Eric Holder
Barack Hussein Obama
Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr.
Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson, Sr
None are white. Being a white racist is passe.
Today, blacks hold the title. Congratulations, chumps.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
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.
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:
To see where our Common Law originates, see Article
61 in the Magna Carta at http://
Everyone interested in becoming a jurist needs to
read and understand: download
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
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".
Link to US Supreme Court Justice Scalia's 1992
majority (6-3) opinion in US v Williams
Here is a recently posted pretty clear summary of
the key points about Common Law Grand
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
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.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
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?
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?
Sunday, January 26, 2014
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
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
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 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.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, August 2, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
