the European continent, like Germany, France, etc. which adopted a Civil Law system. Under a civil law legal system, the laws are written by elected and unelected government officials and the State is considered the highest ranking Sovereign . The theory is that man's rational and moral capability is sufficient to develop a complete set of integrated laws for society to be peaceful and thrive.

By contrast, a Common Law system has as a foundation Natural Laws, and the theory is that man is neither smart or moral enough so we need to discover nature's laws and then aim to live in concert with them. In our Common Law system, We the People are the highest ranking sovereign instead of the State, and the State is our servant. To learn more about Common Law, please review the Common Law section of www.nationallibertyalliance.org under the Judicial Process tag on the left side of the Home page.

As an important part of a Common Law system and the critical enforcement mechanism for our constitution, the Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) was developed in England well before the USA gained its independence. The roots of our CLGJ go all the way back to Article 61 of the Magna Carta written in 1215. The CLGJ had three main purposes:

1. Protect the common people from unjust charges from Kings, Lords, Prosecutors, and other people in power.

2. From evidence either discovered or given to it, investigate who should be charged for crimes committed and create an indictment or presentment against the likely criminals, while judging both the facts and the law

3. Reach into both the elected and unelected governments and root out corruption. Of course corruption includes any behavior that is repugnant to our Constitution.  For 75 years after the ratification of our Constitution, the enforcement mechanism of the CLGJ kept all Federal spending constrained to the Enumerated Powers in Article 1 , Section 8.

In the design of the government that our Founders decided upon, the CLGJ plays a critical role beyond keeping over zealous prosecutors, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges in check.

Common Law Grand Juries are the key way for We the People to keep the government centered on our Constitution. When a government official ignored our Constitution, he or she would likely face a presentment from the CLGJ, be suspended from office, and have to stand trial in front of the Petite Jury.

The American version of the Common Law Grand Jury is so critical to the proper operation of our system of government that it is included in the 5th Amendment to our Constitution, which says among other things that " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..."

In 1992, a critical event happened when US Supreme Court Justice Scalia writing the majority(6-3) opinion called the CLGJ ...the 4th branch of our government owned by We the People, a Constitutional fixture fully independent and separate from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The CLGJ is made up of 25 persons from We the People. Together, they have both the authority and the responsibility to investigate ANY issues that gain their attention. Because it is an investigative body, a person testifying to the CLGJ cannot bring a lawyer with them. All investigations and deliberations of the CLGJ are secret, with only the indictments or presentment voted by the CLGJ becoming public. Only the foreperson, elected by the CLGJ, becomes known publically as he/she must sign the indictments and presentments. Stiff jail terms are the penalty for anyone who interferes in any way with the operations of the CLGJ .

Some of the power of a CLGJ can be quickly comprehended by understanding two of the simple

principles of Common Law:

1. For every injury, there must be a remedy

2. For a crime to have been committed, there must be a victim and the Government cannot be the victim.

Think for a minute on how many people are rotting their lives away in our jails without causing an injury to a victim ? The civil law statute based system has grown into a huge business where even the judges retirement accounts get portions of the fines we pay.

13. Whatever happened to our CLGJ?

The Progressives from both parties wanted to implement a very different design of our government than what our Founders laid out in our Constitution. As they attempted to make “progress” past our Constitution, they quickly learned that if the population remained very educated and aware of the meaning of our Constitution, they stood little chance of changing our society they way they wanted. So they decided to sever the connection between We the People and our Constitution. They set about " burying" our Constitution in the late 1800's and early 1900's by first omitting it from public education and law schools. Then, in 1946, the Progressives used an opportunity to rewrite the US Penal Code to attempt to bury our CLGJ by simply calling our Common Law Grand Jury " obsolete". (see link below)

Instead of having a CLGJ looking over the shoulder of politicians and making sure they were embracing our Constitution while accountable to their oaths of office, the Progressives wanted a very different type of Grand Jury that they could then fully control. We call these Grand Juries “Puppet Grand Juries” or “Statutes” because they are under the control of the prosecutors and the judges. This is what today's Grand Juries have become....”Puppet grand juries” that only consider the evidence that the Prosecutor wants them to see and typically do only what the prosecutor and judge wants them to do.

However, our CLGJ is not obsolete because it is embedded firmly in our 5th Amendment. To make it obsolete, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Which way forward?

Luckily the Progressives did not get our Constitution changed. Also, luckily, there is a group of men in NY, lead by John Darash and Gerard Aprea, who have established the National Liberty Alliance in order to educate We the People on both the history of our CLGJ and how we can go about reestablishing them. We are on a mission to bind our government with the chains of our Constitution!

14. USING OUR CONSTITUTION TO RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION

Nullify, Present, Indite

Benefits of reestablishing our Common Law Grand Juries

Most of the problems we face as a nation have as a root cause the lack of adherence to our Constitution. The Founders designed a very effective system that the Progressives modified to their liking. For example, the Founders wrote a list of Enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, yet today most of the spending and enforcement actions of the Feds are outside these enumerated powers. Additional behaviors like creating the Federal Reserve Bank and the initiating of war by the President are clearly Unconstitutional.

How did the Founders expect We the People to apply corrective action to a government that deviated from the 18 Enumerated Powers in Article 1, Section 8? They gave us the best tool for the job, the Common Law Grand Jury.

Additionally, the CLGJ can act as direct Consentors by deciding that any Act of Congress is defective because it is repugnant to our Constitution , and therefore null and void from the time of its creation, with no act needing to be passed to so declare. The CLGJ will then simply refuse to indict anybody charged with violating such a Act. This means, for example, that issues like Common Core, Agenda 21, gun control, and Obamacare, which are clearly unconstitutional simply because guns, education, development, and health care issues are NOT among the 18 Enumerated Powers granted to our Federal Government by the Sovereign States, would likely become null and void as CLGJ refuses to indict anyone charged with violating such unconstitutional Acts. By the way, grand and petite jury nullification is the primary way we eliminated Prohibition.

CLGJ can and will likely address both voter fraud and illegal immigrants wherever found. Because the CLGJ is the highest-level court of record, the decisions of the CLGJ are not reviewable or appealable unless the CLGJ decision impinges on someone's rights. Even the US Supreme Court can not overturn a decision by the CLGJ.

Also, a CLGJ can decide to hold accountable those in political office to their oath of office, accountable to the Constitution, and can hold all politicians accountable to their constituents by preventing politicians from taking campaign money from " special interests " and lobbyists because that is in fact bribery, an indictable offense.

15. What is a Writ?

A writ is an order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.

16. What is a Writ of Mandamus?

We command. This is a writ which issues from a court of superior jurisdiction and is directed to a private or municipal corporation, or any of its officers, or to an executive, administrative, or judicial officer, or to an inferior court, commanding the performance of a particular act therein specified, and belonging to his or their public, official, or ministerial duty, or directing the restoration of the complainant to rights or privileges of which he has been illegally deprived.

17. What is the difference between the Constitution for the United States and the Constitution of the United States?   TBD

18. What is corporatism and why does it exist? 

Every government organization keeps at least two sets of accounting records. One is shown to the public and the other, referred to as Comprehensive Annual Financial Review (CAFR), is frequently kept hidden from the public.  Usually most government organizations have accumulated significant surpluses, reserves, and pension funds (?). For example, Manatee County has $xxx. These funds get invested using professional money managers in various financial instruments including common stocks.  This implies that the sum of all government funds invested in common stocks makes governments the biggest shareholders in many companies. This implies when the government asks a corporation to do something or not do something, the business will be highly likely to comply, even if it is unconstitutional.

Please consider taking a serious interest and role in Restoring Our Constitution by reestablishing the primary tool our Founders designed into our system, our COMMON LAW GRAND JURY !

References

Best overall site explaining history of CLGJ and how to reestablish a CLGJ in your county:

www.nationallibertyalliance.org

To see where our Common Law originates, see Article 61 in the Magna Carta at http://

www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magna.htm

Everyone interested in becoming a jurist needs to read and understand: download

The Common Law Grand Jury Handbook from www.nationallibertyalliance.org or buy it at

Amazon.com

A book published in 1963 that covers the history of the Common Law Grand Jury from 1776

through 1941:  The People's Panel book at

http://ussawatchdog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the_peoples_panel_rotated.pdf#page=126&zoom=90,127,12

Here is a link from a retired lawyer explaining how the Progressives in 1946 used an opportunity

to rewrite the US Penal Code to announce unilaterally that Common Law Grand Juries are

considered "obsolete".

http://www.clgj.info/the-4th-branch-of-government.html

Link to US Supreme Court Justice Scalia's 1992 majority (6-3) opinion in US v Williams

explaining the independence of our CLGJ:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZO.html

Here is a recently posted pretty clear summary of the key points about Common Law Grand

Juries:  http://lisaleaks.com/2014/01/26/common-law-grand-jury/

The Exhausting Regime of Barack Obama

Have you noticed that living in America right now is like living in a foreign country.  There is no America here right now.  There is no fun, no triumph for anyone while under the Obama regime?  Why is life so enervating?  So deadening?  So hopeless? 
   

I have a theory.  Try this on. 

A collectivist does not see individuals, and all of life is first and foremost individual.  This is true of all life, not just human life, but is the most pronounced in human beings since the role of the mind is the essence of being human.  I assert that Barack Obama and the party that spawned him is the Party of Death, the killer party.  And, this is so because it does not relate to individuals as motive power, the locus of the generator of life. 

 

It is so bad right now that the mayor of New York is willing to do away with a means for an individual to improve himself by doing away with charter schools – schools which are more effective in teaching kids.  In other words the lust for ignoring the basic truth of life is so strong that the collectivists don't hesitate to work for ignorance and stupidity in order to drive everyone to the same level.  If this isn’t evil, what is?

I don’t think I’ve seen the moral bankruptcy of liberalism so clearly as it is now displayed.  Obama seems to take no pride in being President of the greatest country on earth.  He’d rather take a “selfie” as would a teenager.  It is though he works to prove to us and the world that we are nothing more than ordinary - if that.

What this means in practice is that he has to do things counter to you loving your life.  He does it by tying everyone to everyone else.  In this way, individuality is meaningless.  And that kills the human spirit - the human vitality.

The moral means “pertaining to the life force.”  A moral code is a set of values and principles which follow from the knowledge of what it takes to maintain and strengthen one’s energy for living life.  These values are moral values.

Nowhere in human life does forcing someone without his consent to support another person increase one’s vitality.  Helping another does sometimes increase one’s own vitality, but the element of force completely denies that.  One’s vitality is not subject to government edict, except to diminish it.  The only way a government can support human vitality is to get out of the way and let the individual work that out. 

Given this, it is clear to me that we are feeling enervated because we are being ruled by an immoral government.

The disgusting part is that the government rules us cloaked in the claim of moral superiority.  Never have so many been so wrong.  Never has there been such a misunderstanding of what life is and what is necessary to keep it going.  Believe me it isn't a cot and a hot meal, although that's nice sometimes.

I’ve had enough of this tripe.  I hate it.  It’s time, once again, for America to pull itself out of this mire – pull itself up by the bootstraps.  How?  Reestablish what is important – the individual and his right to his life.  It's time for America to teach the world to sing once again.  We know how to do that and will when we are free.    

How Marxism Ruined Countries and Now An Individual

Marxism is a philosophy of "us vs. them."  In the case of Marx, it was the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie.

Countries have tried to live by it and have destroyed themselves.  Russia, Germany, China come to mind.  There are countries with mixtures of Marxism with freedom and they limp along because of the destructive nature of Marxism.

Fundamentally, it is false - in defiance of reality.

The truth is, human beings are human beings.  They can believe one thing today, become aware of something different and change their belief to something else tomorrow.  That follows from the nature of the human mind, man's means of survival.

Marxism fails because it does not make room for the human mind.  It demands that you have something to be against.  Thus it cannot hold people as a possibility, the possibility that they can grow and become something greater in the future. 

Now we see Obama destroying himself before the world - for the same reason.  He always construes everything in terms of those against him.  It's "us vs. them."  He goes after the Republicans for this reason.  Now he is going after Fox News.  Why?  He has to have an enemy.  This is how he exists.

In his recent interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, he blames his troubles on the view of him that  Fox News has presented.  With their mouths shut, he would be able to succeed - he thinks.

(Obama was reared with these ideas from the beginning and, as far as I am able to discern, he built on them his whole life.  The integration of these ideas into his life and his smoothness in speaking is part of what gives him some feel of authenticity.  But that can only go so far because the ideas are not true to reality.)

Cannot people see this destructive seed in Barack Obama?  This is the root of it.  From this, a robust tyrant would have Fox News in the gulag - along with everyone else that he sees as the "them."  This is what Hitler did; what Stalin did; what Mao did.  Although Obama is a smooth operator, he germinated from the same philosophical root.  

And there is no satiation to this demand.  This is why Obama is the Great Divider - everywhere he goes.  His philosophy drives him to be this way.  (Is it true that Michelle has had it?)

And this is why his approach to life is pre-Enlightenment.  The United States arose out of the Enlightenment.  Is there no wonder we have a conflict here?  Obama didn't make it that far.    

We Have A Serious Problem

When the President lied, telling us we could keep our healthcare, he destroyed his ability to persuade.  Most people are no longer able to hear him. 

When the President told us he would write his own laws and enforce the ones on the books according to his whim, he became the "fuck you" President.  He destroyed the value of our voices via our representatives. 

How can we conclude anything other than this President despises America; and how can we conclude anything other than this Congress which is not in full revolt over its castration is fast becoming not our means for civil government but our enemy for civil government?

What are we to do?  Wait?  

 

What about the poor, the disabled, and the helpless?

• What about the poor, the disabled, and the helpless? How do they fare under laissez-faire?  Here is an article the Facebook page of The Objective Standard.  This answers the moral issue that confuses so many around this question - and the issue which politicians use to push and pull people around by guilt. 
  
  To answer this question, we must bear in mind that very few people are genuinely helpless or unable to support themselves; the great majority of people are capable of acting as their life requires. And if a person chooses to live and is capable of supporting himself, he has a moral responsibility to do so; if he refuses to support himself and, instead, steals, begs, or seeks handouts, he is acting parasitically and immorally.
  
  With this in mind, let us consider the position of the poor, the disabled, and the helpless in a truly capitalist system. But we must take them one at a time, for they are not necessarily one and the same.
  
  As to the poor: Capitalism leaves each individual free to think, work, and make as much money as he is willing and able to earn. No other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a poor person wants to work his way out of poverty—as countless poor people have done—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.
  
  Some people are not concerned with being wealthy, but this does not make them immoral. While an artist or a gardener might be financially poor, he is not by that fact less moral than a CEO or an athlete who is financially rich. A person’s monetary wealth does not determine his moral status. His choices and actions do: Are they rational or irrational—life-promoting or life-retarding, selfish or selfless, honest or dishonest? Morally speaking, that is what matters. If having more money is honestly important to a person, he should act accordingly by, for instance, seeking a higher-paying job, investing his money more wisely, or starting a business of his own. And capitalism not only leaves everyone—including the poor—completely free to do so; it also provides an ever-increasing flow of educational possibilities and moneymaking opportunities.
  
  As to the disabled: Capitalism leaves them free to compensate for their disabilities by means of any remaining abilities they might have. Again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person lacks ability in some respect but still has abilities in other respects, he is fully free to use his existing abilities to support and further his life—as many disabled people do. For instance: A deaf person might choose to pursue a career in genetics, architecture, or accounting. A blind person might choose to pursue a career in music, radio, or psychology. A paraplegic might choose to pursue a career in law, education, or writing. And today—with the technology made possible by freer markets—even a quadriplegic can learn to support himself; he might pursue a career in finance, economics, or computer programming.
  
  When disabled people are fully free to act on their judgment, there is usually something they can do to compensate for their shortcomings. And capitalism not only leaves them completely free to do so; it also makes available an ever-increasing flow of enabling technology.
  
  Now, as to the helpless: It is crucial here to acknowledge that very few people actually fall into this extremely unfortunate category. At this point, we are talking only about people who are severely retarded, have a totally debilitating disease, or are injured to the extent that they are unable to support themselves by any means. What happens to such people in a laissez-faire society? Capitalism leaves each individual free to offer them as much charity as he is able and willing to offer. Once again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person has the means and the desire to assist the helpless—as many people do—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t have the means, he can’t offer them assistance. And whether he has the means or not, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.
  
  But, one might wonder, what if everyone’s rights are respected, yet no one wants to help the helpless.
  
  As always, to address this concern we must observe the relevant facts. What the helpless need but cannot produce is life-serving values; that’s what makes them helpless. Such values can be produced only by able people; hence the term able. But able people can produce values only if they are free to act on the very thing that makes them able: their judgment. The basic social condition that makes human life possible is freedom—freedom from the initiation of physical force—the freedom of each individual to act on the judgment of his own mind.
  
  Thus, respect for individual rights is as much in the best interest of the helpless as it is in the best interest of the able—if not more so. Think about it: If the able are not free, they cannot live (as human beings); and if the able cannot live, what happens to the helpless? Clearly, if the helpless are to be helped, they (and everyone who cares about them) must respect individual rights—including the rights of the able.
  
  Observe further that while in reality there are very few genuinely helpless people, when individual rights are respected there are plenty of people who are willing and able to help them. Look around: Do you ever see people working with the mentally retarded? Ask your friends: Would they ever donate money to help a poor child with leukemia? Ask yourself: Would you ever offer assistance to a victim of a devastating accident? Consider this: Even in the semi-free, mixed economy of the United States today—in which producers are heavily and immorally taxed—the amount of money voluntarily donated to charity is enormous; in 1999 alone, tax-strapped Americans gave over $190 billion to charity.
  
  But, one might suppose, isn’t that because people are partly altruistic and not fully selfish? Why would a true egoist ever want to help the helpless?
  
  To be sure, a truly selfish person would not offer “help” to bums who are in factnot “helpless” but rather choose to be parasites. Only a fool or an altruist would do that. But to answer the question of why an egoist would ever want to help people who genuinely cannot support themselves, we need only consider the alternatives—of which there are two: A person can either help the helpless or not help them. So here is the question every egoist has to answer for himself. Which environment do I think is in my best interest: one in which genuinely helpless people suffer and die in the streets, or one in which I voluntarily contribute some small fraction of my time, effort, or money to give them a hand?
  
  I certainly know which environment is in my best interest, and I imagine you know which is in yours. But this is something every individual has to decide for himself—and no one has a moral right to force him one way or the other. Fortunately, the decision does not require advanced mathematics; it merely requires genuine self-interest, reverence for human life, and basic logic.
  
  Rational egoism, true egoism, does not say: “Be indifferent to other human beings” or “Don’t help people.” It says: “If one wants to live as a human being and achieve genuine happiness, one must observe reality; one must think; one must not accept contradictions; one must pursue one’s life-serving values; one must not surrender greater values for the sake of lesser ones; one must be honest; one must have integrity”; and so on. If a person thinks that helping certain other people is in his best interest, he should act accordingly. And capitalism not only leaves everyone completely free to do so; it also enables people to create enormous amounts of surplus wealth with which to do it.
  
  When people are free to produce as much wealth as they are able and willing to produce—and free to do with their wealth whatever they choose to do with it—many people become very rich. Add to this the fact that truly self-interested people care about human life—they, after all, are the ones who recognize that it is the standard of moral value—and thus do not want other human beings to suffer and die needlessly, and we have a clear answer to the question, “What if no one wants to help the helpless?” The concern is simply unwarranted. The fact is that many people—including presumably the people who ask the question—do want to help the helpless. And in a truly capitalist society, no one would be allowed to stop them. . . .
  
  http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-fall/civilized-society.asp

How Do You Like Communist America?

How do you like the communizing of America?  All four morally-equivalent systems, socialism, communism, nazism and welfare statism, transfer the property of the individual to the government.  The right to property is the right to the ownership of property which is the right of use and disposal of such property.  In Russia, the communists simply stole the property and used it for their desires.  In America, they order you to use it for their desires.  Same thing.  Same effect.

The problem:  You have a life to take care of - yours.  It includes all that you have taken on - and you are either prevented from doing that or you find it increasingly difficult to do that.

Forget their noble purposes.  Those are window dressing.  They are the means to keep you morally paralyzed while they take over your wealth, your means for you living your life.

Remember, the moral pertains to your life force.  To be moral is to take actions which strengthen your life force - which strengthen your will to live. 
 
The Marxists' (Communists, Socialists, Nazis, Welfare statists) means of weakening your life force is moral paralysis.  You have to hesitate, freeze, or somehow be unable to stand for yourself in the face of other people.  Political correctness is about moral paralysis.  In America this is accomplished by two means - beseeching you to care for or act nice to your neighbor and beseeching you to care for the planet. 

Anyone who places these values above himself (i.e., can be guilt-tripped by these values) or succumbs to his fear of those who are taking over is ripe for the takeover.  The evil Marxists - Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Jarrett, Michelle, the NAACP, all of the Soros organizations, the UN (read their communist charter of Human Rights) - are on the march. 

This is true.  Marxism and its political progeny - communism, socialism, national socialism, the welfare state - are all anti-human being in the name of pro-human being.  This murderous ideology has run rampant for over a hundred years.  It fails everywhere and has been responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million human beings.  It is the single biggest killer of human beings - bar none.  It knows no race or nationality.  (Don't talk to me about the wonderful health care system of Cuba.  It's a poverty-stricken pigsty of a system and that's a first-hand report from a doctor.  Michael Moore was duped or is a flat out liar.)

And, either this evil is going to win or liberty is going to win.  America is human beings' final hope.  People around the world are rooting for us.  It is we who have to stand up.  So you better be ready to stand up to the guilt-tripping.

What do you say when someone says or implies you ought to take care of your neighbor?  What do you say when someone says or implies you ought to take care of the planet? 

How about this?  I do support my neighbor.  He's an individual in his own right.  I don't take care of him.  We interact as self-respecting individuals and if he needs something, he knows that within the limits of individual rights respecting behavior, he has my support for him to have that.  I use my wealth for my life which includes responding to my network of human beings.  The only way I can be prevented from that is if you take my means to do that.  

Or, I do take care of the planet.  I keep my car from belching dirty smoke into the air.  I don't poison the ground and I keep my yard mowed and my place tidy.  I manage my trash.  Thank you very much.  Now get the fuck out of here.       

     

The World War III Project! Why?

Agitprop President

For the longest time I've been raging at our President, Obama.  He lies regularly.  He will say anything and all the people I know have tuned him out.  What is going on?

Yesterday I was talking to an American citizen who migrated here from Russia.  While there, he worked as an artist creating agitprop art for the communist regime.  (It was a ho-hum job since the moral fervor for communism was long dead.)  That's when it occurred to me that Obama is not speaking to be believed.  He's speaking to create agitprop.

One thing everyone grants to Obama is that he's purposeful.  He works hard.  But, ironically, his purpose does not jive with one appropriate to a president looking out for his country.  In fact, quite the opposite.  So maybe this isn't his country.   

Race relations is one example.  Race has been a sensitive issue in America for a long time.  Actually in our day, I don't sense it is much of an issue - except that now it is purposely being aroused by the racebaiters - Sharpton, Jackson, and now other followers of their lead such as Oprah - and we are seeing that a new unsureness about what people of the other race are thinking.  Where before, we just got busy building trust between individuals, now we wait to see where they are first.  Do issues of skin color affect them?  Obviously it does us if we are waiting on a signal regarding that issue.  All of this uncertainty is being generated at will.

In the face of this, Obama (and Holder) have a tremendous opportunity to come down on the side of all people regardless of the color of their skin.  Except they don't.  Holder's handling of the Black Panthers threating voters in Philadelphia right after the 2008 election put whites on guard.  Whoa!  This is not a government for all the people.  He, nor Obama, has redeemed himself from that slap against America.

Why is this happening when it so easily could be used for statement of an opposite inclusive position like Martin Luther King's rather than letting divisive haters like Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan run wild.  It is interesting that under Obama a statue of MLK was placed on the Washington Mall that doesn't even look like him.  Rather it looks like a Chinese communist kind of sculpture, representing King not as the sensitive impassioned visionary leader that he was but as a hard, rigid leader that he wasn't.  The statue, in my opinion, is a disgrace to MLK and his American character.

All of this lets me know that something else is going on.  We don't have a black American president.  Rather we have a black Foreigner president.  For us that judge our leaders related to the values of this country and its forming, Obama is a pariah.  So what is going on?
   
Consider agitprop.  What is agitprop?  The word is a combination of two words - agitation and propaganda.  It is used by leaders to dislodge a people from their old way of thinking by agitating them and then coming from and spreading the propaganda of whatever ideology they want to install on the population.

We expect Obama to be on our side.  We expect him to tell us the truth as he works to guide our country.  Instead we find that he cares not a whit about the truth.  You can find any number of videos that show you blatant opposite statements with no explanation of why that is the case.

I'm now thinking that the charge of lying makes no difference with him because he's not coming from a frame of reference where lying is a detriment.  He comes from a different frame of reference.  He's able to get up every morning and continue speaking as if everything is fine when it is anything but fine - with us, that is.  That's because his work is to install a new ideology on the American people.  And what better way to do that than not speak to their values.  Rather, just keep coming from what he says we are now - a socialist/communist state.  Just keep coming from an ancient political view - an elite ruling class and the peons who work and labor so the elite can vacation at horrendous cost on the backs of the peons.  This is Obama and Michelle.  They are not American.  They are the people that the American idea got rid of.  They are the people that all of us have no chance at a life of our own.  We will only have the life they decree for us.    

I assume you have noticed that he's taking over the entire health care industry with Obamacare and yesterday announced that he will be taking over the higher education industry by judging and evaluating them.  Of course the next step will be to root out any of the intellectuals who are independent thinkers that might come up with theories that go against socialism/communism.  All profs are now property of the state. 

Start looking at what is going on from the position of agitprop rather than conversations that surround the attainment of America's values.

Obama likes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  He sends them money and weapons.  If you look into the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, you will learn that they were formed in 1928 and it wasn't long until they were cavorting with Hitler.  Hitler went to the Middle East to support them and they went to Germany to march with him.  In common they wanted to destroy the Jew.  Now, on their way to getting that job done by destroying Israel, they need to destroy the Christians first - which they are doing in Egypt.  Is Obama speaking out against this?  No.  Obama is a Muslim - plain and simple - and he supports radical Muslim power.  I don't think there is any exception to this.

What he is doing does not set with many Americans and I can't believe that it would be American policy except under Obama who is greasing the skids for radical Muslim power.  One thing Obama does is hang back so that the interpreters can color his actions.  While all of this is madly going on in the Middle East, he goes on vacation and we see some silly, cheerleader-like pics coming from Martha's Vineyard.  If we grant Obama his just due, we are supposed to see him having well-deserved light-hearted fun.  Given that "Crystalnacht" is happening against Coptic Christians in Egypt and he says nothing, our minds reel and boggle all the while we get more agitated.

Ahem (clearing my throat), this is the purpose of agitprop.  He thinks he's doing just fine.      

Seattle City Government Embraces Maoism

Mao began the idea of politically correct speaking. Seattle is the latest proponent and is throwing their lot in with the communists - you know, those people who murdered millions of "citizens" (oops, that's one of the bad words in Seattle).  There can be no liberty if one cannot freely speak.  Just because some person may find a phrase offensive is not a reason to annihilate free speech.  Seattle ought to be very, very ashamed.  There is NOTHING admirable about making the word "citizen" and "brown bag" off limits in Seattle.  What a bunch of idiots.

The two words/phrases were stricken from the vocabulary by fiat in order to protect some people's feelings.  When law is made for non-objective feelings rather than for objective damage, it will get carried out by feelings.  Just remember, Seattle, lynch mobs happen because of feelings.  That's exactly the kind of governance, in principle, that Seattle is an example for.  Whoa!  Wake up!

You can get the flavor of Communist China under this kind of law in Confessions:  An Innocent Life in Communist China by Kang Zhengguo.

Political Liberty at war with "Freedom"

Political liberty is now seen as being stingy. Anyone who speaks for liberty is seen as excluding people from the bounty of government - benefits. It is Obamacare, according to Pelosi, that will give people the "freedom" to play the guitar and pursue other interests in one's life. This is "freedom" in the upside-down world of the Progressive. So now we have political liberty set against "freedom."

But it is worse than this. Obamacare has to be paid for. And it is not just paid for by big business. It's paid for by every federal tax on every business and every employee and every other individual. And all of these taxes are not voluntary. They are extracted at the point of the government's gun. So surprise! "Freedom" = slavery. Only a slave is forced to act against his will when he has not committed a crime.

The United States has entered the netherworld realm of the totalitarian state - a world without anything approaching clean, fully breathable oxygen. We've been on this course, headed this way for a hundred years and now we are here. We see explicitly, democracy reduced to nothing more than window dressing for a President who does what he wants all the while lying that he's limited by the Constitution and Congress.

And none of this is going to get better for now, at least. We will know liberty has a chance when we see that the place and role of private property rises in importance in the course of human events - both personally and socially. In a society of individual men, private property is the way for agreements and the law to be objective. Without it, it's the hopeless struggle for power by increasingly ruthless men.

The more our leaders thrive on the backs of the "collective", a concept comprised of "non-people," we will continue to slide into the "no standards - this is how I feel about it now" abyss. The Presidency of hope has earned what he came for - no hope.

Aren't contradictions wonderful?

In Twelve Short Years

Compare how an emergency gets handled in a free state by independent individuals and a police state by every individual seen as a potential criminal.

First we have independent boat owners lifting people off the southern tip of Manhattan Island on 9/11.  Second we have the police searching for a bomber. The situations are different. How does the second imply snipers and tanks?

How the Community Organizer Works (To Transform America to a Collectivist State)

Many Americans by now are getting the drift. We have a man in the White House who is causing one dissension after another and imposing his will on the people of this land. He doesn’t do it like a regular dictator. He does it by creating massive opposing sides (dissension) where there were none and where the people had no need of solutions. To satisfy the outcry, he brings into existence solutions which his agenda demands. All of these solutions are collectivist solutions and what we end up with is not the United States of America, conceived in liberty and justice for all, but a stratified state where there are the elite who run it and the rest of us who, with the choice of slaves, pay for it.

For example, there was no demand for a public health system, and yet, he brought it into existence. There was no demand for gun control, yet he is working to bring it into existence. There was no demand by the workers for General Motors’ investors money, yet he stole their money and gave it to the unions. There was no general outcry for a green economy and the intellectual backing for it is quite suspect, yet we have thousands of regulations placed on industry and business. On and on, there was no demand, and yet we have solutions.

There has been a demand to get the government’s spending under control so that it doesn’t upend the United States. No solution. There has been a demand for jobs and healthy economy. No solution. There has been a demand for justice in the application of laws. No solution and in fact, there is more favoritism in the application of laws than ever before. One of the salient characteristics of Obama’s passing Obamacare was that he had to excuse a lot of companies from it. Now what kind of unjust mess is that?  He has destroyed “equal under the law” in favor of special treatments, special interests and inequality under the law. Obama is the anti-government.  This isn’t capitalism where private property reigns supreme. Not even close.  It’s fascism* pure and unadulterated.  It is corruption run amok. 

And look what Feinstein wants to do on gun control.  Here.

On and on this goes. We, the country, is under the spell of a master manipulator – a manipulator who can manipulate whole societies and impose his will. The art of this kind of a manipulator is known as “community organizing.”

There is something that sounds wholesome about a community organizer – like his work is going to help a community. But that is wholly false. What is true is that he uses the motive energy that is latent in a community.  He brings it to the surface when he speaks or causes some injustice to some people. Then he uses that energy for his ends – not the community’s ends. He rides that energy like the wind, obtaining political power.  But when all is said and done, the community lies in tatters and the end was nothing more than the destruction of the community itself. All of the injustice from the favoritism to the hatred that had to be created to mobilize voters wrecks community. The ostensible end matters not and is not accomplished.

An example I am thinking of is when Barack Obama worked up a South Chicago community that had a high crime rate over policemen patrolling their neighborhoods. He said the police were racists and that was why they were stopping their black teenage boys when they were looking like they were up to no good. So after he got the community to cry out, he got the cops stopped.  Once they went away, guess what happened? That’s right, the community suffered an even higher crime rate. So, Obama used that community to get his name out there and make his political point, namely that he was a man to be reckoned with, and left the people worse off by his working with them. This is typical.

We can expect to see a more stratified society because Obama is creating those who are with him – who get the money he lays his hands on by being President – and those who are against him. Obama does not listen to the American people to solve real problems. He listens to them as a battle of energies that he is causing. God knows what he was trying to do with Fast and Furious. Or Benghazi. He listens for when he has the backing to make his move for HIS agenda. And, just as in the Obamacare bill, when the time is right, he will do anything to get the result he wants. He will violate the law. (Courts are beginning to rule against him now.)  He will get a toady into Congress. (Al Franken?  Are you kidding?  By hook and by crook he got there and then cast the 60th vote in the Senate which gave Obama his healthcare program.)  He exempts people from the dratted bill if their opposition could hurt his campaign.  He will keep people up all night.  Miss Christmas.  Anything. That’s how important his agenda and unimportant the people’s will is to him.  When you have gall stones removed in an operating room at your local post office, it will hit you that you are not important.  (OK, I hope I'm exaggerating on that one.)  

Obama, it has been noted, is always campaigning.  His is a campaign for power - political power - wielded by him.  That is all it is and we are being used by him for that.  How many of us have noticed that we the individuals aren't important and even that we, the United States, is not important.  This is why.  

He’s gotten the political atmosphere so charged that if a person speaks against him, he is an automatic racist. In his political world, ideas are not only not necessary, they are a threat.  Ideas, are to be derided and not admitted into any conversation. Accusing someone of being a racist ends the conversation. He and his cohorts are one massive use of the Argument from Intimidation.**

He does this in many areas. If you are a Republican, you hate old people and women. You are always a threat to a woman’s sexual freedom and her ability to get contraception.  And, oh yes, you do hate gays and who knows what you would do to them. On and on it goes even though there is no truth in any of this as a generality.  Being on the libertarian/conservative side myself, I’ve been awed by the openness and rights-observing demeanor of my side. My opinion is that the racists – those who think of skin color first – are on the Left. They always point the finger away from themselves because they are the ones who are and rely on racism as intimidation. We have seen racism go from an unspoken dirty little secret to an open battle of political warfare. Those that think of it first and use it are the modern racists, bringing skin color to the front and center of every conversation.  The political payoff for those that claim you are racist against them is that they then claim being a victim of you.  "Oh, that poor victim.  Poor baby."  We have to get that war is going on here.

The thing that allows Obama to get away with his efforts is 1) he identifies with being black and people identify him with being black which plays into the racial dynamic of this country (this in spite of his working almost entirely with whites) (The racial dynamic revolves around blacks given the moral high ground because they were slaves.  This, by the way, if they are ever to hold themselves as equal, has to stop.  They are responsible for their actions, end of story.  The past is the past.  Forgedduboudit), 2) he has a way of keeping his voice and demeanor within the normal range such that people think he is the rational one in the room, 3) he lies and says whatever he has to in front of the audience he is addressing and lets the disarray be part of the general hubbub and dissension of the populace.***  Generally I’ve found the best way to predict what he will do is to know that it will be the opposite of what he says.  And 4) he has developed a constituency of the ignorant, the dependent, the guilty, the looters from the intellectual/big business class who profit directly from his policies, and those who want to see America, the very idea of liberty and justice for all, destroyed. We know the latter because they will not lift a finger or a syllable to the slavery that is still plentiful in Africa and the Middle East, and will make America wrong for originally admitting and then correcting the matter of slavery. These people are evil and up to no good.  The Reverend Wright is one of these people. 

Obama fooled us.  We thought he would come from the other side of the race matter and by his work, put race behind us.  Ha, ha, ho, ho, ho!

_____________________________________________

*Fascism is when the title to property is held by the individual, but the use and disposal of the property is controlled by the government.  Fascism can easily lead to a totalitarian state because, after all, the state has created a problem with all of those people who still want to control the use of their property in order to live.  Fascism is a government set against human life.  People go on strike and withdraw because they cannot legally operate within the state to live.
**Argument from Intimidation
***Here's one way Obama causes dissension, making sure we are all at odds with each other. 
How Saul Alinsky Taught Obama to Say One Thing and Do the Opposite.

Guns Save Lives

We have got to hold the government and administrators of various kinds responsible for all the killing that is going on – especially in schools. Because these places are gun free zones often created by law or by well-intentioned but ignorant school officials, the victims of these shootings and those that would protect them are left defenseless.

This is a government/administration problem – not an ordinary citizen problem. Let’s put the blame where it belongs. Whoever prevents the presence of guns for protection in a public school or other gathering spot for the public is the real cause of the reach and extent of the violence that occurs in these places. We need to see Senator Feinstein and President Obama because of their advocacy and actions, as advocates of murder and mayhem. They are the ones preventing people from protecting themselves. Although they try to sound like our protectors, they are the opposite. They are our destroyers.

Slavery

The Democratic National Convention ran this ad this week:



Given that the government is FORCE, if you believe this or positively resonate with it in any way, you possess the slave mentality. The Democrats talk to you and respond to you as that mentality. What is the primary currency of that mentality? Being the victim.

I've recently run into people who are all worked up over race. You would think that Jim Crow was still in full force. Even though, as a product of the Civil Rights Movement of the late 50's and 60's, all the laws having anything to do with racial barriers were erased from the law books and even though blacks have now attained the highest office in the land, many still come from the slave mentality - the victim mentality. They stop themselves from advancing and would rather whine at their imagined barriers.

The jig is up on that one. It doesn't fly. And all that Critical Race Theory stuff is pure venal bullshit that only turns those who believe it or repeat it into racists themselves.

Frankly, I can barely listen to the Democrats and their leaders. I feel powerless supporting the people who fall for their conversation. Enslavement to being victim is screamed over and over. It's sad and depressing. It's no wonder that the only way for such a follower to respond is with hatred. The phenomenon that is going on with the Democrats right now is akin to the phenomenon that Hitler caused in Germany. He got his victim-minded people worked up to the point they put him in power. And then the lights went out.

Runaway, Slave!

Runaway Slave is a documentary screened in Kennesaw, Georgia. Depending on its reception it will be shown in many US cities. 

I liked this movie when it ended last night. 

This morning I REALLY like this movie. 

I went with a black friend, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.  I wasn’t sure how he would take the movie and was interested to know what he thought.  He said he liked it – that he learned something.

This movie is about black culture, but it is not just about their culture.  It is about human culture down to and including one’s individual culture – the stories, the premises and feelings that give one his quality of life.  How do I know that?  I awoke focused on the primary reason I’m still a slave in my own life.  More on that later. 

The front and center question is “Why is it that since a black is free to do whatever he wants, he sees and comports himself as a victim – as a slave.  The color of his skin WILL NOT STOP him from working for and having anything he wants to have in this world.  Objectively he is free and yet he feels and acts as though he is trapped.  This is the slave mentality.  The movie exhorts all of us to run – to run away from that slave mentality and those that work to keep it in place.

This movie is about culture and politics, and it does not shy away from calling out who is advocating what; but the lead character, C. L. Bryant, does a great thing.  He visits various black groups to ask them why blacks are where they are at.  Unemployment is at 14%, one parent families are at 70%, black-on-black crime is out of sight, and more black babies are aborted than any other racial group even though blacks comprise just 13% of the population.  Everyone has a story, with reasons, for why things are the way they are and he lets them tell their story.  The movie never gets stuck on the “us vs. them” level – rather it has us consider the real question here.

There are lots of leads to stimulate thinking in this film.  One such lead is a man’s story about why he ended up committing crimes landing him in jail.  After putting himself through this, he realized he was furious with his mother.  He blamed her for his not having a father – for his being deprived of ever knowing his father.  She made money to live being eligible for welfare payments.  Her life choice required the father of her child to have abandoned the family.  At the point the man grasped the circumstances that led his mother to her plight; he realized that although she was responsible for what she did not knowing or thinking about the consequences of her choice, she chose what she saw as a way to survive.  At that point he went to her and apologized for being angry with her all these years.  With this massive justification for his actions gone, his life turned around.   

One of the interesting unstated but obvious things in the film is to hear the opposite side of the slave mentality - the master mentality.  This manifests itself as being completely justified in taking control and dominating the former master.  It was expressed in the anger and assigning cause outside the only one who can actually make a difference - oneself.  All of this ends when you give it up and simply live your life - seeking your own happiness, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor others to yourself.  Freedom is freedom, no more, no less. 

But freedom was not to be.  The institution of reverse force causing the ongoing problems traces back to the Johnson Administration when the welfare law, grounded on white guilt, was passed.  Because that law sounded good to many ears and given that no one wanted to be the cold, cruel jerk who says “NO” to a struggling mother's need, the bowl with the warm milk was set before her.  “Here kitty, kitty, kitty.”  Once she lapped the sweet milk set on the plantation steps, slavery and all of its consequences was the result.  Hence, the point of the film.

The message is powerful.  This morning I awoke thinking about my relationship to money.  I’ve never had a positive relationship to money – like it is a great thing and I ought to have plenty of it in order to do all the things I want to do in life.  Mostly I do what I do and sometimes I have money and sometimes I don’t.  I’m not unhappy if I have little money because there is so much in life that I find interesting.  I only get unhappy when I cannot take care of the things that I want to take of or need to take care of.  Then the matter of money impinges on me.  And yet, over the long run, those circumstances seem to make no difference in the way I conduct myself. 

With many talents and interests, I’m interested in the world no matter what.  In fact this led to some problems with money.  Each week I would get an allowance.  It was a quarter, as I remember.  I never saved my quarter because there were so many things that attracted me and that I wanted to have close to me.  So I bought them.  And, before long, my allowance was gone, a recurring condition which became a way of life. 

I’ve tried blaming other people, my mom, e.g., for my attitude about money.  She would get disgusted with me for running out of it and say something negative.  Never could I hear a possibility for saving money - only angry criticism when my pockets were empty.  I handled this by defusing the issue.  “Money is ‘ho-hum,’ and something I’m not going to get worked up about.”   

I’m in the process of closing my studio and moving to a more affordable place.  Money has been on my mind - not only for moving but for other things I want at this time.    The slave “conversation” of the film stimulated my “conversation” about money.  I realized I am a slave to my “conversation” about money.  Specifically, I am a slave to my way of handling the contention that surrounded me and money in my family.  It is my conversation that determines how I am with money - every time, all the time. 

Seeing this is the breakthrough.  The unrealized emotional enslavement to that conversation is broken.  I can’t think of money without realizing that old way doesn’t work.  Now I am propelled to create a new conversation about money.  My point here is that the “slave conversation” is powerful and applicable wherever human life exists.  Our behaviors are the product of our internal conversations and until we realize what they are, we live on their plantations.  They are our masters which we serve as would a slave.

I wholeheartedly recommend this film as it is so rich on the political and moral level.  If you open yourself to it, it will lead you to where you are stuck and indicate the way to freedom.  Runaway from that slave conversation, man.  Just run.  With everything that’s in you.    

Trailor:


Audience reaction after the opening:

And Now We Are Down to Basics

Here's an ad by Romney that gets right to the heart of America and what makes her great.

Let the RIP Begin

Last week in Roanoke, Virginia, Obama revealed the essence of the collectivist's world view: Individuals don't exist and don't get any credit for what they do. He went out of his way to point this out - in a snarky way, I might add. Why the snarkiness, Barack? Where does that come from?



To be fair to the context of this, this is the whole little segment of what he said:   (If you want to watch a longer video of the event, go here.)

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

What Obama wants us to acknowledge is not his to compel.  Perhaps this is why he is snarky.  Far and away the primary piece of any accomplishment is the will of the man who does it.  And that, whether Obama likes it or not, is what he cannot compel.  No one can force a mind - not even his own.  Atlas Shrugged taught its readers one primary thing:  The ultimate power rests with the producer.  If he stops, all that depends on him stops.  No amount of government force can motivate a man to produce.  The ultimate trump card is not held by the government.  And besides, anyone who succeeds at something knows the people who were there for him and most are quick to acknowledge them.

What Obama reveals is his puny collectivist soul.  He needs people.  But he doesn't trust people to value him, so he has to rope them and draw them near even if they don't want to be there.  His means is to induce guilt - particularly in the individuals who have a mind of their own.  Those are the ones he directs his snarky "let me tell you something" remarks to.  Those who like him and his tactics cheer him. 

This is all revealed because he has to go out of his way to make a point of this.  Most people draw people to them because those people value who they are and what they say and/or do.  But not Obama.  He draws people to him by singling out some other people and driving them away.  He gets snarky with the "outside" people.  His supporters being of like mind, certainly don't want any individuals to think they are smart or work really hard.  Oh, my God no!  (This really is disgusting, isn't it?)

Poor little President.  He can't just be himself and know that people will come to him.  It is as though he insists there be no freedom from people - no freedom to have one's own life.  Is it that he doesn't trust people to value him unless he reminds them that they don't accomplish anything without other people - maybe even him?  Maybe that is why he insists we accept his food stamps. I don't know.  It's all so Mao. (And so evil.  Can you imagine him telling his daughters when they bring home a good grade,  "Just remember, you didn't do that.  Somebody else made that happen."  Wow.)

He apparently fears they will have a purpose which excludes him.  I remember the question Ellsworth Toohey, the collectivist intellectual of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, asked of Howard Roark, "What do you think of me?"

Roark replied, "But I don't think of you."

Could this be Barack's worst nightmare?  The existence of a person who could be as independent as Roark?

At any rate, Barack's disrespect of individual achievement has caught on and fueled a website called "You Didn't Build That."  Check it out.

The Fight For Liberty is Moving into The Moral Realm

Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute, is upping the moral outrage against government force. Thank God.* It’s about time someone let it rip.

People have been using economic arguments to upend our runaway government. They make no difference. THEY ARE NOT WORKING!

Why? They don’t strike at your core – the very reason why you would want to do anything. Striking at your core is to hit the pay dirt of your moral power - the source of your energy - your love of what you value that has life worth living. (Notice how every person who does tap into this moral power is immediately destroyed by the Leftist media. They know these people have a power they don't.) In South Carolina, Newt Gingrich, whether you like him or not, struck pay dirt one night and won the election by the next night. That is its power. It gets people off their ass and to the voting booth. Palin strikes there for many people.

As an aside, I've never thought Obama hit moral pay dirt - at least in any positive sense. His power has been to offer retribution for the victims. And I would have had to grant him something related to a victim to have voted for him last time. But you can't build a country on victims - morally or existentially. (The quick course on why Marxism fails.) So now that he's got the country in worse shape than he found it and prostituted himself as originally presented, he's given up this approach and is instead going for the dark blood of the jugular - hatred of value fueled by envy. Pit man against man. Black against white, poor against rich, illegal immigrant against immigrant, women against conservatives, etc., etc.

Now, I'm pissed, but not irrationally pissed. If I'm going to destroy anything, it's the length of Obama's term as President, not the country. I'm tired of sitting fallow - it's time to build.

The fight for freedom is getting more and more specific. The battle is in the use of words. Freedom = Absence of force. Right now the government has its gun in practically every aspect of our lives. (When you go to the doctor or your architect or your pharmacist or your massage therapist, there is an invisible man with a gun in the corner of the room.) This destroys human beings at their root – their ability to want to work for the things they want and make sense for them – not what the government tells them they want. (Binswanger gets into the area that interests me a lot – motivation and the desire to achieve value – and how one keeps it and reconstructs it if necessary. He doesn’t say it the way I would, but it amounts to the same thing.) Enjoy.

Binswanger’s interview starts about 1/8 to 1/7 of the way in and runs to about the halfway point of the program. Go here.  (Scroll down to 7/2, the 7:00am show.) 

(*Well, actually, Thank Harry!  I use the word God in the sense that the time is ripe for this.  And not ripe for raw anger which can be interpreted in many contexts, but an outrage in the context of what is possible and how wrong the current direction events are taking is.)