Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Friday, August 30, 2013

It's No Wonder Science In America is in Trouble

The books that kids are given in public schools for science studies have completely given up on being sneaky.  They are blatantly teaching fallacies and lies and are proud of it.

One of the more "enlightened" concepts to hit the science scene is that there is no Scientific Method.  nope.

They teach our kids that there are scientific methodologies, because, you know, there s more than one way to investigate and research. 

The premise behind this is that they want to play word games.  When they say there is no single Scientific Method, they are talking about and give examples of methods of study such as using inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc...

This is important because when most people talk about THE Scientific Method, they are referring to the philosophical approach to science that has been established since it began.  The Scientific method doesn't try to tell students of Science which particular methods to use in their studies, only that they follow a mental and ethical set of guidelines in the pursuit of Science.

But no, in the textbooks, they obfuscate that because mainly their goal is to teach kids that in science, it doesn't matter what results you get, Science is always right because there's more than one way to get to the answers.

In the same textboioks though, they then make a point to compare Science against Religion and how Science is better than Religion because Science uses evidence and facts and Religion uses dogma and belief to arrive at their results.

It doesn't matter that Science and Religion aren't mutually exclusive and that they are each set up to answer different questions.  No, they aren't interested in that kind of truth. 

It's also interesting that now they heavily emphasize that science searches for "natural" solutions and answers and does not take the "supernatural" into consideration.  They then go on to say though that scientist's must be objective and keep an open mind.

It must hurt to be that intellectually constipated.

Parents, you MUST pay attention to what your kids are being taught in schools.  They are making blatant efforts at passing off intellectual dishonesty as truth to students and "the system" is full force behind it.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Two Americas?

There's little doubt that after working at it for decades, they have finally accomplished their goal.  Who is this "they" I am referring to and what is it they have accomplished? 

They go by many names.  Progressives, statists, the "powerbroker rich", imperialists.  All collectively known better know as the American ruling class.

What is this goal they achieved?  Creating the American ruling class.  Political party membership is no deep divide.  Both parties want the same thing, power.  It is obvious that they have been complicit in working together to create a situation in this country in which they make and enforce laws that they themselves are not subject to.  They are part of a group that rules over everyone else.

Obamacare is what finally sealed the deal.  It puts into effect laws that everyone MUST be forced to participate in and abide by.  Everyone except those who made the law (Congress, and those who enforce the law (The President/White House) and those who paid those first two groups that made it happen. (the "powerbroker rich").

The Supreme Court was complicit because instead of rejecting it on it's most obvious flaw, that it is un-Constitutional by infringing on one of the inalienable rights, Liberty, They allowed it to go ahead anyway by describing it as a "tax" which doesn't change the fact that it still infringes on Liberty.

How do we know that both political parties are complicit in this?  Because while one political party and the Office of the President have been committing un-Constitutional acts, the other has bee either silent, putting up token disagreement to "keep face" or outright ignoring the fact and not calling them out on their un-Constitutional acts.

As long as they get to be part of the Ruling Class and exempt, they are satisfied with the solidifying of a Ruling Class.

When you read online or in the news that "The U.S. wants to take action A on issue B,"  what that really means is that the Ruling Class wants this action.  In all likelihood, the vast majority of the citizens don't want anything to do with it or actively oppose it.

The Ruling Class does not speak for the citizens, they just do what they want.

Yet it is still not too late to change this, though the window is closing.You'll know the end is near, the window is closing when Congress (most likely the Senate) introduces a Bill to repeal the Second Amendment.

Think it can;t happen?  Do you remember when the last Bill to step on individual liberty was passed so quickly and somehow ratified by the states in blindingly rapid succession?  That was Prohibition.  It happened before many citizens fully realized what was going on.

The government is taking steps to that end already by repeatedly bringing up the intent to implement "gun control" (in the Senate by the Way) with the president fully backing their efforts.  The other party (Republicans) are putting up token resistance but each time the resistance grows weaker and the opposition more mute.

The President has blatantly and repeatedly violated his oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and no other branch of the Federal government has taken steps to call him on it.  Oh sure, they rattle sabers and make comments in the news but not one has taken the issue up to begin impeachment or other trial investigation.  None of them.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Get off of our liberty.

Did you know that according to the founding documents, especially the Declaration of independence, that our country is founded on the ideals that we, as people, are endowed by our Creator, whoever and however that may be, with the three inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Let's talk some more about Liberty shall we?

First of all, Liberty is the ability to live one's life, make one's own life choices and decisions without the influence or direction of government, religous entities or any other group or entities.

That is the Liberty the founding documents refer to, there is no confusion debate or need for interpretation about that by any so called constitutional scholars.

So, if we are supposed to be a people with individual Liberty, why are there so many laws forcing people to do specific things?

Why are people forced to purchase insurance?  Why are people forced to wear motorcycle helmets?  Why are people forced to wear seatbelts?

There really is no good reason for these laws to be on the books except as part of a conspiracy between corporate entities and elected legislators.

For example, One excuse for seatbelts and helmets , perhaps the biggest one, is that the public is forced to pay for hospitalizations and care for those who go without.

However, they already force people to purchase insurance.  Why not simply let the insurance companies provide variations of insurance policies such as an auto policy  for those who choose to wear seatbelts and another policy for those who choose not to?  This way, no matter what choice the individual makes, as is his or her right to do so, the taxpayers are covered and not having to pay for their costs.

Same goes for having helmet and no helmet policy options for motorcycle riders.  it accommodates individual liberty and protects the public from unnecessary costs because of poor decisions on the individual's part.

This is where our legislators have gone wrong.  They do not allow people to bear the full responsibility for their decisions. in the name of fearing the costs to the public for poor decisions made by those same individuals.

People, individuals, must be allowed to fail.  It is a natural consequence of an individual making their own decisions.  some will succeed, others will fail.  The sooner people learn the effects of poor decision making, they usually tend to start making better decisions.

All that happens now is that people are shielded from poor decisions and the public must bear the cost for individual failure.  This ultimately raises the total cost of failure that the public must cover.

This isn't to say that people who are needing assistance due to unforseen circumstances and "amicable failures" meaning that they made poor decisions but the community for some reason or other doesn't hold it against them, must go without support or assistance of any kind.  The community can and will band together to help it's members when it's needed.

This happens already as there are fundraisers for local people all the time in the form of dinners, pancake breakfasts, raffles, donation locations and many other events that are purely community, not governmentally originated.

By allowing people to fail or succeed on their own merits in their own communities in front of everyone else in their community who will decide for themselves how amicable the failure is o is not, we allow communities to bond tighter and know each other.   Trust each other and learn who can be counted on and who cannot.

Ensuring individual Liberty above all else helps build stronger, more capable people and communities. This is much better in contrast to the dependent and unstable wrecks of society we have now.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Political hacks can't hack it

You might be a political hack if you can't justify something "your guy" has done without trying to change the topic to what someone else did.

It's something all political hacks do when "their" politician is being criticized, they have to try to drag up what a politician from another party did when thy had that office in the pst. 

Somehow, that justifies whatever it is that their guy is doing now. 

Nope, it doesn't.  See, as a culture, we teach our children that wrong is wrong regardless of who or how many are doing it.  Just because more than one person has done something, that doesn't make it right, it only makes it popular.

When politicians are in office, we need to judge them based on what they have done against what that elected office is supposed to do, not based on what a previous holder of that office did.

This is another area of where political parties serve to obfuscate issues and polarize discussion.  They don't want to have their representative judged based on the expectations that exist in the "job description".  instead, they would rather be compared to another person who had the same job so they can make false comparisons.

When you are elected to office, at that point in time, we shouldn't care who was the previous office holder, their time is done and they should have been dealt with during their time.

Now it's your time in office and we will judge you based on what you are supposed to be doing rather than how someone else did or didn't do it.

Party hacks don't want that though.  They have an obligation to ignore facts, ignore truth and keep their guy in office, whether he's doing a good job or not.  It's about obtaining and retaining power, nothing more.

People need to think for themselves, not spew talking points handed down for them.  They need to base their judgements on officeholders based on what that officeholder is doing during their time in office, not based on how the last officeholder did.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Do Journalists need to be registered, maybe it's time?

There are people who insist that guns need to be controlled and they insist that forcing gun owners to register and be subject to government oversight.  They say this even though it is a Constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms.

They insist that even Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Ok then.

There is now a discussion in the government about who is or isn't a "journalist".  The freedom of the press as well as the right to free speech are covered by the First Amendment.

It is a fact, with many documented incidents over time that so called "journalists" have directly and indirectly caused harm to other people with what they say, show and put into print.  Some people have e literally died, committed suicide or been killed because of what "journalists" have written or said.

"Journalists"' have incited violence, violated people's legal rights with slander and libel, outright lied and taken political "sides" of an issue.

This doesn't happen just once in a while, it happens regularly, almost daily, in the U.S.  Retractions are so common to see that people are no longer fazed by them any more.

No, these abuses of Free Speech and Free Press are dangerous and harmful.  Used inappropriately, people are being hurt.  They are losing their jobs, having careers ruined, families broken up and worse.  All due to inappropriate use of the First Amendment.

To help solve this problem, perhaps we should require that anyone who is to be considered a "journalist" must register with a new government agency within their home state (much like truck drivers, chemical applicators, gun owners, etc...), pass a test and be "approved" in order to be a licensed journalist.  The test will cover ethics, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, fact checking and more.

Of course, there is a fee associated with the test and it must be re-taken every 2 or 3 years to make sure the journalists in question are up to sped with all the new regulations related to journalism.

Yep, that should do it.

What?  You say that under no circumstances should the First Amendment be infringed in such a way?  It's a ridiculous idea you say?  We shouldn't judge all journalists by the misdeeds of a few?  Most journalists actually are good people and and they shouldn't e lumped into one big lump with those who abuse the First Amendment?

Why, you would be right to say that.  It is ridiculous.  Even though harm has most certainly come from people abusing their First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press, we shouldn't clamp it down in that way just because some people don't use it the way it is intended.

You say that there will always be a certain amount of risk that "The People" have to accept in order to maintain such rights.

Why yes, again, you are right.

And to think, the First Amendment doesn't even contain a clause which states
"shall not be infringed".

I know of an Constitutional Amendment that does though and some people want to regulate the hell out of it anyway.

You see people, it's not just about what harm might come from allowing such rights, it's about the principle of respecting those rights for all citizens.

There is inherent risk in allowing people freedoms of nearly all kinds because some may abuse those rights or use them in inappropriate ways.  the answer is not to remove or restrict those rights though.  The answer is educating people and responding to abuses on a case by case situation.

But that makes too much sense right?

Friday, August 9, 2013

Freedom Of Speech is a right, not an entitlement

So you want to express yourself.  Go ahead.

Regardless of how you do it, be it art, your voice, hand signals, printing signs, tattoos, whatever,   Get it out of your system already.

You must realize though that while you and I and every other citizen of the United States have the right to do so, there is nothing that says anyone else has to listen or care about what is expressed.

Just because you think it's important to say, no one else has to care what you say.

Wanting to express yourself does not give you the right to force others to pay attention to your opinion.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Step Right Up

The media and career politiacians would have us believe that there are some "special" requirements to become a Congress-person, President or even Supreme Court Judge.

They ask, "what are your qualifications?  Have you ever been elected to office before?"  as if those things really had anything to do with those positions.

We are not only being lied to, we are being misled, deceived and intentionally mis-informed.

As per the U.S. Constitution, you know, the document which sets the law of the Republic and enumerates the powers of the federal government (they hate that by the way):

House of Representatives:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

The Senate:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The President:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Supreme Court: (emphasis my own)

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Special Note: (emphasis my own)

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What you see above is pretty much it.  That is all that is required to fill any of those positions, elected or appointed.  In terms of Supreme Court Judges, it is pretty much left up to the president as to who he or she thinks is qualified to take on such a role but there is absolutely nothing that requires them to have been in the role as a "professional" judge or even a lawyer previous to that appointment.

To become a Senator, a Representative or even President, one need not have ever held public office prior to their being elected to the post.  One need not have been a lawyer or have held any elected office prior to that point at all.

Why do you think it is that those positions were left so open?

It was because the government is by, of and for "The People", that being anyone who fills the above mentioned requirements.  Almost anyone can fill those.  A farmer, an accountant, a writer, a janitor.  Anyone at all who is able to convince others that they are a capable and trustworthy person to represent their city/county/state/country to their best ability.

What is most required is an ability to learn, to be honest, to stand on their principles and to have some degree of wisdom.  Anyone who is capable can be educated.   I would surely prefer an un-educated wise person over an educated fool any day.    The wise person can learn, but the fool will always be so.

Don't be conned.  Don't be made to feel inadequate.  We must have faith in the "everyman/woman" among us to be able to take the mantle of leadership placed upon us by our peers and represent the people with integrity, honor and principle.