Month: January 2017

The Islamic Question: Peace or War?

Good people must always stand with those who attempt to do good, just as they stand against those who attempt to do evil.

“I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low.
We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low.
Oh my God! We are flying way too low. Oh my God!”
-Madeline Amy Sweeney, 9/11/2001-

The terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 are the redefining moment of the American experience with Islam. No matter what anyone felt before the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, which never reached its target, the context of what being Muslim was changed forever on that Tuesday morning, injecting the word “Jihad” into the 21st Century lexicon with a blaze of fire, blood, and horror as 19 jihadists took the lives of 2977 men, women, and children.

But ask practically any 16 year old what he thinks about the terror attacks that occurred on 9/11/2001 in New York City, in Washington, D.C., and in a field near Shanksville, PA, and you’ll get the sort of ambivalent, second hand sympathy that you’d expect from any teenager. They are as likely to say the same things about the attack on Pearl Harbor. They, of course, have so many more important things in their lives, and those things simply overshadow anything that happened when they were in diapers, with no visceral cognitive understanding of the event.

Ask practically any 26 year old what he thinks about the terror attacks on 9/11/2001, and you’ll get a very different response. For them, it happened when they could see, hear, and understand it. Whatever their feelings about the attacks may be, they won’t be as muted, at least not in the same way as for their younger cohort. The more likely someone was old enough to experience the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, the less likely they are to be ambivalent about them.

Time and the many distractions of our every day lives, unfortunately, makes a society forget all too soon even those things that it should never forget.

“As-salāmu ʿalaykum. (Peace be with you.)”
-Traditional Arabic Greeting-

In a YouGov poll taken in March 6th through 9th in 2015, 33% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 had favorable opinions of Islam, whereas only 24% of respondents between the ages of 30 and 44 had at least somewhat favorable opinions of Islam. Of older respondents, above the age of 45, only 14% to 15% had any favorable opinion of Islam. Most interesting is only 18-29 year olds are less likely to be “Not Sure” about how they felt about Islam, than to feel positively or negatively about it.

While we must always be careful when talking about groups of people, particularly people of one religion or ethnicity, how does one parse how a quarter of Americans are “Not Sure” what to believe about Islam in the shadow of the violence that has been the norm since September 11th, 2001? How do we balance the millions of Muslims who dedicate their lives to perpetuate a peaceful and just society that respects many religious beliefs against the few Muslims that gave their lives to violence in attacks in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston, New York, Quebec, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga, and so many other cities?

As western Islamic scholars continue to conclude that the spread of Islamic faith through violence and intimidation is not only outdated in an age where, by and large, a significant portion of the world’s human population no longer believe that a person’s ideas or beliefs should condemn them to persecution or death, the tensions between a more pragmatic “New World Islam” and the radical traditionalism of “Old World Islam” will become ever bloodier, as the latest jihadist attack on the Quebec mosque demonstrates.

While Islam’s own adherents clearly struggle to determine what the religion is about, it’s also clear why so many Americans can be unsure what to think about Islam.

 “When we think of Islam we think of a faith that
brings comfort to a billion people around the world.
Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace.
And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race.”
-George W. Bush-

When I was attending the University of North Texas in the early 90’s, I took a semester of tennis to fulfill the “physical education” requirement of my curriculum. It was then that I met a Muslim man whose name I sadly can no longer remember. All that I remember about him was his incredible charisma. He wore an infectious smile and was an endless font of funny stories about himself and his life in America. The comfortable rapport we shared was really the best part of those chilly early Texas mornings. He was a good man, and I hope fate finds him well.

Until the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 fundamentally reshaped my understanding of Islam, my opinion of Islam was largely shaped by him. I honestly want to believe that he is what modern believers of Islam are about than the jihadists, but I know that this is not the case. If we asked one Muslim what his religion was about, and he answered “The mercy of Allah, helping the sick, and feeding the poor.“, then we asked a jihadist what his religion was about, and he answered “All will submit to Allah.“, both men would be right.

As Conservatives, holding to the classically liberal principles of freedom of thought and of religion, we cannot turn our backs on the men and women of the Muslim faith who earnestly seek to better relations between Muslims and people of all other beliefs and force them to struggle against jihadism alone. We can balance our condemnation of jihadists who deny the fundamental humanity of anyone that fails to conform to their barbarous and ignorant values with celebrating and defending the efforts of men and women of the Muslim faith as they try to realize Islam in a pluralistic 21st Century world.

Good people must always stand with those who attempt to do good, just as they stand against those who attempt to do evil. Sadly, the struggle for the heart of Islam has only just begun, and, as non-Muslims, our ability to effect the course of the struggle is limited to support of those who must battle from within. And, for those of us “of the Book“, our obligation to our brothers and sisters is inherent in our own belief.

Peace be upon those who seek justice.

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

Winning the Life Argument

Unfortunately for the abortionist, direct rights, such as the woman’s right to her own body, are not the only component of Natural Law.

The abortion debate was reignited recently after the president signed an executive order unilaterally terminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood, primarily because the organization markets and provides abortion services. This represents an indisputable victory for the Pro-Life movement, at least until a Democrat president comes along and simply reverses it through another unilateral executive order. Whether Congress will take the action necessary to push the ball further is yet to be seen.

Regardless, if this is going to happen, conservatives must win the abortion debate, once and for all. To achieve this, we must address the strongest current arguments of abortion proponents. Presently, the strongest argument in favor of abortion policy as I see it is the “body autonomy argument“, which is: a woman has a Natural Law right to her body and may do with her body what she wishes, and that no one has any Natural Law right to her body without her permission, including the fetus.

The “body autonomy argument” is extremely strong for several reasons. First, it appeals to Natural Law. Second, Natural Law does, in fact, support the basic premise of the argument that a person, in this case a woman, has a fundamental right to dictate what happens with their physical body. Finally, it is, at least on the surface, logically agnostic as to the personhood of the fetus. The assumption is that the mother has a right to her body whether the fetus is a person or not.

On the surface, this is a solid and well thought out argument, however, the very things that make it strong, specifically appealing to Natural Law, the existence of Natural Law precedent supporting their appeal, and the superficial agnosticism to the personhood of the fetus, are actually its core weaknesses.

“Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another;
and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.”
-Thomas Paine-

Natural Law is the necessary core of conservative political ideology and should inform every element of our political philosophy, from the proper role of government to the rights of the individual in society. From Natural Law, we get the three fundamental “rights of man“: Life, Liberty, and Property (Locke). These three fundamental rights and their necessary duties create the framework of American common law as the Framers understood it. When the abortionist appeals to an element of Natural Law, it puts their argument squarely in our backyard.

There is no debating the first two premises of the “body autonomy argument“, because they are, in fact, grounded in Natural Law. A woman does, in fact, possess an inherent right to her own body, and Natural Law, via common law, does indeed support the first premise. As it turns out, however, we don’t have to attack the first two premises of the “body autonomy argument“, because they make it clear that the abortionist has evoked Natural Law. Unfortunately for the abortionist, direct rights, such as the woman’s right to her own body, are not the only component of Natural Law.

Why are rape, murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, aggravated neglect, and aggravated manslaughter all considered criminal behavior? The Natural Law principle of Reciprocal Rights. Simply by acknowledging that any objective Natural Law rights exist, the abortionist must concede that these Natural Law rights exist for every human being. The “body autonomy argument” bizarrely evokes the woman’s Natural Law direct rights, then turns around and denies she has any of the duties that these rights impose, like some despotic monarch, solely on the basis of convenience.

This is the chink in the abortionist’s armor.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
-Jeremiah 1:5-

Natural Law was born from the philosophy of the Enlightenment thinkers and was a direct rejection of the customs of human civilization that go back to the very dawn of humanity whereby certain people, almost universally men, had absolute political dominion over all others, by chance of their birth. These very same customs denied a woman rights to live her own life, to speak her own mind, or to even own property. These very same customs made women the chattel property of their fathers and then their husbands.

By evoking Natural Law, the abortionist rejects these ancient tyrannical customs and claims for herself the fundamental rights and duties entitled to all human beings but simultaneously condemns the unborn to suffer the ancient custom of “first breath” humanity. By asserting the blessings of the Enlightenment Era understandings of humanity for women while denying them for the child in the womb, the abortionist proves themselves a first class hypocrite.

We are no longer subject to the tyranny of superstition and ignorance that informed ancient customs. There is no chance that a woman’s pregnancy will result in a goat, a demon, or any other capricious imposition of heaven or hell. We know without question that the only possible offspring of a human woman is a human child. Given this, it is an absolute certainty that an unborn child is, in fact, a human being, because it can naturally be no other thing. Further, the unborn child must necessarily, in fact, have been a human being from his or her conception.

Being a human being, the unborn child is thus necessarily entitled to the same Natural Law rights as any other human being anywhere else in the world.

“The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.”
-Thomas Paine-

Since the abortionist acknowledges Natural Law exists by evoking it, the abortionist also acknowledges Reciprocal Rights imposed by Natural Law and must necessarily reject “first breath” humanity just as they do the ancient customs of female servitude rejected by Natural Law. It follows an unborn child is a human being by Natural Law, and thus entitled to the very same “body autonomy” of the mother, specifically, that the mother has no right to take any action that would injure or terminate the human life within her womb.

The mother, in fact, has a Natural Law duty to protect and defend the human life within her womb, just as others have a Natural Law duty to protect and defend her own human life.

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

A Short Word: The Trump Inauguration

By making an issue of how many people did or didn’t attend his political Quinceañera, Donald Trump manages to undermine not only his own credibility but now also the credibility and dignity of the Office of President.

Last Friday, Donald J. Trump officially became the 45th President of the United States of America. Eager to get right to the crucial business of the people, his first official press release was whining about the media’s reporting on how many people attended his inauguration. Apparently, members of the media had compared photos of the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama, where 1.8 million Americans were in attendance, to a photo of a more sparsely filled National Mall last Friday, with fewer than 600,000 people.

President Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, despite all visual evidence to the contrary, issued a statement that “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe.” Trump’s many supporters of course now believe that the media is lying (they aren’t), Trump’s many critics believe the media is obviously telling the truth (because, in this case, they are), and many others are wondering why this is even something a 70 year old man, let alone the president of the United States, should care about.

While this fight between the biased media and the new President’s infamously fragile ego rages in the American media, many Republicans, including those that only reluctantly supported Donald after the primaries, are insisting that conservative critics “give him a chance“. What, exactly, are we supposed to give him a chance about? To prove the last 70 years of his life are not indicative of who he is or who he will be as president? To prove that he really isn’t a petty, hysterically thin skinned, narcissistic thug, who gets what he wants through lies, slander, intimidation, and gross propaganda?

No, Donald Trump has already had countless chances to demonstrate that he can conduct himself like a well adjusted adult, and he’s blown each and every one. From citing actual tabloid crony lies about his political opponents, to telling bold faced lies to his constituents, and, finally, to demonstrably gross exaggerations about his popularity, Donald Trump has proven that he is more qualified to be bridezilla-in-chief than the commander-in-chief. Give Donald a chance? Pass.

“For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.”
-2 Corinthians 11:19-

Just 8 years ago, President Obama took office armed with a sophomoric political agenda shielded from legitimate criticism by his soaring personal popularity. As his general popularity waned, however, an increasingly flustered Obama flailed at political critics and opposition press, genuinely shocked that he and his bankrupt policies weren’t universally adored. This combination of nonexistent self-criticism coupled with a world class fragile ego resulted in a legacy of economic flaccidity, repeated limp wristed foreign policy, shuttered factories, puzzled allies, and emboldened foreign foes.

If the first 72 hours of Donald Trump’s administration are any indication, though, we’re in for a brutal few years of cyclical preening indignation, political grand standing, and escalating adolescence from the White House that will make Obama’s clownish “Beer Summit” seem to have the gravity of “The Last Supper“. Unfortunately for Americans, this reality TV circus promises to be the norm for a Trump administration still in its infancy and in no danger of ever growing up.

By making an issue of how many people did or didn’t attend his political Quinceañera, Donald Trump manages to undermine not only his own credibility but now also the credibility and dignity of the Office of President. We’ll soon find out if there is a limit to how much adolescent drama the world will tolerate from the United States before it simply loses all faith and credit in us as a country.

Please forgive us conservatives if we demand President Eggshell to standards above sea level.

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

Chipping The Paint

Despite the best efforts of the Founding Fathers, after a century of ceaseless assault on the edifices of natural rights left to us, our once immaculate natural rights have been so thoroughly abused that they are scarcely recognizable.

The gun remains one of the most polarizing issues in American politics today, provoking strong opinions for and against among Americans. In the minds of many Americans, images innocent victims in a Colorado movie theater, a Connecticut elementary school, or a Florida night club are the first thing that come to their minds when they think of guns. Spurred by these desperate emotions, they believe that if only they can get guns out of the hands of the people, such tragedies would become a thing of the past.

It is a matter of fact that, per Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, on average, 12,000 people lose their lives to “gun violence” every year. According to the same source, 7 children and teens, defined as anyone below the age of 20, are shot and killed on an average day, and 83 children total were killed by accidental shooting alone in 2015. Let’s not mince words, the gun control advocates are absolutely correct: if guns are from the public sphere, the amount of gun deaths would drop to near zero. We cannot deny that it is an emotionally compelling argument. After all, think of the children…

Though, while we are banning things that accidentally kill children, what about cars? They killed 938 children in 2015 alone. Being a passenger in a multi-occupant car killed more children (663 child deaths) in 2015 than almost a decade of accidental gun deaths. Among infant fatalities (less than one year old), 66% were killed by suffocation from plastic bags, small toys, or food. Among toddlers 1 year to 4 years old, water is the leading cause of death, causing at 27% of deaths in that age group.

Using gun control advocate logic, Americans should eliminate automobiles, small objects, plastic bags, any body of water that a child can get into, and then, finally, guns, in that order. That is, we should eliminate all of these things if we’re really looking to save the lives of the children. After all, think of the children… But we’re not really talking about the children, are we?

What we’re really talking about is an overt appeal to emotion that is compelling primarily to people who prefer feelings to logic. If you are reading this right now, chances are you aren’t one of these people.

“Fear is the enemy of logic.”
-Frank Sinatra-

Since few issues can spark an almost instant conflagration of strong opinions for and against like the gun issue, few arguments get past this frankly sophomoric appeal to emotion argument, devolving into accusations of callous disregard for human life among those of us who don’t find the issue of deaths compelling (which is ironic considering the unusually high correlation of support for abortion among these people, but that’s another matter for another time), especially considering gun deaths trail far behind vehicular and drug overdoses (or abortions, for that matter) as a cause of death.

The gun control movement is driven by two types of people: (a) those who are genuinely sent into doe eyed hysteria by the mere thought of guns and (b) those who understand what the 2nd Amendment is one of the few remaining bridges connecting us to our ideological heritage, coming straight from the very heart of the American Revolution. There isn’t a logical argument to compel the first type of people, because their thinking begins and ends with emotion. The second group see the 2nd Amendment is a bellwether of how far they can push all of the fundamental rights.

So far, they’ve been able to push it pretty far. Every time they bring up the argument of gun control, now called an Orwellian “common sense gun control“, we’re stuck arguing about how many shots a gun can fire, how many rounds can fit into a magazine, or even how easy a gun is to conceal. None of these issues even matter, and, by and large, the Leftists know it.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
-Thomas Jefferson-

Take any of the Leftists arguments about the fundamental right to bear arms, such as the guns were meant for hunting or that guns rights were meant specifically for only members of a militia, the military, or some other governmental force, and compare it to the easily verifiable statements made by the Founding Fathers. It doesn’t take but literally a few minutes of research to invalidate these frankly sophomoric and openly dishonest Leftist arguments.

Take the three most influential Founding Fathers alone. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” George Washington, the first and only US president in history to run unopposed for the office, wrote “[E]very citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government… should be… provided with uniform Arms” and “accustomed to the use of them…“

It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the Founders intended the right to bear arms unequivocally to be both a fundamental right of the people and unequivocally for the purpose of “defense of a free country“. Not hunting. Not sport shooting. Not home defense. Not any other ridiculous side show argument the Left can concoct. And anyone that continues to argue otherwise is either incurably ignorant or an intellectual fraud. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm, not the exception these days.

“Society is produced by our wants,
and government by our wickedness.”
-Thomas Paine, Common Sense-

The Founders recognized that all fundamental rights exist untarnished only in the absence of government. They understood that government, in doing anything at all, was only capable of vandalizing these pristine natural rights of the people. Having just fought a war to secure exactly these fundamental rights from a tyrannical monarchy that denied them, the Founding Fathers specifically sought to forbid their new government the power to abridge, infringe, violate, or seize any of the rights and property of the people.

The 2nd Amendment didn’t create the right to bear arms. The 1st Amendment didn’t create the right to religion, free speech, or free press. The 4th Amendment didn’t create the right to private property. By the time the Amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights were collectively ratified late in 1791, the Founding Fathers had fought a war and drafted two national and thirteen state governments that all presupposed the existence of these fundamental rights.

Despite the best efforts of the Founding Fathers, after a century of ceaseless assault on the edifices of natural rights left to us, our once immaculate natural rights have been so thoroughly abused that they are scarcely recognizable. The safeguards long gone, our government now assumes authority over our firearms, our property and even our private thoughts. The question is no longer whether they can regulate, it’s what kinds and how much. To recover our fundamental rights, we must first begin to ask the right questions.

Do we still really want to be free?

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

 

America’s Vermin Problem

Government once again infects our fair and fertile lands, descending on the fruits of our labor like vermin, stealing away with it to fund their eternal political bickering.

Society has always been its own worst enemy. The very first temptation for any group of people banding together for the first time has always been to pick a leader. When you think about it, however, what are the chances that any given group will even have someone who can actually competently lead? Worse yet, what are the chances that any given group of people will manage to actually choose the right person, assuming that a potential leader even exists? Still, someone must lead? Right?

The painful lesson of history is that, time after time, good leaders have always been few and far between. Even when society actually manages to find a decent leader, most, if not all of the gains made by him or her can be totally lost by their successor in a decade or less. This is why the names of “the Greats“, such as Alexander, Elizabeth, Charlemagne, or Catherine, are widely known, but the names of their successors are rarely. Entire kingdoms have risen and fallen in the course of a single lifetime because of this all too common political ineptitude.

Yet societies still managed to survive, even while the bones of their often self anointed kings and queens rotted away in forgotten tombs. Through the rise and fall of countless petty kingdoms and even great empires, these pockets of civilization scraped by, lead by local leaders focusing on local problems, ensuring the continued well being of their friends and neighbors, weathering blizzards, floods, droughts, locusts, and even the commonest of all pests, the king’s tax collector.

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Woman: Well how’d you become king then?
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail-

A short 20 years before the American Revolution, the American colonies were embroiled in war against the French and their Indian allies. The colonists, seeking new land to add to their colonial possessions, expanded westward into lands tenuously claimed by the French. What started as minor territorial skirmishes quickly escalated into a costly war that pitted the European powers of England and her colonies against the combined might of both France and Spain.

The armies and navies of both sides gave their all in fierce fighting from the forested hills of present day western Pennsylvania, to the high seas of the Caribbean isles and from the well marched fields of France and Spain, to east in the tropical hills of India. After 7 years of literal world war, England came out victorious, though deeply in debt, despite significant gains in territory around the world, including Canada, dominant control of the Indies, and even control of Caribbean islands.

To attempt to recoup the costs of the war that was inarguably started by American colonists encroaching into French claimed territories, the British Parliament passed several taxes upon the economic activities of the American colonies. How did the American colonists respond to these seemingly reasonable taxes, especially by today’s standards? After resisting the King’s taxes and his escalating punishments for 13 years, they declared independence and and ejected his tax collectors for good.

“We stole countries! That’s how you build an empire.
We stole countries with the cunning use of flags!
Just sail around the world, stick a flag in.”
-Eddie Izzard-

In all fairness, at least on the surface, it probably seems unreasonable for the Founding Fathers to have refused a seemingly valid and reasonable request to help their mother nation recoup the cost of a war that was largely fought on their behalf, there is an important series of incorrect assumptions that, once corrected, will make reasoning of the Founding Fathers obvious. It starts with who actually owned the trees?

First, what kind of claim to “New France” did Louis XV actually have? It’s not as if he had even the slightest inclination to travel the thousands of miles necessary to even see the vast undeveloped lands that he owned because some other man had planted a French flag there. In reality, the French claim to the land was as ridiculous as someone claiming their neighbor’s car by slapping a bumper sticker on it.

Second, British claim to the colonies was just as fatuous. Most of the cost of founding the colonies was bore by the colonists themselves. The only thing the British Crown had ever directly given the colonists was a piece of parchment “granting permission” to the colonists to leave England in order to build a colony so that the King could claim it. The actual number of times the British Crown visited the colonies? Zero.

“‘Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man…’
[T]hat’s what it was to be an American in the 1980’s.
We stood, again, for freedom.”
-Ronald Reagan-

Bringing this long story back to a principle, the final reason the Founding Fathers were justified in resisting the Crown’s taxes is “that all men are created equal“. Under no circumstance were the American colonists, who had fought and bled, toiled and sweat, and buried their dead in the very soil that stained their hands going to pay a tax to some king or his benighted government for a war that never should have been fought in the first place.

For thousands of years before this Revolution, those claiming to be kings had subsisted like rats on taxes taken from the very mouths of men and women who had worked to produce it. The American Revolution was a fundamental rejection of this ancient order of things, because these men and women held the revolutionary notion that they did not live to serve the government. The government, if it is to be considered at all just, exists solely to serve the people.

The only duties of government is to keep the roads safe, justice enforced, and otherwise to leave the people alone to sort out their own problems. This is a core American idea, much abused through the last century and a half. Freedom from the ever oppressive boot of government, accompanied as it always is by the petulant whims of pampered politicians, is necessary to the fundamental pursuit of happiness. No man or woman owes anything to any another by birth or “divine anointing“.

Though Reagan’s words ring with a truth, there is still yet far for us to go to recover this very American spirit. Government once again infects our fair and fertile lands, descending on the fruits of our labor like vermin, stealing away with it to fund their eternal political bickering. Politicians live their days in comfort, infesting a gilded city hundreds of miles away from the subjects they tyrannize, engaged in nothing even vaguely resembling honest work.

If we truly wish to be free, this must change.

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

 

Tug of War

The fight for conservatism has devolved into a fight for the very soul of the conservative movement.

“We are five days away from fundamentally
transforming the United States of America.”
-President Barack Obama-

In 2008, President Barack Obama, then the Democrat presidential candidate (spoiler alert: he won), announced in a passionate stump speech before a cheering crowd that the stated position of his Democratic candidacy was “fundamentally transforming” America. If his goal was a dominant Democratic super majority for years to come, the election results from 2016 are enough to show that he clearly failed. If, however, this “transforming” was merely shifting the political goal posts leftward, then clearly he succeeded far beyond his wildest expectations.

Sure, the fact of Republican victories of numerous governorships, state legislatures, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and now the White House fly in the face of this. I’m not going to argue that point. What I’m going to argue is that the days of “Government is the problem.” and laissez-faire economic policy, once core to the national platform of the Republican Party, are clearly over, sacrificed to an oligarchy of bankers & billionaires who seem poised to reshape the country into an extension of their corporate hegemony.

As it becomes increasingly uncertain what the party of “Honest Abe” stands for anymore, or if it stands for anything at all, there can be no doubt that the Republican Party is no longer an effective opposition party in any sense of the word. Even after maintaining six years of political (off and on) ascendancy, it has failed to act as though the Congress is coequal to the presidency, almost as if noone in the GOP has read the Constitution or, at the very least, really believe in it anymore.

“We have a plan.“
-House Representative Phil Roe-

Does anyone actually remember how outraged we were when a lame duck Democratic Congress passed the Affordable Cair Act in the middle of the night without a single Republican vote? Does anyone actually remember the bitter taste when the Supreme Court ruled not only once but twice on the supposed constitutionality of the ironically named Affordable Care Act? Does anyone actually remember the betrayal of the GOP Congressional leadership failing to defund the ACA in budget fight after budget fight and continuing resolution after continuing resolution? It sure doesn’t seem like it.

Now, while the Republican Party is making a great show of repealing and replacing the ACA, I can’t help but notice that the Republican leadership seems to have assumed the federal government has any role in telling the American people and the States what kind of insurance they should have or should be available, despite the continued absence of any such enumerated power in the United States Constitution. Who in the Republican Party is leading the fight to dislodge this obvious federal overreach into the private affairs of the people beyond the Constitution? Exactly no one.

For years now, the Republicans have made a great show of chasing their own political tails, but the debt ceiling has continued to rise, the deficit has continued to bankrupt future generations, and the policy direction of the country has continued to lurch leftward. Now we’re supposed to abandon every principle of constitutional conservatism and just go along with it, because we are supposedly on the same “team“? I’m afraid that I have to respectfully decline.

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that
he himself does not become a monster.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche-

The fight for conservatism has devolved into a fight for the very soul of the conservative movement. If, as a political movement, we do not stand for limited federal government, constrained to a few enumerated powers within the United States Constitution, then we’re merely arguing about the color and placement of deck chairs as the Titanic sinks beneath the waves. By failing fighting on this issue, the Republican Party is simply agreeing with the tyrants, albeit via a very circuitous and theatrical path.

If the left’s position is government has the duty and necessary power to intervene in the private choices of the people in their business, their labors, their health, and even their beliefs, then the natural opposition position of the right must necessarily be government does not have a duty and necessary power to do these things. If the left’s position is government has the duty and necessary power to confiscate and redistribute capital, the natural opposition position of the right must necessarily be government does not have a duty and necessary power to do these things.

How many people “on the right” hold actual opposition positions? In the tug of war of politics, there is a left end of the rope and there is a right end of the rope. Are you certain which end of that rope you are pulling?

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW

A Hot Cup of Freedom

In 2017, tyranny will be served a nice hot cup of real freedom.

As night fell, the sound of the river flowing into the sea accompanied by a chorus of frogs and insects filled the darkness that enveloped the fisherman’s pier. The smugglers waited for the moon to rise in the shack at the end of the pier, passing the time with small talk and playing cards. The sky was clear, so when the near full moon did finally break the horizon, the blackness of night was lifted into an umbral blue, and the men picked up lanterns and headed outside, spreading out along the pier.

Aware that there was always a chance of a patrol approaching, they remained alert for the faintest sound of approaching footsteps or approaching lights. Only when a flash of light came from the sea accompanied by the sound of the knocking of waves on the side of an approaching ship did the smugglers allow themselves to relax a little. The leader of the smugglers went to the end of the pier and signaled the approaching ship that all was clear.

While the sailors furled the sails and dropped anchor in the eddies of the river, the ship’s captain arrived on the first loaded longboat to take payment for the cargo. The sailors quickly unloaded their longboat and headed back to the ship for another load. The smugglers on the pier counted and loaded the crates onto waiting wagons at the far end of the pier. Once the last boat load was unloaded, the ship’s captain returned to his ship with his money.

The American smugglers returned to the fishing shack and put a kettle on to boil. Cracking open one of the crates, they enjoyed the fruits of their illicit labor: a hot cup of smuggled Dutch tea.

“In this manner, popularity may be united with hostility
to the rights of the people, and the secret slave of tyranny
may be the professed lover of freedom.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville-

Now that the rush of the holidays are over and the new year is upon us in earnest, we have a few moments to sift through the highs and lows of a year that many will be glad to see sink to the bottom of the swampy bog of history. While there’s an unhappy amount of things that many will be glad to see go, it’s necessary to take a clear eyed look at the year so we don’t succumb to the lullaby of time and drift back into the dreamy rhythms of our normal politics free lives.

Among many things made painfully clear in 2016, there can be no denying that a vast majority of Americans no longer subscribe to the highest principles of the American Revolution. Most believe they are somehow “free“, while simultaneously living under a government that regulates their food and drugs, their commerce, their banks, their labor, their environment, their fuel, their land, and even their religious convictions. All the while taxing their livelihoods for the courtesy of interfering with what they take into their bodies, how they transact their business, what they believe in, and even the very air they breathe.

This is not to say that there aren’t functional benefits to having some level of government, because there are. It’s to say, when we consider taxes on private incomes weren’t even thought of as Constitutional until the Progressive Era, at a $552 billion budget deficit in 2016, the price tag on all this “freedom” is obviously bankrupting us. Still, precious few Americans stop to even wonder if this is even how things were supposed to be at all?

Being all that they’ve ever known, they cling to it, while pretending this is what it means to be free.

“[I]n violation of that sacred property, which
Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread
by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to
him, in the small repose that could be spared
from the supply of his necessities.”
-James Madison-

The Founding Fathers were not afraid to break laws that they knew to be tyrannical. They preferred Dutch tea, because it was free of British taxes, even when the after tax price of British tea was eventually cheaper than the illegally acquired Dutch tea. It is a point of literal fact that the Founders were not only proponents of tax evasion, they were guilty of it. The evasion of British taxes, as the Founders saw it, was a patriotic duty.

So how have we become a docile society, content to bend a knee to a government that not only fails to protect us from dangerous drugs, infringes on our freedom of trade, causes bank failures, destroys our labor markets, soils our rivers, causes high fuel prices, and in every conceivable way destroy our personal freedoms, while pretending all the while to be free? How ignorant and gullible must we be to so obviously fall for this?

It seems very clear that Americans have forgotten that the men and women who inhabit the offices of government are no less infected with gross ignorance and blind dependence on popular superstition than the rest of us. Meanwhile, politicians makes a great show out of pretending that they aren’t, yet the American people have been conned into giving away their freedoms and the bread earned by the sweat of their brow in exchange for a century of empty promises.

This must end.

“Government is not the solution to our problem;
government is the problem.”
-Ronald Reagan-

In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected, he won election by promising solutions to all of the pressing problems of the day. The people believed him and gave him the presidency. In 2012, when Barack Obama was reelected, he won election by promising solutions to all of the pressing problems of the day, for many of which he was the architect. The people again believed him and gave him the presidency. In 2016, Donald Trump won election by promising solutions to all of the pressing problems of our day…

In 2017, tyranny will be served a nice hot cup of real freedom. Together, this year, we will break the cycle. Tyranny will fall.

Happy New Year.

Liberty is For The Win!

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW