Monthly Archives: November 2012

Kid Con I

What I want my kids to know about the constitution.

Part I – Where do rights come from? What rights do we have? Who defends your rights?

There is a “holy trinity” of the concepts that underpin human rights. The first concerns origin of rights. The second is about the nature of rights. The third is who these rights belong to.

Rights exist without a written list. They exist without agreement between individuals. They exist regardless of time or place. They exist without language. They exist whether a culture values them or not.

How can rights exist without human consent or agreement? Simple really, they are given to us by our creator. No matter your religious preference, and even if you are not religious at all, your rights are yours because you are a unique human being. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and yes, Atheists, all have the same natural rights.

You might feel it ironic to tell an Atheist that his rights come from a creator. After all, Atheists don’t believe in a creator. That, however, is not the point. The point is that rights exist whether you believe or not. Rights don’t care about your disbelief as to where they come from.

The next thing you need to know about the origin of rights is that they are inalienable. Inalienable means “cannot be taken away.” Some cultures do not allow their citizens to practice all of their rights. The force of a tyrant does not, however, affect the concept of rights being inalienable.

Your rights can be taken away by force or by consent. However, they remain yours regardless. Every individual has to choose to what point he will defend his rights. Some will die fighting. Some will acquiesce to being controlled.

Deciding not to “fight the power” does not mean your rights are gone. It just means you are not currently enjoying them. They are still there, they are still accessible, but they are being withheld from you. You retain them, regardless of your circumstance. You can assert them at any time you choose.

So the first two concepts – that rights come from your creator and that they are inalienable – have a lot in common. Both ideas are permanent and immalleable. You and your circumstances might change but your rights do not change. They are permanent, fixed and perpetual.

What rights do all humans have?

The declaration of independence gives us a little taste.

1)      The right to life.

2)      The right to liberty.

3)      The right to pursue that which makes you happy.

What rights follow these three principals?

The right to life.

1)      The right to defend yourself.

2)      The right to defend your family, friends or even complete strangers.

3)      The right of those too weak to defend themselves to, nonetheless, live.

The right to liberty

1)      Freedom of speech

2)      Freedom of religion.

3)      The right to travel.

4)      The right not to be enslaved or detained without cause.

5)      Freedom of association.

The right to pursue what makes you happy

1)      The right to choose what kind of work you do

2)      The right to private property.

3)      The right to the proceeds from your labors.

All of these rights exist without the Constitution. The Constitution does name some of these rights, but it does not specifically name others. The constitution makes it clear that the rights it does grant to the government are “enumerated,” which means defined and listed. It also makes clear that all other rights not enumerated are held by individuals.

This concept, that all rights are held at the individual level, is the third of the “holy trinity” of understanding the entire concept of human rights.

Imagine if instead of rights being held by individuals, they were held by groups. If this were the case, and you were in a group that did not have a specific right, then that other group, as individuals, would have superior rights than you. In other words, individual rights evaporate when group rights come into existence.

The push and pull of modern “Liberal vs. Conservative” thinking all comes down to battling over these three concepts. Liberals believe that rights are created by man. If rights are created by man, then rights can be taken away by man. The founding fathers did not believe this.

Similarly, modern liberals believe that rights can be traded for benefits. Inalienable does not only mean “cannot be taken away,” it also means “cannot be given away.” In other words, you cannot trade freedom for safety, you cannot trade rights for payments and you cannot trade responsibility for control. The founding fathers would be ashamed of how many of our rights we have surrendered to our government.

Finally, modern liberals do not believe in the individual retention of rights. They regularly favor the poor over the rich, the minority over the majority and all things female over all things male. They believe that you have to give some groups “more” rights in order that they become “equal” to the other groups. They are willing to throw away the very concept of equality in pursuit of equality. In other words, they are willing to trade principals for practicality. An all-inclusive mantra of the left might be “the ends justify the means.”

Free individuals pursuing their own happiness produce uneven results. Some people win and some lose. Some succeed and some fail. Some become rich and some remain poor. The founders believed that we would get to equality by treating people equally. They were huge believers in charity – a fundamental Christian dogma. They knew that the successful would always take care of the less fortunate because they felt duty-bound to do so. It is no surprise that conservatives give 30% more than liberals do to charity, despite earning less.

Modern liberals believe we have to force people toward equality, by punishing some and rewarding others. They do not believe in the fundamental goodness of humanity and how it drives the more fortunate toward altruism. They believe people have to be forced to behave correctly.

As a side note – the founding fathers were called “Liberal” for their ideas. Their ideas were all about individual “liberty.” Today we call them “classic liberals” because their ideas bear no resemblance to modern liberalism. On the other hand, old school conservatives preferred not to rock the boat. They thought monarchy was the way to go. They wanted to “conserve” the status quo.

Modern liberals, come from a Marxist lineage. Instead of treating people equally, they would rather achieve equality through control and force. They believe that individuals are too stupid or weak to control their own lives. You have no doubt heard the phrase that “with great rights come great responsibilities.” The modern left does not believe that humans are capable in acting in a responsible manner.

Another word you might hear a modern liberal call himself is “progressive.” This is an even more tragic label. The beliefs of the modern progressive movement started in the early 1900’s and include Darwinism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism and the eugenics movement just to name a few. They were truly despicable people and brought us things like the right to abortion as a way to cut down on the rising black population.

It should never take you by surprise when a liberal wants to play “social engineer.” It is what they do. They would happily scrap the constitution and all of its principals if it weren’t for the fact that some of us still believe in the founding fathers vision.

One the most common things you might hear a conservative called is “old fashioned.” We are constantly told that our ideas are “old.”

This is, however, blatantly untrue. The American experiment ended 10,000 years of tyranny with a “new” idea. The “new” idea was that man would have as much individual freedom as possible. The “new” idea was that man didn’t need to be controlled. This idea is only about 250 years old. It is a very new idea – considering the timeline of human history.

America and its new ideas have been directly responsible for freeing hundreds of millions of people from slavery and tyranny. America feeds much of the world today. America fights intellectually, fiscally and physically, all over the world, for people who aren’t fortunate enough to be free.

On the other hand, Marxism, socialism and Nazism have killed or made slaves out of hundreds of millions of people. So which idea should be made fun of? The “old” idea of men having rights and responsibilities? Or the “new” idea of command and control? As is their habit, liberals confuse old with new, just as they confuse group rights vs. individual rights.

I put it to you that the only people with “old” ideas are modern day liberals and their obsession with controlling people using a centralized government. Indeed, that is the oldest system we know of.

 

Summary:

Rights come from our creator.

They cannot be given or taken away.

They belong to individuals alone.

Modern liberals have nothing whatsoever in common with classic liberals. They are socialist, communist and fascist in nature.

The fight over bigger government or smaller government and between a nanny state and individual responsibility is a fight between modern conservatives and modern liberals.

Modern liberals prefer the old idea of command and control.

Modern conservatives are the exact same people as classic liberals. They believe in the “new” idea of individual rights and individual responsibilities.

So, ask yourself, “Can free men be trusted to rule themselves?” If you answer yes, congratulations, you are a conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

Global Warming, no wait, Climate Change!

Date: November 3, 2006 10:09 AM

Topic: global warming

 The earth is getting warmer – we know this. There is no debate. Is man, however, causing this warming? That is the multi-trillion dollar question.

 We all know that the earth has warmed and cooled millions of times in its 4 billion-year existence. What causes these climate changes? Nature or man? For the first three billion nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred years – there is only one answer. Nature. Man simply didn’t produce any of the allegedly climate-changing gasses. Volcanoes did, the natural warming process of the earth did, but man did not.

 Here we are at the height of our hubris – the post-modern world. We have conquered nature, except for the floods and hurricanes and volcanoes and tides and tornadoes and heat waves and cold snaps. We rule the earth – except of course when nature decides that we don’t.

 It only follows that since we have become so all-powerful that we can indeed affect the future existence of life on this planet. The only problem with this new found faith is history proves it wrong.

 History is certainly not the favored subject of, shall we say, “left leaning” folks. Probably because it proves them wrong so often. Be that as it may, we do need to interject a little science into the religion of global warming. So what does science tell us about history?

 Did you ever wonder why Greenland was named “Green-land” in the first place? Was it because the Icelandic people were looking for barren, frozen wastes to colonize? This is just one tiny example of the global-warmists ignorance of history.

 Grapes were grown in England 1000 years ago. Did you know that? Grapes were also grown in England by the Romans 2000 years ago. Are you aware of the temperature difference required to pull this off?

 Verdant fields of green, crop producing lands as far as Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Finland have been commonplace in periods throughout history. The dark ages in Europe were brought on not by faith-based zealotry but by a mini-ice age that devastated the food production in these countries.

 The trillions of dollars the global-warmists want us to spend will decimate the economies of the free-market world. The Kyoto accords are nothing more than a plan for world-wide wealth redistribution. Is it any wonder the United Nations endorses this nonsense?

 Al Gore says that “all” scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. No, no they do not. Ried Bryson, the father of climatology, calls man-made global warming “garbage science.” In fact, nearly all of the country’s climatologists (scientists who actually have degrees in the study of the climate) agree that there is global warming – and also that there is not one thing that we can do about it. Not one thing.

 Yep, that’s nature – ignoring our vast-earth-changing power. Isn’t it frustrating that there is something more powerful than humans?

 It certainly is to the big-government crowd. Nothing could be more unacceptable to the egos of those that think they know better. The fragility of human life – and the fact that we exist at the whim of nature is not even an acceptable concept to these people.

 But then again, we have history and we have science. Let’s address the scientific underpinnings of the global-warmists. For example, what If their entire causal formula is upside down? What if rising carbon dioxide levels follow global warming as opposed to causing global warming?

 Guess what? We know that it does. It’s called research. We have ice cores and mud samples and stalagmite studies taken from all around the globe that show exactly how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at any given time in history. They show that carbon dioxide is a result of global warming. If you’re keeping score at home – this means that the number one supposition of the global-warmists is B.S.

 This science further proves that, with no man made intervention, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now. They also show that the temperature of the earth has been much, warmer than it is now. It has been much warmer than the current, trend is predicted to be.

 Turns out that the ocean – which is much larger in volume than the land-mass of the earth – holds immense amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Cool water holds more C02 than warm water. So, when we enter a perfectly natural warming cycle (like now) – guess what happens? Yes, more C02 enters the atmosphere.

 Now that we know the earth warms and cools and we know that C02 levels follow warming – what the heck is the role of C02? The answer is we don’t know. We can, however, measure C02.

 Of all the “greenhouse gasses,” C02 is a minor player. Water vapor is the number one culprit, accounting for 97% of all “greenhouse gasses.” All of the rest of the gasses amount to 3% of the alleged “movers” of climate change. Of that 3% C02 accounts for about 2.7%. Of the C02 produced on the planet, 97% is released from the oceans during warming periods.

 So, math time. Human produced C02 accounts for 3% of 2.7%. In other words, humans account for about .00081 of “greenhouse gasses.”

 Now I’m not a scientist and I’m not a climatologist, but I know that for nearly 4 billion years the earth has been warming and cooling all by itself. I know, furthermore, that there is a mechanism that balances the earth back to warm when it is too cold and balances the earth back to cold when it is too warm.

 Let’s offer a much different hypothesis about global warming and cooling.

 1) Big magic ball of fire in the sky warms the earth. Solar flare cycles and earth orbit “wobble” are proven factors of global warming.

2) The ocean releases C02 into the atmosphere.

3) The ice caps melt and very cold water is circulated around the globe, cooling the earth back off.

4) C02 is reabsorbed into the ocean.

5) The magic ball of fire warms us all up again. Rinse, repeat.

 The fact is, we do not know the role of C02 in this cycle. It is such an insignificant part of the equation, that there is no possible way to lay the global warming and cooling cycle at the foot of C02. In fact, the very theory that there is a “greenhouse effect” is in doubt. Furthermore, we know conclusively, that C02 does not drive warming, it is a product of warming.

 If we run around like chicken-little, crying about the impending doom of life as we know it, we are ignoring history, ignoring science, and ignoring that fact that nature is more powerful than man. Ignoring these facts is a sign that you could be delusional.

 Now, I have my own feelings as to why the global-warmists want to cripple our economic future. They want power. They want to tell us how to live and they are willing to use any kinds of tactics to get us to cede authority and money to them. They are willing to scare us into submission to satisfy their political goals.

 Man-made global warming is not science, it is a faith-based religion. The main stream media refuses to fact check any of the pseudoscientific drek they have been fed. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the unholy-trinity of big government politicians, eco-facists and media shills are collaborating to shove this bunk down our necks.

 Punishing success is the classic tool the left uses to “level the playing field.” Global warming, which is now being re-branded as “climate change,” is just another crass, baseless attempt to extort money from the American people. If you worry about your freedom, as I do, you will do your part to refute the global-warmists lies.

 

I like to try and distill complex problems down to basic, easy to understand points. In researching global warming I came across one book that does it all. If you want to educate yourself about global warming and you don’t want to read ten different books and 30 different studies – the one to go for is “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Fred Sanger and Dennis Avery. They make it simple, but at the same time they footnote everything. So if you want to, you can dig all the way down to the bottom of the well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makers and Takers

Evil depends on the cooperation of its victims.

Evil only exists in as much as the good will tolerate it.

Humans have no right to demand or require the sacrifice of time, labor or money from other humans.

Every man is entitled to the profits of his own endeavors.

No man has the right to another man’s earning.

Taxation is extortion. There is a point of a gun, you just don’t see it.

When money is taken from the makers and given to the takers, the fundamental rights of the makers have been irrevocably damaged. The makers and the takers are not equal. The takers rights are superior.

There is a two-tiered system in America today. Half the people create and make and do. The other half fake and take and demand.

Since the progressive movement started in the early 20th century, we have been moving slowly – like the Titanic toward the iceberg – toward this two-tiered society.

Fourty-seven percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes. They do not help pay for the military, roads, airports, welfare, medical care, hospitals, schools – nothing.

At the end of the day these people are leeches.

The funny thing is that this rising evil is being sanctioned by us – the makers, the victims. We allow it to happen.

We have been asleep. We walk through our lives watching out for ourselves and our children. We pay the taxes even as they become more and more burdensome. We are living in lifeboats on the Titanic.

So when the ship finally hits the iceberg, we will be safe – right? We work and save and invest and we live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods. We have enough to see us through the hard times.

But what happens if our country, our economy, our way of life “tips” and falls over the edge. What if we have allowed ourselves to be bled to death by a million mosquitoes and leeches that are so tiny and have worked on us so slowly that we never really noticed how sick we are. What if we have stage four cancer already?

When the host finally dies, will the takers demand less from us?

Throughout the course of human history the answer to this question has always been no. The takers, the leeches, will turn into looters the minute their revenue stream is cut off.

Look at Greece – bankrupt – and yet the takers, who have bled their system dry, are now rioters and looters.

 

When was the last time a taker sent you a thank you note? Do they appreciate the fact that you support them? Are the makers in America lionized, as we should be, or are we demonized?

Not only are we expected to allow this evil to exist, we are told by the looters and the takers that it is our role, our duty, our place in life to be their support system.

We, the victims of this persistent evil, have allowed ourselves to fulfill this role.

We are sanctioning our own destruction.

Sixty million looters, leeches and moochers just re-elected a Marxist.

Are there enough of us left? Once we run out of money where will the blood we feed the leeches come from?

Will we have more rights or less rights once the pillaging starts?

Will America still be a free country?

The founding principal of America was this question – “Can man rule himself?”

Up until the founding of America, it was an unheard of philosophical question. There was always an assumption that a monarch, whether “benign” or tyrannical was necessary to rule over the masses.

Are we still free? Do we rule ourselves? Or are we nothing more than a big blood bag for the leeches?

We no longer rule ourselves. When the federal, state and local governments, plus taxes on everything we need – electricity, gas, cigarettes and booze – take more than 60% of our incomes, can we still call ourselves “free.”

We, the makers, are enslaved. We serve the leeches at gunpoint. We have allowed it to happen.

When will we stop?