A Free Man Bows To No King

   Recently there has been some buzz about President Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Even though many people are outraged, it seems to me that they outraged for the wrong reasons. All I hear about, from the people who care, is this and that about protocol.  But to me it is more than that.  President Obama is the appointed leader of a country of free men (and women and what ever else they wish to be called).  A free man bows to no king.  It is not a matter of protocol, but a matter of principle.  To bow to a king as a free man shows how little respect one has for the principal of freedom.  I don't care if it is the custom.  Customs which degrade the free man are not to be abided by. 

   I know this example may be a little too extreme for some, but I think it's the best way to get my point across; but if the custom were for the king to be called "master", then would it have been right for President Obama to abide by that custom?  Of course not!  In my eyes it's the same thing. A free man bows to no king!

And for those of you still don't think it was a bow, it was.  And for those of you think this is just because I dislike President Obama, it's not.  If it was just a reaction, I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any more right.

European Relations

    I have began to wonder why the government of the united states thinks it prudent to take advice on how to successfully run a Republic from countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

   France is a republic; but this incarnation has only been in existence since 1958; and is the fifth Republic formed in that country.  That is not a good track record on knowing how to run a sestainable Republic.

   Germany is a Republic; but this version of their Republic only dates to 1949, since their prior system was overtaken by Hitler.

   The United Kingdom is not a Republic.   They are a constitutional monarchy, without even a written constitution.

   So why does the united states government take advice on how to run a Republic from them?  Our Republic has been sustained since 1789.

   If they feel it prudent to take advice of any sort on how to run a Republic from any European country, then it would be best to take it from San Marino.  San Marino is the oldest Republic in the world, founded in 301.  That means while Germany, France and the United Kingdom were using the monarchal systems of the middle ages, San Marino was a Republic.  San Marino has had a constitution since 1600.  That means when France enacted their latest constitution the San Marino constitution was 350 years old.

  Do I think it's prudent to seek advice from San Marino?  No, for one it is much too small and does not have the same problems we do.  But I don't think we should be asking countries with such horrible records at running Rupublics as France and Germany or a countries which are not even Republics, such as Great Britain, how to run our Republic.  If advice is needed on how to solve our problems I believe all the answers are in or own past.   We need only look to that thing which has been gathering dust in D.C. these last few years, the Constitution.

Green Bay Tea Party

This is a piece I did on the Green Bay tea party back on March 7th.  I am going to try and cover the tea party in Appleton on the 15th.

If this is a passion for you, I urge you to go out and let your voice be heard.  If protesting government spending isn't your bag, then don't participate; but please don't heckle, there's room for all opinions.

Will Atlas Shrug?

   I have recently posited the fact that the united states of america is headed down the road of fascism.  However the major flaw in fascism is the fact that it relys on the compliance of the business sector to create this corrupt idea.  

   Are there any principled buisinessmen left who will simply give up and let the natural course of demise take hold?  Or have we become so corrupted that material gain of any kind is our principal?

   Atlas Shrugged describes a world where buisinessmen still have a principal of capitalism which still makes them morally justified; but have our businessmen so given into to this as to allow material goods to be the only justification to their actions?

   If there is no John Galt, then truly we will be overtaken by fascism; but I still hope there is at least one man left with honor; one man who believes a government granted monopoly is not an answer but a question; Who is John Galt?

The Nature of rights Part II

I have already shared that logical recourse shows that all other rights are devolved from the right of property. The right of property comes from the fact that we are human beings who can both understand our rights and the consequences of our rights, where animals can not.  Previously I posited the belief that property rights decminate from a person clarified as "a being with a body and brain consistant with that of others of the species".   Others have challenged this belief with the idea of a person being clarified as "a being which contains two strains of human DNA and is living."  This would of course deny the right's of a person to sperm/egg and hair, since sperm/egg contains only half of the human genome and hair, which contains the entire genome, is not actually living.  But then I hear this story on the local news.  And I began to think about laws of mutilation of a corpse and grave robbing; which seem to give prudence to my earlier assumption of the definition of a human only requiring a "human" to be alive; since this clearly shows that we manifest property right to even those whom are not alive.  Therefore; life is not an pre-requisite for human life and thus property right.  Which leaves us with the second half of the argument; to be human consists of only human DNA.  If that is the case, then we must treat every strand of fallen hair with the same rights as a human.  Since we clearly do not make that distinction, then the premise must be false; the qualification for being human does not involve either life or human DNA. Rather it is a more defined explanation; Abody which has a brain and a human-like body.  

    However; the opposite assertion that a child has no rights simply because it is dependant on the body of the mother is also illogical.  If this were true, then we would condone the killing of conjoined twins who depend on the body of thier twin.  Clearly we do not do this.  What we do is give give them a choice. They can remove the dependant twin and; but the medical proffesionals must give the dependant twin every chance to survive.  Why is this not true of abortion? Techniques which intentionally kill the child are murder.  The mother has the right to remove the child, but has no right to condone it's murder.

   When we take the logical steps to define a "person", both sides become clear.  Personally I think abortion is immoral; but politically I cannot find any logical reason why a fetus has rights before it has reached a definition of human.  What we can debate, and I encourage, is debate on what constitutes a human.  This will remain a problem until we can reach a logical conclusion on this issue.  It morally pains me to say that I must accept the political idea of abortion before a fetus has become "human"; but my belief that property right is the right from which all other right deceminates will not allow me at this point to object to such an argument.

Jon

Is Hollywood Oblivious or Enlightened?

As recent events are showing the united states to be skewing ever closer to what was only thought to be fiction Hollywood is doing something amazing; planned for release in the next three years are film versions of the novels: Atlas Shrugged, 1984 and Brave New World. How can the same people who are unflinchingly supporting President Obama make these movies now? Did they have a sudden realization of what is going on in this country? Is this round of films still only based on the hatred of President Bush? Or are they simply oblivious to what the theme of these novels is.
Atlas shrugged tells of how government control over business will lead to the downfall of the united states and the world. While our President takes it

upon himself to fire (force into resignation) the head of a privatly owned company (GM) and tell bank executives how much money they should earn.

1984 tells of government intrusion into personal lives through telescreens. At this moment the government wants to install a "smart grid" which could regulate how much power is available to you if they think you are consuming too much.

Brave New World tells of a one world government which promotes consumption of goods and reviles individuality; where the people are so conditioned (all be it through genetic engineering) that they don't even care. This at a time when our president is talking more and more about working with other countries, his state department saying we should ennact laws from other countries which are unconstitutional and the secretary of the treasury is considering complying with the requests to create a new world reserve currency.

For the three most anti-government novels of this century to be in the works while the government ever expands is simply amazing. If conditions have not gotten better by the time these films are released, Hollywood gets them right and the movie going audience understands what they are seeing; then that could be like a match being lit inside an oil tanker. I just wonder if anyone in Hollywood realizes that. Who is John Galt?

The Un-Spoken Word

   When I hear people speaking of the politics of President Obama they never seem to use the correct words. Some call him a socialist; he might be, but few of his policies have shown that because with a few exceptions buisnessmen still own thier businesses. Some call him a liberal; but that is a really vague term, what does that entail? No, through his actions so far he has proven to be somthing which has yet to be named by the critics. A word so damning they dare not utter it. A word which has taken on a different connotative meaning than it's actual denotative meaning. A word that if one used it they would be called isane. But this word is the one which properly describes his actions. What is the word? Fascist.

   Through the years Fascism has become interchangable with Nazism; when in fact Nazism is only a type of fascism. Through this misconstrued meaning it has come to be believed that a Fascist must be a racist; but this is not the case. Fascism; put simply, is socialism light. Where in socialism the government actually owns all the businesses; in Fascism the businessmen own thier businesses, but the government tells them how to run it. This is exactly what President Obama; as well as the previous administration, has done. The government doesn't actually own General Moters, but yet President Obama is choosing who runs the company.

   Sadly, one fact of Nazism that is inherrent of Fascism is that with the extended power of the government in the business sector, they also take power in the civil sector. In 1932 Hitler's Fascist ally Benito Musselini put it like this, "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...." This sounds a lot like the attempts to limit smoking and consumption of fattening foods which have been happening these last few years.

Now the civil and economic factors are both there, so lets stop skirting around the issue.

    Let's not be afraid to use the correct terminology, because if what they are doing is so right, then why are they arfraid of naming it? If what you are doing is right, you have no such fears; only when you know what you are doing is wrong are you afraid to name it.