Rights Revisited

Most of us love our rights, but confusion about those rights indicates a lack of education.  A “right,” according to Webster in the days of our Founding, meant order, “conformity” to the will of God, to the rule of law, and to the good and proper use of justice.  The rights of man are those proper claims of man.  Francis Lieber stated that “the only axiom necessary to understand rights is that ‘because I am a man, I have a right to be a man’.”

The confusion generally originates from how such a claim relates to other people.  Your absolute right to eat, for instance, is not an absolute claim against me to feed you. Nor does your right exclude you from work.  Your right to eat includes your right to find, grow, hunt, and preserve food. . . or earn money and go to the grocery store.

As a Christian, I am aware of a moral obligation (and right) to feed the hungry, and have regularly done so in my adult life, especially feeding dozens of children and their families on a semi-weekly basis for over six years.  That was my right as well as an obligation, and the families were fed.  It worked out well.  Their right, especially for the children, was met by my right to feed them.

Rights and obligations are fraternal.  Remember, Webster called all things “right,” a “conformity.” Think of it this way: just as,  “Because I am a man, I have a right to be a man,” it is equally true that, “Because I am a man, I have an obligation to be a man.”  In my personal experience, my rights have often been painful, and my obligations rewarding.

Thomas Jefferson firmly asserted that, “The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government.”

Some folks on both sides of the aisle pretend to follow such a creed, yet invariably, something eventually reveals that those people mean “equivalent rights,” or “happiness of this special group,” or they change “only” to “among the legitimate objects,” or they add something.  To Jefferson and his America, “Equal rights for every happy individual.”  Every one of us.

God-given rights and obligations of man are full and exclusive to each individual.  The very moment a right becomes a compulsion on another person, or an obligation becomes a demand from someone else, the very heart, soul, and definitions of “rights and responsibilities” absolutely vanish in the face of pure lust and tyranny.



Please follow and like us:

John McCain Quit, Will Not Resign

John McCain quit taking his cancer medicines, a move signalling his acceptance of end of life.  He signals intentions to stay home, surrounded by family and friends.  Various members of his family and inner circle commented on his fight, and the “official” position of the family was released as well:

“John has surpassed expectations for his survival. But the progress of disease and the inexorable advance of age render their verdict.  With his usual strength of will, he has now chosen to discontinue medical treatment. Our family is immensely grateful for the support and kindness of all his caregivers over the last year, and for the continuing outpouring of concern and affection from John’s many friends and associates, and the many thousands of people who are keeping him in their prayers. God bless and thank you all.”

One may ask, where is his resignation from the obvious inattention to the Senate?  Why is he refusing to relinquish his seat to the bitter end, denying a voice to his constituents, the people of Arizona, and the body of the Senate?

Only he could speak honestly of his motives — if he knows what they are — and no one can be sure if he has that capacity.  All we can say is that this awkward and outrageous situation is terrible for the people of the United States.

It should never again be possible for a permanently disabled, physically and mentally stressed and unavailable victim of a deadly disease to be left to die clinging to his crucial position.

In the case of McCain, we may see his end come very quickly.  He is a fighter, and most likely feels entirely defeated by now.  But if he can’t serve, why has he chosen not to resign.

Please follow and like us:

Universal and Free Defined

What do the words “Universal” and “Free” mean in the context of health insurance and education?  Miriam-Webster calls Universal “including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception.”  What a wonderful thing that would be!  When applied to health insurance or education, can it be possible? 

Universal is a great thing, meaning “for everybody.”  Universal education, however, means “for those who qualify.”  Universal health insurance means “with these qualifications and limits.”  The “universal” aspect is the insurance and education offered, the qualifications to obtain it, the high cost to every citizen, and the restrictions imposed on every applicant.  (“You may not take that class because your aptitude is not high enough,” and, “You may not have that operation because you are not suffering sufficiently.”)

Free, in the case of health insurance and education, only carries one sense, “not costing or charging anything to the recipient.” It clearly never hints at “without cost.”  It certainly does not include the aspect of civil freedom (not subject to the control or domination of others) or the idea of free will (given voluntarily or spontaneously) or freedom from restraint (not compelled or demanded.)

In fact, the restrictions, obligations, costs, confinement, control, and limits of “free” are the opposites of reality, or what we call Orwellian speech.  “Free” is incredibly expensive, inconvenient, tyrannical and imposing.

Free and Universal also mean “without recourse.”  Already, the ACA has required hospitals and clinics to fill in “physician’s assistants” for real doctors.  Is your healthcare better and cheaper now than it was before Obamacare?

When related to any compulsory system, only the government mandates and bureaucratic limitations are  “free” are “universal.”  As the quality plunges, the better question might be, “Why do the costs keep going up as we approach free?”


Please follow and like us:

That Ethics Question

When it came out that the “Lock Basher” from Antifa was a college ethics professor, my stomach turned.  When he further announced that he felt justified because “these ethics were created by the victors,” he demonstrated the terms of his evil philosophy.  His first name is Eric, but since he shames his family, college, and nation, his last name will be considered Antifa.

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior, and a universal determination of right and wrong across national, cultural, and religious borders.  They carry more weight than any particular morality, in a broader yet shallower range than “our own personal set.”  Ethics are fully rational across civilization.  Eric Antifa says that he and his Antifa family are not responsible to civilization.  In other words, hitting them (those people) with bike locks and bullets is valid.

This surprise, of course, surprises no one.  Antifa consists of numerous ideologies, with anarchists, radicals, insurgents, looters, and subversive relativists well represented.  The aforementioned represent an as yet non-existent morality, a situational ethic, and an almost complete break from any ethical reality.

In other words, if we consider “ethical” to be good, decent, orderly, correct, noble, etc., then the “rules,” by Eric Antifa’s learned position, mean evil, indecent, chaotic, wrong, atrocious, etc.  The members of the Antifa family are to hide and destroy.

Once again, this initially shocking realization is consistent with Antifa’s anarchic, radical, insurgent, looting, subversive and relative roots in American history.  We have repeatedly seen this “UNethic” from the KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Panthers and BLM, some of the violent “militias” of the 90s, Muslim Jihadist radicals, the MAFIA, Skinheads, etc.  Yes, just like Antifa.

What Conservatives considered tragic and horrible in the eight years of the Leftist Obama administration was quietly tolerated because of ethical restraints.  In fact, the political violence of the Obama administration is represented most notably by Republican victims at a baseball practice.  The extremists of Antifa abandon those rules.  They do not believe in them.  They appeal instead to the power of Death and Chaos.

Other ironies worth mentioning, are:  (1)  They do this in anticipation of a powerful new government authority that WILL control everything; and (2) they believe in this hateful destruction and violence because they consider Trump hateful and violent.

Please follow and like us:

Government Right and Wrong

We, the People, form a society, or several societies.  Law is the will of the society.  In America we have 50 States and five inhabited Territories.  Those 55 societies form another, unified society, called the State.  In our case, because our States already exist, we call the unified State “The United States.” They are supposed to represent different interests, and pursue different goals.

There is no Right and Left in this corruption, but Right and Left are serious problems in promoting the destruction of our nation.

Allegiance to two States causes problems, but our Founders made sure there would be none.  Federal and State corruption and usurpation created the conflicts as soon as greed and immorality overtook honest law.  We will address the corruption, but for now assume no conflict and a single State.

The State represents society’s law, and the government of the State includes the body responsible for declaring the law, executing the law, and judging the law against our Constitution and moral character.  In theory, We, the People, choose the lawgivers and legal executives, and by means of juries we judge the rightness of criminal and civil laws and their application.  We have the authority to change the law, its application, and reverse any court decision laid against any accused lawbreaker.

Now we are told some of these safeguards to bad laws no longer exist.  Our legislature no longer writes the laws at all, but hands the assignment to teams of corporate and special interest lawyers.  Voting then happens with no knowledge of what those laws will be, or what they actually declare.  Our national laws take the place of State laws, or “double up” to jeopardize citizens.  The fed demands State cooperation, nullifying State sovereignty (and essentially cancelling the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.)  Courts — even our highest court — no longer even cite the Constitution.

We are now told we have two masters.  Both are “thieves who break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:19)  Yet we are told we must obey them both.  But we still believe, at least in theory, that “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” (Matthew 6:24) Between Nation and State, neither even pretends to reflect God, morality, or justice any longer.

Perhaps this means we should serve neither the federal nor the state laws that serve as moth and rust, to corrupt and destroy our society and its character.  No law written by outsiders, corporate, or special interests are lawful. Romans 13:3 is often quoted as the reason to “behave,” yet if “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad,” then what do we call those mercenary lawgivers who are in fact, terrors to good conduct?

Borrowing from a comment on another site, “Legislation is generally NOT in the public interest by any interpretation.  Legislation is now written by world banks, CFR backroom committees, military industries, big pharma and big agriculture in roughly that order. Congress are puppets to this process.”  Overstated? Maybe.  Probably not.

There is much more to this.  We need to keep going.  Our Constitution and its foundations are well suited to us, and we certainly need to take the time to understand how to make it right. We can make it right.

Please follow and like us:

Immigrant Propaganda

America’s journalism keeps digging deeper into our grave.  In fact, reporting is difficult to find.  What remains of “News” is lopsided opinion mixed with stock photos. We saw an explosion of outrage when “Trump Lost Thousands of Children,” who were sent to caregivers.  This story never quite saw the light of day when it began in 2013.  Although it could be found, most people never read or saw it back then because it looked bad during Obama’s reign.

We also never got the real story when Trump demanded an end to these unreasonable practices of caging children and opening our borders to illegal teens, begun by fiat from King Obama.  The Court then called Trump’s decision, “arbitrary and capricious.”  In other words, the old arbitrary and capricious from Obama’s era would stand.  Trump has to follow the procedures for immigrants devised by his predecessor, Mr. Obama.  The Press damns him for it.

Two young girls watch a World Cup soccer match on a television from their holding area where hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona June 18, 2014. CBP provided media tours June 18 of two locations in Brownsville, Texas and Nogales that have been central to processing the more than 47,000 unaccompanied children who have entered the country illegally since Oct. 1. REUTERS/Ross D. Franklin/Pool (UNITED STATES – Tags: CRIME LAW POLITICS SOCIETY) – RTR3UJAE

As stories erupted of the horrid conditions of immigrant children, we began to see images surface.  But they were not new photos of caged children under the “neo-Nazi regime of Donald Trump.”  They were historical views — largely unpublished pictures showing conditions during Barack Obama’s peaceful era.  “No story here.  Move along,” suddenly became, “Oh, look!  We can use these against Trump!”  And the nation’s eager anti-Trump consortium doubled down.  Again.

And again.  And the same people who hate Trump want something more like Obama, because Obama loved and cared for immigrant children.  In those days, cages were fine, because it was not reported.  Who knew?


Please follow and like us:

What is a Democrat Today?

Some folks in my personal circle can’t help themselves.  They simply need to condemn me for “hating Democrats.”  I take exception to that from two distinct positions: one, I reject the implications, and two, the charge smells like a fart.

Rejecting stupid or corrupt ideas is radically different from rejecting the people who hold them, and among my personal heroes are a number of Democrats — both publicly and privately.

On the other side of that argument, let me ask my accusers why they despise, reject and swear against the ideas of John F. Kennedy, his love for America, sense of free will economics, civil freedom, border security, and hatred for Communism and Socialism?

As in the following quote about The United States:

So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don’t think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong, but the balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.” (He was speaking at a breakfast in Texas.)

In the words of Dezi Arnez, “Splain dat, Lucy!

How can a Liberal be a Liberal and speak of freedom, border security, the desire and work of maintaining vigilance in the fight against Communism, against a welfare State, and against illegal immigration?  That’s not what Liberals do now.  How can a Democrat American President proudly assert that “the balance of power is still on the side of freedom”?  Was Kennedy a Liberal, a Conservative, or Donald Trump?  If you love the history of JFK, you can’t love the modern Democrat Party unless you radically changed.

If JFK was a Democrat then . . . what is a Democrat now?  Why the change?

Please follow and like us:

Evils of Capitalism

In a brief and powerful private conversation, one of my dearest and wisest friends shared a thought on the evils of capitalism.   He said, “I am a staunch capitalist, but I also know capitalism doesn’t work.  It doesn’t work because humans are not capable of being at liberty without exploiting one another.” 

He’s absolutely correct, of course.  Every “-ism” is corrupt, abusive, and ultimately evil.  Freedom includes the liberty to exploit our fellows.  As free as we are even under the absolute liberty granted to us by God Himself, the tendency always falls to the wretched freedom to hurt people.  Like me, my friend sees that among the concoctions of mankind, nothing can fairly or decently displace freedom, or economic individualism . . . the obvious and simple system of natural liberty,” according to Adam Smith. 

That, in turn, reminded me that “Capitalism” is a pejorative coined by Socialists in the late 19th Century.  While still in diapers, Socialists already clamored to destroy liberty, religion, morality, and economy.  Their ambition?  Abject control!  Again and always, the very clear and persistent damnation of man as individual and morally responsible.  Socialism must hate God, personal responsibility, freedom, and every honest character trait of mankind. Again and always, the foolish desire is to make mankind “morally good, but dependent on the corrupt leadership of a human king or council.”

Even Bob Dylan recognized that, “You gotta serve someone — now, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you’ve got to serve someone.”

I most strongly encourage you to read the experience of the Prophet Samuel in the 8th chapter of the first book bearing his name.  It is in the “Old Testament” and should be credible to all believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  The foolishness of the rebellious people should be obvious to the rest of mankind, even if they think the alternative is individualism and reason rather than obedience to God.

Several years ago in a private conversation with Stuart Briscoe, he insisted that “all human government is Babylonian government!”  At the time I insisted with equal vigor that liberty in place of Babylon would prevent that.  Now I know that liberty becomes the root and branch of libertine evil, or Free Babylon. 

Left to our own devices, we all form our own corrupt little autocracies.  Without God, it must be a Devil and one form of Babylonian government or the other. Unless we tend to obey the authority of God, Nature’s God, and Natural Law, we tend to obey our evil human nature.  We choose a king, suffer, impose our evil permanence, decide what’s best for everybody, and kill, conquer, and suppress to establish and maintain it.

That brings us full cycle: the only hope we have from generation to generation isn’t that somehow we’ll be good and do well.  That simply is not possible.  Our last desperate hope is that we can preserve enough liberty for good to survive.  Man — us — We, the People, will always choose the wrong way and return perennially to the wretched little king of Babylon.  Only the constant prayers of the momentary righteous and the rebellious spirit against wholesale authority will let us survive for another round.  As my friend said, “I am a staunch capitalist, but I also know capitalism doesn’t work.  It doesn’t work because humans are not capable of being at liberty without exploiting one another.”  

God, and God alone, forgive us.


Please follow and like us:

Capitalism Alone

Capitalism means market forces alone determine markets.  It means buyers control production by buying what they need or want.  In capitalism, every kind of product can find a market, from one-off bits of art to mass-produced trinkets . . . even junk.  This is capitalism stripped to its underwear.  We’ll add clothes in future posts.

Most often, hatred of “capitalism” begins with misunderstanding.  Alternative definitions are used to bring on destruction (change)  in order to abuse or simply demolish the existing system.


It can be surprising — even shocking! — to hear what some people think capitalism means.  Government control?  No, that’s a regulated market.  Government and corporations conspiring together? Nope.  That’s fascism.  Corporate authority over the marketplace?  No, that’s corporatocracy.  Banking controls over production and markets?  Uh uh, those are equity markets (though stock markets can easily be capitalist, if controlled by the perceived value of investment.) Racism? Sexism? Bigotry?  We’ve all seen the propaganda.  Can it be true?

Um, no.

Price fixing, monopolies, corporate flooding and/or product restrictions, etc. etc. etc. all have their own names, generally suck quite a bit, and have nothing to do with capitalism.

We have regulated corporatocracies and government run equity markets, socialist and oligarchical administration of markets in various agencies, and even economic tyrannies in the American alphabet soup.  Most are in place for legitimate reasons, but abused for other reasons.

Market controls and restrictions necessarily increase as capitalism diminishes. For instance, the most notable monopoly in American history was Bell Telephone, AT&T.  The breakup took the lid off of vast swaths of explosive new technology and clever ideas.  Afraid the government would slice up development, I stood on the wrong side of the breakup.  Although Bell truly and necessarily disintegrated its R&D, the power of competition made 100 little companies go crazy implementing some of the most fascinating mysteries and billing opportunities.  It became downright cheap to use our telephones, and computers suddenly shared the transmission lines, creating even more efficiency, and vastly more networks, more infrastructure, and more capacity.  Capitalism self-regulates almost flawlessly.  It only becomes problematic once regulation becomes abusive.

Our communications network in the United States and around the world exploded in a millennial leap in 1982.  Breaking the structural, regulatory, and administrative abuses worked well in the telephone industry.  Imagine what would happen if we broke up our government regulatory and financial monopolies and crushed the corporatocracies.

Who would suffer?  Who might perish?  Not us.  Not the economy.  Not the international markets.  Not the world.  There might be a few hungry bureaucrats to feed, but only until they learn apply their intelligence to something useful and constructive.

[Because the definitions are written with tremendous distortion by various strange entities, I will return to this subject to clarify the difference between actual capitalism and the socialist, communist, fascist, Google, Republican, Democrat, and NYT definitive distortions.]

See the next article, Capitalism Plus



Please follow and like us:

How to Fix Things

Any handyman knows the first consideration: is it really broken?  Did you read the instructions?  You might be shocked how often something fixes itself when it gets plugged in, unlocked, turned on, reset, or used correctly.

What’s wrong with our Constitutional form of government?  Mostly, it’s out of adjustment and misused.  In fact, we seldom use it.  We blame it because it sits in a closet and no longer does what it was designed to do.

I laugh at product reviews that say things like, “Two Quart sauce pan: ** (two stars.)  The reason: “Not big enough to hold three quarts.”

Or,  “Deluxe Adjustable Wrench: ** (two stars.) The reason: “It broke after the first two nails.”

How about this one: “U.S. Constitution, Government Restricting: ** (two stars.) The reason: “Have to break the law to grow large, abusive government that doesn’t control itself or anything else except private citizens.”

Our government will never work that way under the Constitution because the Constitution was never designed to work that way.  The less we realize that, the worse it gets.

Please follow and like us: