The Right to Drive

This is from the desk of Tona Monroe, a patriotic and like-minded friend of liberty. She is a strong advocate of the right to drive without a driver's license, and she is absolutely right in her assertions. This is her exchange with Tennessee representative John Hagan.

Communist State Representative John Ragan say we the people have no right to drive in our private automobiles Today I emailed Tennessee State legislators about the right to travel (“drive”) in our private automobiles. John Ragan’s response show’s how far we’ve sunk into tyranny in this country. My original email is below his response.

——————————————————————-

Legislators, There is a growing movement in Saudi Arabia of women saying they have the right to drive. Hillary Clinton, has spoken of their right to mobility and freedom to drive. http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/clinton-responds-to-saudi-women-fighting-for-rights/ A privilege is not the same a right. No one has to obtain permission from the government to exercise a right. This raises a fundamental question in this society. If it’s the right of these women, and ultimately all people, to travel by personal automobile, then why is is regulated as a privilege here in Tennessee in the land of the “free” and home of the brave? Do we Americans have less bravery and guts than the oppressed Saudi women? It’s time to repeal the 6th plank communist manifesto drivers license. It’s wrong for you all to pass legislation attaching unrelated fines to the drivers license. You the legislature are guilty of extortion, telling people that can’t freely travel upon the public “right”-of-ways and roads that they pay for through the gas tax. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/12/bill-would-punish-those-owing-criminal-court-fine/ Restore the people’s fundamental right to travel. Repeal the communist drivers license. http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/fulltext/hb7.htm Let freedom ring throughout this land once again.

—————————————————————

Dear Ms. Monroe, There is no “Right to Drive.” However, there is a right to travel freely within the US to any location you choose (excluding military bases or other classified sites). However, the mode of travel can be walking, horseback, train, bus, buggy, taxi, or any number of other transport means that do not require a license. It does not have to be “driving” an automobile. “Driving” necessarily puts the public at risk from a vehicle operator’s potential lack of skill or knowledge. Consequently, it is well within the state’s delegated authority from its citizens to demand certain safeguards of vehicle operators. One such safeguard is a requirement to pass an operator’s skill and knowlege test. Additionally, it is, likewise, perfectly within the state’s public safety and order maintence duties to require proof of an operator’s having accomplished this essential safety precaution in the form of a driver’s license. Laws already in existence prohibit US and state government agencies from illegally discriminating against citizens on the basis of race, religious creed, ethnicity, or sex. These laws apply to the privelege of obtaining a driver’s license. The issuance of a driver’s license has nothing to do with the type, or form, of government. Therefore, your allegation that driver’s licenses are “communist” is ludicrous. I suggest you expand your knowlege of political systems and, in particular, the US government, through a good high school civics text. Regards, John D. Ragan State Representative

——————————————————————

My “gentle” response to Mr. Ragan. Seriously, I’d like to know where I delegated any authority to regulate my right to travel by giving it a new name called driving? The State constitution was written in 1870 and I wouldn’t have been able to vote on it. My vote, had I believe alive and enfranchised, would have been not to ratify it for numerous reasons. Mr. Ragan, I suggest that you follow your own advice and take a class in civic, but that could actually be the problem. The 10th plank of the communist manifesto is free education for kids. Public schools dumb kids down to the point that they don’t even know they have rights or that people ever use to enjoy such rights. Do they ever bother to teach school kids that the 10th plank of the communist manifesto is “free” education at the expense of others, including those that don’t have kids? Public school education is so poor that I graduated an honor student and didn’t even know that I had adrenal glands or anything about their functions. Furthermore, any time you want to have a one-on-one debate in a public forum to compare our knowledge of history of this country, and the concept of liberty, I’ll take you on. I have read extensively on the right to travel and have provided you with a law review article on the matter (see below). Quite frankly based on your response, I doubt you can even define the differences between rights and privileges. You implied that it was a matter of discrimination against women. The words being used are rights and freedom, not government regulated/controlled privileges. You speak of modes of travel. The private automobile is a mode of travel, as any other mode including those that you mentioned. Per mile traveled it’s much safer than horseback. Why don’t we have to obtain a license to operate a horse? A horse can go crazy and kill people at anytime. If you’d like a list of examples, I’ll provide them to you. Furthermore, if I took my horse on the public roads, can they crap everywhere on the paved roads? Where are the horse trails that use to exist, where horse crap would not have been a problem? They were morphed into paved roads for automobiles. Have you tried getting on a plane or bus lately? Unless you prove you’re not a terrorist you can’t board them. If it is a right to travel on a bus or plane, then one would NOT have to prove they’re not a terrorist to board these modes of transportation. Per mile traveled, the private automobile is the safest form of travel available to the masses of people. Planes are safer, but unaffordable to most. Horses are much more dangerous, yet no operators license is required and they are far more dangerous per mile traveled. Flippant answers like yours are why this country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Stupid or ignorant legislators like you thrust draconian laws on the people and then tell them they have no right and that you can lord over them in the name of public safety. Show me where I ever consented for any state legislator to make laws over me? You’re a communist and simply too stupid to even know it. Since you speak of a civics lesson, read the 6th and 10th planks of the communist manifesto since you strongly identify with Marxist ideology. 6th plank Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html Congrats Mr. Ragan, we officially have a communist in the state legislature encouraging people to be indoctrinated in 10th plank public school so that they are so dumbed down that they don’t know that they have rights because the state tells them it’s a privilege. Perhaps we can get the Communist party to give you the Marxist of the year award. If you want a civics lesson, read this law review article on the drivers license. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/orphaned_right.pdf Again, anytime you wish to compare wits in public, I’ll take you on and expose you for being the communist fool that you are.

Social Responsibility

There is a strong movement in America today that those with money have a social duty to "spread the wealth." Even among conservatives so-called, this idea is very strong. Now, I, like any other red-blooded human being, love it when I get money without having to work for it. However, just because some person, somewhere has money does not mean that I am entitled to a portion of his wealth. I am responsible for me and my actions. I am responsible for taking care of myself and laying up for my family. Indeed it is wrong for me to expect someone to give his money --- money he legally earned from the fruits of his intellectual and physical labor --- to me or anyone else less blessed than he. The man who earns what he gets is the sole rightful reasoning force determining how that money is spent. Now, there are many arguments claiming that those with wealth have a duty to help feed the poor, the elderly, the sick. But that is a fallacious argument. As a man, it is not my responsibility to help anyone except my family. Yes, the Apostle James says "15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?" (James 2:15-16). And similar sentiments are echoed in Proverbs. And I am not discrediting that. Lest I be misunderstood, the giving of money by anyone should be voluntary and not expected. What James is saying is that the giving by an individual is between him and God, and if one gives because federal, public or private expectations demand he give X amount, then it is no longer charity, but rather coerced giving. To conclude this, no man is entitled to any thing. Not insurance. Not healthcare. Not even food. No man is entitled to it. It is the responsibility of every man to wisely and prudently oversee his finances to adequately meet his needs. And if perchance a man falls on hard times and cannot support himself, the answer is not turning to the Church. The answer is to ask family. A close-knit, tightly bound family unit will watch out for each other and, insofar as each and all are able, not allow one to fail. This is the system God designed and ordained, but this system has been perverted nearly universally, and condemned as too harsh. But if God ordained and established it, who is man to say it is anything but good?

The Church Chases After Hell

I once heard it said that, "The American woman chases the whore." While this is not a flattering assessment, consider these facts. At one time, women who wore sleeveless dresses were considered "loose" women. At one time, women who wore knee-length skirts were considered "loose" women. And the list is nearly interminable. However, this article is not to examine the change in women's (or men's) fashion over the years, but rather to consider the change in the Church. The Church, as a whole, chases after Hell, not to send it back from whence it came, but rather to emulate it. Revelation 3:14-19 speaks of the way God Almighty views the Church today. The Church, so distracted and enamored with the latest technological gizmo that she cannot be the proper Bride God intended her to be, is completely revolting to Christ. The Church is supposed to be God's human instrument here on the earth to point mankind to eternal life. Only God can save, but God works through men. And God tells us that we, as Christians, are supposed to be the salt of the earth. However, if we Christians do not mirror Christ but rather the world, how will the unsaved realize that they have a need, and we can tell them how to fill it? Just like the list of things that "once upon a time" women did not do, at one time there were things that one was expected not to do just because he proclaimed to be a Christian. For example, Christians were expected to be in Church every time the doors were open. Christians were expected to act and be different from the unsaved in the world. Now, God's standards have not changed, but man's standards have changed and anything is tolerable so long as we all believe in God. We can't get specific, but we can believe in God. In the end, the Church is as ineffective as a dead battery because of compromise and the refusal to take a stand on the unchanging truths of God's Word. In fact, God tells us what He thinks of Christians in this state. He says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:15-16). Our actions are so sorry to God they make Him puke. He refuses to accept the actions of Christians who have one foot in the world and one foot in the spiritual realm. It will not work. Christ told the Apostles, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24), and the Church has made its choice. Now the only question left is how long God will be longsuffering and merciful.

Are the Problems Worth It?

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). While it is comforting to know what to expect before it gets here, on the other hand it is disheartening to know that trials, tribulations, problems and un-winnable situations will visit us. However, just because we know this does not relieve us of the responsibility to be a good and faithful servant. I am not responsible for you, the reader, nor am I responsible for my family's actions. I am, however, responsible for how well I do what God has commissioned me to do: to spread His name throughout the world. And the good thing is, I'm not limited to the inside of the Church house for this. God expects me to put Him first in everything I do, including politics. This is the crux of this post. Doing what is right is not going to make me popular or win me friends, in fact, just the opposite will result. And those hard times are only going to be greater in number if I actually do what I preach. But, in the end, it really is worth it. True, I may be consigned to the fire like the three Hebrew children or even killed for what I'm doing. But I'm doing what I was told to do by God Almighty. And there is nothing unworthy about that.

The Importance of Jesus Christ

Voltaire once stated, "If any man will debate with me, let him first define his terms." That said, let us define terms for this very important topic. Jesus Christ: the only-begotten Son of God Almighty, the second Person of the Judeo-Christian Godhead, crucified and resurrected again the third day, now ascended into Heaven and sitting on the right hand of God the Father. Jesus Christ is also the sacrifice that sufficiently pays the debt for the sins of any who will trust in Him through faith, and walk with Him daily. Now to the point at hand. I have recently had several "friends" so-called, who claim to be Christian, tell me that Jesus Christ is a hindrance to the growth of the political party with which I am affiliated. This same argument is more saddening because I have had many unsaved people (by their own admission many times), tell me that if only Jesus Christ were dropped from the party platform they could help me make the numbers grow exponentially. My response has always been if it comes to a choice between Christ and the party, the party can die. So why should this interest you? First, if you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Lord of your life, then this article is not written to you. But if you have, then it should be most saddening because it shows that "the spirit of anti-Christ" is alive and getting more powerful every day. The Apostle John warned us that this would happen, but it should not happen in the Church. However, the Church is where most of the dissension begins many times. Christians are afraid to name the name of Christ because they are afraid of the problems it may cause them, or the things they may lose if they do mention Christ --- larger numbers, more money, greater prestige, etc. The Church has done more to advance the blasphemous idea that the names Jesus Christ and God the Father are interchangeable than any other factor in the physical world today. I do not know how many readers I reach, nor do I know how many people actually care about this issue. But as for me, any man who does not acknowledge the name of Christ for personal expediency is useless to me, and I will fight every thing he does to remove the name of Jesus from whatever is discussed. God the Father "sware by Himself because He could swear by no other." Also, God the Father gave to Jesus Christ "a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." It isn't too much that He demand I or any other Christian acknowledge His Son in our daily lives and affairs.

"What do you do when you've gotta be a man!"?

This anguish-filled statement, made famous in the James Dean movie Rebel Without a Cause, is a far too-little asked, too-seldom answered question among the men today. It is fashionable to be a lazy, good-for-nothing. Take, for example, the recently dropped sitcom "Two and a half Men" in which the cool guy that one should emulate is Charlie, the lazy, drunken no-good. His brother, by contrast, works for what he gets, has some semblance of a conscience and is the geeky nerd whose life one should not copy. This country would be a much better place if the men would take the time to ask, and truly ponder, what it takes to truly be a man, and hopefully go so far as to ask what is required of them when taking on the responsibilities of a man. James Dean's question was asked because of the very problem to which he needed an answer: males without a spine. If any doctor ever learns how to make a spine donation work, America and the men of America should be the first priority on his list.

"God Is Bigger Than the UN or Obama"

I have many friends across the United States, and recently I was checking to see how life is treating one of them. I found this statement under her political views. It struck me as one of the saddest things I have seen on FaceBook. Not because she is wrong, mind you, but because she should know better. She and I both attended the same university, for roughly the same amount of time. Sat under the same Sunday through Thursday messages. Had many of the same Bible classes though never the same class period. Yet she is willing to relegate to the background something that is her duty, based only on the faulty assumption that God Almighty will supernaturally intervene if things get too bad. Well, in time He will intervene, of that we are assured. But when He does, His intervention will be to end this earth and annihilate all opposition to His rightful authority --- nothing more, nothing less. So to use this as her political views is nothing short of apathy that this world is doomed for hell. She is copping out on her duty as a citizen, but worse, on her duty as a Christian. Duty is the most misunderstood, abused and misused four-letter word in the English language, because of the responsibility it carries. It infers that one will do what is right regardless of the consequences. In politics, it means you will have to stand alone quite often, and will often make enemies of people who were once your good friends. If you take nothing else from this post, take the conclusion: God IS bigger than the UN or obama or any other thing in this universe. But just because He is, does not give Christians a license to be complacent, useless, apathetic couch potatoes. God saves us to work in His fields. And those fields include politics.

Bias and Prejudice

In America today, we are inundated with cries of tolerance and fairness. To be blunt: there is no such thing as fairness when dealing with other people. So, it's time for everyone, Christians and unbelievers alike, to stop pussyfooting around with the lie that tolerance is the key to a better world. The Romans couldn't coexist with the cultures they conquered, nor could the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, or the Babylonians. So if there is five thousand years of history already written on this subject that proves it will not work, then what makes us so arrogantly think that we can somehow become the exception to disprove the rule? Every person has his own opinions, and these opinions and beliefs shape the way every man lives his life. What really matters is the answer to the question, What Is Right? The principles and ideas that are right are all that matter. And it is worth fighting for them even if it means losing everything to preserve them. so, now that I have laid these basic principles, how are they relevant? In politics, everyone hears, and seems to want, bi-partisanship. When I cast a vote and my candidate wins, I don't send him to the legislature to compromise. I send him there to stand for my beliefs, even if it gets him banned from the Capitol grounds. And if it does, he is not relieved of his obligation until removed from office or his term expires. In religion, there is the "big-tent" idea. That all religions are equal and we should all come together under one roof because in the end all religions lead to the same place . . . Pish posh! Christ said, "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life." He is exclusive in His claim and He leaves no room for any other exalted human or organism --- not the Pope, not Mahomet, not Buddha, not the Earth, not anything nor any one can be co-equal with Him. So does that make me racist, or any other undesirable appellation? Yes. Everyone, including me and you the reader, makes assumptions about other people based on financial, educational, ethnic, personal and employment background, just to name a few examples. For example, which one do you want taking your test for you, the Asian kid, the Hispanic kid, or the Black kid? So with all this, allow me to motivate you to stop pretending to be just and equitable because you let others run your life for you through the threat of slander. Find someone looking to give away a spine and get yourself a spine transplant so that the starch in your shirt isn't the only thing holding you up!

Why Should They?

In a recent conversation with an old acquaintance at breakfast,I realized why so many unsaved people want nothing to do with Christianity. Most often, Christians are some of the most hypocritical, spiteful, back-stabbing people one could ever hope never to meet. But when,or more appropriately "if," these same Christians go on visitation, they expect to be welcomed with open arms at every house they visit. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that this high-handed arrogance and these inconsistent vices are a major reason that the Church of today is so ineffective and unsuccessful at fulfilling the Great Commission. The Apostle James said, "Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh" (James 3:12). Now, I am not railing against every church, nor am I calling out every church member. I personally know many fine Christians at whom this article is not aimed. But sadly, this number is completely dwarfed by the number to whom I am speaking. It seems that most Christians are content to imbibe what the world has to offer, so long as they make it to Sunday morning, Sunday night, and possibly Wednesday night services.This equals 4 hours in a 168 hour week, of which 112 hours are spent awake. Never, ever, will 4 hours balance much less counteract the effects of 168 hours spent eating, sleeping, living and thinking like the world. And because most Christians have this mentality just described, they are ignorant of God, the Bible, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, how to defend these doctrines and their own beliefs and they have no desire to change any of this. They are happy living in sin just like the world and the unsaved. Christ, in speaking to the Church of Laodicea,addressed this very issue in severely harsh terms. Revelation 3:15-16 states, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16) So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Christ is telling the Church at Laodicea that it would be better if they were flaming atheists determined to fight God all the way than to be hypocritical liars with no spine and no true allegiances. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and the Church today, like the Church of Laodicea, isn't desperate for God's truth.

Why Every Kid in America Doesn't Need to Be Educated

Why do we spend so much money on education? I think a lot of people would answer, “Because educating our kids is important.” Really? Why? There are a lot of problems with teachers’ unions, whose goals are to make sure we get the least amount of education for the most amount of money, but the problems don’t start with them. Just look at the whole system we set up. We have 7.2 million teachers in this country and about 76 million students. Children are taught for 13 years in grade school, and many people want everyone to get at least 4 years of college on top of that. And what exactly do we get out of all this? If someone told me I was going to spend the next 17 years just studying, I’d expect at the end of it all to be Batman — a master of all sciences, languages, and martial arts. We’re lucky if our kids come out of this able to read and with at least one marketable skill. So what is our goal with all this? It’s like we envision a future where we all just sit around and be all educated and smart while robots or illegal Mexicans do all the real work. But do we really want all of us to be a bunch of educated people who never do anything useful — like the Obama administration but for the whole country? Anyway, it’s not going to happen. The future still needs people to cook, clean, and manufacture goods — and it doesn’t take a decade of education in math and science to be able to do those things. So why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars to make sure every fry cook at one point in his life knew what a gerund is? Is there a benefit to educating everybody regardless of actual need? We keep hearing that we’re falling behind the rest of the world in our average math and science scores, but let’s look at some of the countries ahead of us: Finland, Lichtenstein, the Czech Republic. I’m sorry, but did I miss all the huge technological innovations that came out of these countries? China is also ahead of us in test scores, but they haven’t even figured out how not to put lead paint on children’s toys. What exactly are high average test scores worth? If a bank teller can properly identify the parts of a cell, this helps society how? Or do we just think that kids sitting in classrooms throughout childhood makes them better people? Well, Jesus didn’t spend his childhood in a school, but know who did? Hitler. Now, obviously some people who are not budding genocidal dictators need education. Without our best and brightest being fully educated, how are we going to keep getting new features for our iPads each year? But is the most efficient path to that really to teach absolutely everyone and hope a small percentage actually retain some of what they’re taught? Why can’t we just identify the few kids worth educating and focus on them? We’ll find a few of the very best teachers — people who are a combination of Einstein and Master Splinter — and make sure our best and brightest get all the quality education they need. And we’ll teach them more efficiently, because if, after seventeen years of schooling, someone can’t hand assemble a warp drive, then we’ve wasted a lot of time there. As for everyone else, why don’t we just focus on what the average citizen actually needs? Everyone needs literacy, as you have to have some reading skills to be able to set your shows to record on a DVR. And then we should also teach everyone how to use Google, as that will cover science, history, and math whenever those come up. No reason that basic knowledge can’t be knocked off in a year for each kid. Now, I know some people are all worried about what all the kids are going to do if they’re no longer in school most of the year, because really, isn’t that most of what school is nowadays — something to keep kids out of our hair during the day? Here’s an idea: You notice how everything is made in China? It’s illegal in the U.S. to pay kids ten cents an hour to manufacture goods, so we just do that overseas instead. That’s idiotic. Why not have our own kids work during the day building plastic trinkets and whatnot? They’d learn useful working skills, come home nice and tired, and they’d actually appreciate earning ten cents an hour, because kids are stupid. So there’s our solution to the education problem: Instead of trying to make a lot of bad education for everyone when most aren’t even going to use it, let’s focus on making the absolute best education to give to the few who will. Everyone else gets to learn useful skills, and as a bonus we bring manufacturing jobs back to our country. And we save billions of dollars by telling all the teachers’ unions they’re fired and turning most schools into 24-hour gyms and office space. I think I just won the future for us. So is there any problem with this plan other than it being so intensely logical? ---this article was written by Frank J. Fleming. it is copyrighted, and is not original with me.---

A Defense of Isolationism

Isolationism --- The belief that one's country should remain free from international alliances, treaties and affairs to any extent possible (Webster's New World Dictionary). Before World War I this was the accepted foreign policy of the American Government and the American people. That is why the "America First" movement sprang up during the war, to protest America's involvement in the entangling alliances of the Old World and directly violating the good advice of President George Washington. Now, however, American foreign policy has changed and she cannot seem to involve herself enough in the affairs which rightfully belong to other people and not to her. Meddling in the affairs of foreign governments, fighting costly, unnecessary wars, maintenance and upkeep of military bases in 157 of the 200 countries on earth --- these are just a few examples. It is time that America stop interfering with the politics of other countries and focus solely on those that directly affect her. If the rest of the world wants to be governed by a tyrannical dictator, then let them be so governed. It is not the responsibility of America to be the policeman of the world. And in part because she is trying to be the world's policeman, America has internally spiralled out of control. If you are an American citizen, it is your duty --- I repeat, your duty --- to take care of the problems and affairs of your native country before deliberating on any matter from any other country or entity in the rest of the world. That is one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against becoming engaged in "entangling alliances." Alexander Hamilton said in Pacificus, No. 6 in 1793, "Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence." This from the man who had travelled the world by the time he was eighteen. If he was convinced that America's government could not remain uninfluenced by foreign powers, it is imperative to take the counsels of wise men such as he to heart and follow it.

God Is Not a Pez Dispenser

Pez dispensers. An upright column with a bulbous, figurehead top. They dispense Pez candies and are quite fun in themselves. However, much too often, God becomes a Pez dispenser to Christians. God is a forgiving, merciful, long-suffering God, but He also balances that with justice, wrath, anger, righteousness, holiness. And we are sinful creatures, our very nature tainted by sin, and God deals with us in that way. However, that does not grant us license to sin. Far too often we sin, realize it, then go to God and expect forgiveness. God forgives, but He also requires repentance; that we turn from our sins and engage in them no more. Will we be perfect? No, we will fail. What I am talking about is the repeated failure of a Christian in a certain area, and that Christian expecting God to forgive his sins repeatedly. At some point, God expects us to prove that we are serious about doing His will and living by His commandments. He does not exist simply to dispense forgiveness to anyone who asks at any particular time regardless of how often that person has disregarded God's commandments. God says that He knows the heart of man (Jer. 17:9-10).

Hell in a Handbasket

"There is a war on for your mind!" Such is Alex Jones' catch-phrase for his well-known conservative talk show. And he is right. It is not a matter of differing opinions, nor is it a matter of someone else believing he is right and trying to prove through logic and other similar means that you are wrong. They believe you are wrong, and they are hell-bent on forcing you into submission. But who is this nebulous and indistinct "they" to whom I keep referring? It is your beloved government. I shall state it again. The government of the United States of America has absolutely zero good will toward its citizens, and thinks only of subjugation and power consolidation. Does this apply to all individuals in the government? Certainly not. However, it is the general attitude of the government, and has been for several decades. So why choose such a title? Because it is too late to change the direction of the country. Washington, D. C. is a lost cause. The individual States, comprised of individuals with common sense and good morals, were originally intended to be the power base in this country. There was to be no strong central government telling the individual States what to do. However, since the War of Northern Aggression, the entire paradigm of political thought in America has changed. People now believe that the local government is the least important part of their lives, and that the States should be subservient to their masters. This makes as much sense as believing that any of you, my readers, is the parent of your mother much like something found in Greek mythology. It is utter madness. Yet today when people have a problem, people look to the government. It is seen as government's place to provide housing, food, clothing, life's luxuries, etc. to those who cannot afford it. The first problem with this is that it takes away all self-initiative on the part of the individual. If someone is going to give me all I require to live, then what motivation do I have to become anything in life except a couch potato? Second, as any good economist will tell you, it drives up prices and drives down quality in the goods provided by the government. Most importantly, in cases where the person is nothing more than a common leech who has learned how to manipulate the system, it is contrary to a direct commandment from God that that person starve or learn to work (II Thessalonians 3: 9-15). And to quote Gamaliel, "Lest we be found to fight against God" let's let them starve. So by now you are probably thinking this article is merely the disjointed ramblings of an angry man. But it is not. Entitlement programs, the paradigm shift, moral decadence, and a thousand other things are merely tools. Our enemy is smart. In warfare, if my army can pinpoint all its attention at yours, then all things being equal the best shall win. But, if suddenly I have to fight yours on 2 fronts, or even 3, then I shall eventually become overextended and shall lose regardless of how well-trained, well-equipped, and well-funded mine is. Likewise, all these issues plaguing America today are merely fronts in an on-going war for you and your mind. And the sad fact is that our enemy is winning. These people have no qualms nor do they believe as we do. If you question that, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGpjc-fR8E&NR=1 and it should change your mind rather quickly. Truly, America has gone to Hell in a Handbasket.

Life's a Circle

I am currently reading Dr. Richard J. Evans's Coming of the Third Reich. To understand the "how" of the Reich, we must understand the "what" behind it. Part of this means a look at Eugenics, the scientific study "devoted to improving the human species by control of hereditary factors in mating" as Webster's dictionary defines the term. Names like Arthur, Comte de Gobineau; Houston Stewart Chamberlain; Alfred Ploetz --- these are all qutie influential in wedding the "science" of Darwinism to anthropology, the study of man. As was noted at the Nuremberg Trials, one of the key tenets of the Nazi regime was racial superiority, and that is why. Darwin's ideas on natural selection had been wed with the ideas of heredity, behavior and race. This came to be called Social Darwinism. By 1914, Germany had been conditioned to believe that prostitutes, alcoholics, petty thieves, vagrants and other social undesirables needed to be forcibly sterilized. However, since my reading audience is predominantly American, lest you get self-righteous, here are some things for you to consider. In 1896, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to pass Eugenics laws, followed closely by Indiana. Numbers can be found here: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list_topics.pl See link for information on installation of laws:http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/sparkes.htm Also, by 1935, over 30 states had individual laws of Eugenics, and the Supreme Court ruled in Buck vs. Bell that, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." As noted above, imbeciles (an adult mentally equal to a child aged 3-5 years) and idiots (a person mentally younger than 3 years) are two categories of persons to whom forced sterilization in America applied. See for case and map:http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=3&search=id951&matches=951 So why is forced sterilization important, and why am I writing about such a morose topic? America has been slowly marginalizing Christians for several decades, then she moved to ostracism, and now she is trying to outlaw them. And it's working! If you need an example of any of this, take our Usurper in Chief's well-known Cairo Tour. He bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Or perhaps the Master's thesis by Major Brian Stuckart saying that, "Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit." Chuck Baldwin comments this, "When Major Stuckert speaks of millennialism, he is referring to the Biblical doctrine of Eschatology--specifically, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth to institute a 1,000-year (millennial) reign." Major Stuckart also identifies six religious organizations that should be given extra scrutiny --- "holiness and Pentecostal churches; as well as the Assemblies of God; non-denominational churches; and Independent and Southern Baptists." See Major Stuckart's full report here:http://tinyurl.com/am-millennialism-pdf Friends, America is completely and utterly bankrupt in morals, societal values, and Godliness. The end of America as we know it is coming, and it will not be far into the future. If you think that the federal government has anything except your worst interests at heart, then you are either blind or an idiot --- which word I use in every sense possible. It took only 60 years for Germany to degenerate to the point that allowed a tyrannical regime to conquer the country. In America it has taken longer, but the end result will still be just as catastrophic. The only difference is who will be targeted.

Render Unto Caesar . . .

This article is directed to Christians. In Romans 13, Paul gives instruction to the church at Rome to, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers . . . " Many have taken the first 7 verses of Romans 13, and the lesson of paying taxes that Christ taught in St. Mark 12:17, to mean that Christians have no part to play in the arena of politics. For at least the last century, Christians have increasingly retreated into the tiny sphere of religion and let the rest of the world go to hell. To the judgment of the Church and the damnation of countless souls. So let's look at what Romans 13 and St. Mark 12 actually have to say. Romans 13 is the classic model for Christian laziness in politics, mainly because it explicitly states that, "every soul is to be subject to the higher powers." But who are those "higher powers"? If it were a king/monarch, then their argument would doubtless be correct. But this view makes men the final arbiter of what is right and wrong instead of God's written Word. And to say that the Bible, God's mind on paper, is secondary to man is dangerous at best. However, if you confront someone with this argument, he will say that he is doing God's will. But where do we draw the line to determine when we should say with Peter and John, "We should obey God rather than men," and when we should be submissive to the government? As Chuck Baldwin points out in his article Romans 13 Revisited, in Medieval times, the king had the right to sleep with a new bride on the night of her wedding because of "The Law of First Night," or Jus Primae Nocta. Would any sane, Christian man who loves his wife as Christ loved the Church submit to this tyranny without so much as a whimper simply because the government said so?? If he loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, then no. However, too many men are too spineless or too unstable in and too uninformed about their beliefs to know they both should and must resist. In Romans 13, Christ gives the Church the responsibility to make sure that Godly rulers are always in power. Therefore, this is how we, as Christians, know what is right and what is wrong, where to draw the line in submissiveness versus resistance, and how to be informed in what we do. That is why this article is directed at Christians. It is as unthinkable to put an unsaved man in power as it is to believe an unsaved man will want to go to church. Both run contrary to every fiber of his being. However, when the righteous are in power, the people rejoice. So what about St. Mark chapter 12? Christ is being interrogated by the Pharisees and Herodians about the propriety of paying taxes, a burden to everyone. The expected answer was either "yes" or "no." In whatever answer He gave, He would somehow alienate some portion of His followers and discredit Himself. But Christ did not give a simple "yes" or "no." He said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's." Now, we have some hermeneutical work to do. Is He telling us to submit to all things Caesar wants unless it goes against something God has specifically commanded? The answer is a resounding "NO!" In this passage, God gave responsibility to both the citizenry and to the government. He raised each to a level never previously attained, but, to whom much is given, much is required. The government now has the authority to make commandments and determine what things are to be rendered unto it, but the stipulation is all things must line up with the foreordained standards of Godliness that define God Himself. Things such as holiness, righteousness, justice, mercy --- these are all to be attributes of government as well as the principles that God has demanded of mankind. The simplest example is found in St. Matthew 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." And if a government does not do what it should --- align its goals and objectives with the Bible and God's will --- then God wants the citizens of a nation to ensure that a new government will do what is right and Godly. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." In God's perfect formula, the people keep a check on the government, and the government keeps a check on the citizenry to ensure that God's will is done and Biblical principles are perpetuated throughout the generations of a nation. Both Romans 13 and Mark 12 deal with how the government rules. God wants men to live in freedom and live by Godly standards. Therefore, no one can ensure a nation is ruled in a Godly manner unless he himself is a Christian.

Absolute Power

How much do you rely on the Internet? Can you make it through your day without this tool? Senator Joseph Lieberman has introduced a bill, which just moved to the Senate floor, that will surrender total control of the Internet to the government. If passed, the government will have the power to shut down the Internet for up to four months under a "declared national emergency." The ramifications of this are staggering. First, it opens the door to absolute power over thoughts and ideas that the government deems innocuous. It gives the President the power to kill the Internet for a period of time, upon declared emergency. But what constitutes an emergency? If you never thought George Orwell's prophecy could come true, believe it, because you are living it. Big Brother is demanding that you think, act, and believe only what is in line with their ideology. And this shows just how far they will go to obtain that power. If you believe your government has the best in mind for you, you are deceived or are unwilling to see the truth. The only thing government wants is more power.

Loving You

The title of this piece is taken from an Elvis Presley single and movie of the same name. I find it an apt oxymoron for the general attitude toward Israel in the world today. Abraham, considered the Father of the Jews, lived sometime between the late 20th century B.C. and the middle 19th century B.C. Genesis 12:3 records a promise made to him by God, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Now, while that covenant was made almost four thousand years ago, it still hasn't changed any. God is still God, and God is not going to change because man changes man's standards to make sin more acceptable. So, if God Almighty is not going to change His views on Israel, then why does the hatred of Israel continue to grow among mankind? Sadly, God told us this is the way things would happen, but He didn't say they had to happen this way. Everywhere one looks today, he is confronted with a withering barrage of putrid filth degrading Israel for one thing or another. The most recent assaults and violations are Helen Thomas, Dean of the White House Press Corps, telling the Israelis to, "get the hell out of Palestine and go back home!" (see the video at http://www.breitbart.tv/helen-thomas-tells-jews-get-the-hell-out-of-palestine-and-go-back-to-germany-poland). She went on to explain that the Israelis are a conquering army, having conquered the Palestinians, and that the Jews should return home to "Germany and Poland." These two countries have historically provided the fiercest persecution of Jews in the history of the Jews of the Diaspora (Jews living in the time between A.D. 70 and A.D. 1948.) Also, just today, 5 June, 2010, Egypt announced that it would suspend the citizenship of any Egyptian man married to an Israeli woman. With these and many other examples to cite, it is only by God's magnificent mercy that He has spared His hand of judgment on America, and indeed, the world. As a Christian viewing current events through that lens, I have to marvel and wonder, "God how long will you wait to settle your accounts?" But that's why He is God and I am not. God has no obligation to settle all His accounts by sundown. So, current events today provide an interesting paradox; on the one hand there is God, the Supreme Ruler of the Earth and Creator thereof, who made a covenant with Israel and swore allegiance to that covenant. On the other is mankind whose hatred of Israel grows daily. Something has to give, and it is my guarantee that it will not be God.

More of the Same

American politics, while most often revoltingly corrupt, sometimes force me to marvel at the willful ignorance of people. One writer, explaining how we got to this point in our demise said it was not necessary to poison every cup of water that came from the tap, but sufficient simply to pour a cup of poison into the reservoir. This observation, my friends, is sadly too true. It is the prevailing opinion today that government has your best interest at heart, but nothing could be further from the truth. The government, while taking an active interest in your life, does so to the end of amassing more power and therefore, obtaining more ability to enslave you. Does this sound radical? To most it will. And to those I simply say, "What if I am right, and you have made no provision for this scenario?" Thomas Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." If this is true, then why does the United States of America spend billions of dollars annually on programs such as Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, translation services for those unable to speak English, medical services for those who are uninsured, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The title of this piece is "More of the Same." But more of the same what? In short, more of the same bilge and vile, putrid filth that has destroyed America as both a Godly nation and a free nation. The Index of Economic Freedom is used to rate the freedom of countries because, "Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself." A score of 80 or better indicates a country is free according to this definition. Between 80 and 50, a country is mostly free; it is in the second-class tier of free nations. Below 50, a country has no freedom. So why is this important? In 2010 the United States of America fell into the middle-class tier of nations for the first time in her history. Her ratings dropped 2.7 to a 78. To give you some perspective, Hong Kong and Singapore are first and second place in the charts for 2010. This did not happen overnight. In the late 1880's and 1890's, we surpassed Germany as the most productive nation on earth. World War I and World War II shattered Germany's economy, but it produced an American economy not seen before or since. So in sixty short years, America suddenly becomes an unproductive, lazy, uncaring country, shackled by government constraints, with no help whatsoever? I shall cite two examples to support my case. First, the government requires over-burdensome safety regulations of businesses. Administered through the Constitutionally illegal Occupational and Safety Health Administration, these regulations represent enormous losses every year to businesses of any size. And the larger the business, the larger the amount paid to the State's communistic machinations. These costs include health and dental, worker's compensation, paid vacation, the owning of a business license (which requires registration with the State, the state of residence, and with numerous other agencies.) Second, a minimum wage. Now, while I believe most emphatically in paying a worker what his time is worth, can anyone point me to the part of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights where the government is given the authority to mandate the hourly wage of a worker? If so, I haven't yet found it so please point me to it. So, I ask you, dear readers, with both sides having trumpeted different ideologies for the last sixty years, why have we not seen any substantial changes for the better? Especially when the Republicans control all three Branches?

Control

I recently began to think about the reasons for the explosive expansion of government intrusion into the lives of its citizenry. I came up with several possibilities including "the public good" or "national security" or even "necessity." Then I realized that not one of these ideas included anything to do with independent thought --- they were all ideas I had heard on syndicated media outlets, or read in the major newspapers. So I began to do some independent thinking. Reason 1: Destiny. This reason tells me that the government is self-destructing because it has been prophesied by Christ what will happen in the end times, and who will do it. Yet no Biblical scholar has yet found a clear reference to the United States. So perhaps, this is the reason for it, and as Gamaliel told the Sanhedrin regarding the "new" religion of Christianity, "let them alone . . . if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39). I don't buy this one. Reason 2: Misguided intentions. This says to me that the government is making me a slave because they are, actually, trying to do what is best for me. True, they are failing grandly, but their heart is in the right place, and they would never knowingly do anything to harm or oppress me, a natural born citizen of the United States. TO quote Waylon Jennings, "WRONG!" The problem with reasons 1 and 2 is this. First, Jesus Himself said, "Occupy til I come" and Jesus Himself ordered the disciples to carry the most modern weapons of the day. And while the end has been foretold, that does not relieve me of my obligation to take care of myself, and be a good servant. And just to cite two examples of the ways in which this government has become, "destructive of [securing the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness]." The Department of Homeland Enslavement published a report in 2008, very similar to the Missouri Information Analysis Center's report, and classified the following people as potential terrorists --- people who are against the United Nations, against the New World Order, against gun control, against the violation of Posse Comitatus, against the Federal Reserve, against the Income Tax, against The Ammunition and Accountability Act, against the Constitutional Convention, against the the North American Union, against the Universal Service Program, against Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), against abortion and homosexuality, against illegal immigration, and/or a returning veteran. This leads me to my personal conclusion. Reason 3: Control. The government does what it does because it wants it wants to tell you what to do and control everything you do, to the most minute and mundane detail. In my mind, while some may actually believe that they are doing a good thing, they are just as complicit in these illegal activities as anyone who initiates them. The instillation of Czars, the bank and automobile takeovers, the birth certificate controversy, the ACORN scandals, the Council of Governors, when are we going to stand up and tell them to sit down!? As long as we keep taking this, they will gladly keep on giving it. We are not supposed to be doormats. We are supposed to be the masters, and they the servants taking their orders from us. When will you get angry enough to make that happen again?!

Jeepers Creepers! We've Got Peepers?!

Roughly ten years ago, Hollywood produced a film called, "Jeepers Creepers." While I have never seen the film, nor do I wish to see it, when it came out it was a big hit with my classmates. I can still remember them quoting the title at least once a day. So what does this have to do with, anything really? It has a great deal to do with our gargantuan, oversized, bureuacracy, and their daily assaults and violations on our civil liberties. Everyone worries about national security, but it seems that no one worries about civil liberties these days. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "a long train of abuses" has occured. Namely, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) full-body scanners. According to the official TSA website, "TSA has implemented strict measures to protect passenger privacy, which is ensured through the anonymity of the image. The image cannot be stored, transmitted or printed, and is deleted immediately once viewed. Additionally, advanced imaging technology screening is optional to all passengers." And we are all aware of the spotless record any government agency has regarding promise keeping. TSA also assures passengers that no image can be stored, printed, or copied. However, the photos with this page are an illustration to passengers of what the TSA peeper/screener will see. The first question in my mind is: if it really is impossible to store, copy, transmit, etc., any of these images, then how did they wind up on the TSA's official website? And why is the peeper removed to another room, and not visible to passengers he is violating? Something here is not making sense to me, and it is the logic of the federal government. If I were to do something like that, I would be arrested for any number of disgusting and immoral vice crimes. However, an agent of the benevolent federal government could never have anything but our best interests at heart, right? WRONG! This agent gets paid to sit there and drool over the naked bodies of your daughters and wives (I'm hoping it is a man) and there is no safeguard you have against his saving your particular picture, taking it home, and turning it into a full-color photograph! When are we going to say, "Enough is enough!" Or like the episode of "Network," stand up and tell them that we are human beings and our life has value! It won't happen. And that shames me. Sadly it shames me more than it does you. I am ashamed because this is America. I am ashamed because this type of behavior would not have been tolerated in previous generations. I am ashamed because people are not angry enough with the slough and morass they call their government to stand up with testicular fortitude and do something to make change happen. The end is upon us, here in America. And the reason is very simple. It is upon us because we are too "wowed" with our Blu-ray, we are too intent on the newest type of phone, we think we have to have the highest number of friends or the best-looking car or the most money, and we don't care about anything that really matters anymore. We don't care about morals, and right and wrong, and making people stand by their promises, or anything noble and valuable like that. Instead we waste our time on the most trivial of things, and then wonder why our once-great country has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Paddy's Farewell to the Priest

The Priest of the Parish got up in the morn, And ordered his clerk all the people to warn, Before his Tribunal each one should appear. Where he sat as God their “confessions” to hear. Then Paddy rose up and sent the Priest word That his soul had escaped from the snare, like a bird From the net of the fowler, and now he would tell His reasons for bidding his Reverence farewell. Farewell and for ever to teachers of lies, Your own Douay Bible has opened my eyes; I see your impostures a plain as the light; You only can flourish in darkness and night. Your merchandise now has no charms for me, For the “Pearl of Great Price” in the Scriptures I see: The joys that now fill me no language can tell, So, Priest of the Parish, I bid you farewell. Farewell to your worship of pictures and stones, Your rags and your relics, your rotten old bones: Your images winking, your bleeding impostures, Twenty “Ave Marias” for two “Pater-Nosters.” The second commandment you cunningly hide, Idolatrous worship, for Christians, provide, Where Mysteries Pagan and Jewish combine --- A mockery Satanic of worship Divine. Farewell to the Mass, ‘tis a blasphemous cheat: What! Worship a wafer the vermin may eat? It grew in the field, it was thrashed with a flail, ‘Twas winnowed and fanned, and ground into meal; ‘Twas clipped with the scissors -- the mice ate the waste. ‘Twas stamped with a figure -- a cross and a man --- ‘Twas put on a fire and baked in a pan --- “Masterpiece of Satan,” chief work of hell, To gods made of wafers for ever farewell. An offering of fools in a jargon unknown; Your antics and turnings, your bowings and scraping, Your postures and twistings, grimacing and aping; By your rubbish the Word of the Lord you disguise, And cheat all the world by your “refuge of lies.” Farewell to your cursing, your bludgeons and sticks, The “Mother of Harlots,” and Jezebel’s tricks. Go, stand on the necks of your minions and tools; Go, blow out your candles on asses and fools. I pity the slave who allows your control --- Who feels all the weight of your chains on his soul; By the power of the Truth I have broken the spell, So, Priest of the Parish, I bid you FAREWELL. taken from The Scarlet Mother on the Tiber, by L. J. King.

Winning

"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. "There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win. "Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up * from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second. "Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization * an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win * to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is. "It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there * to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules * but to win. "And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat. "I don't say these things because I believe in the "brute" nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." Vincent Lombardi

Reading List

To any who happen to be interested, here are books that I find worth reading, because of the intrinsic value contained in them. I hope that some of you will agree with me. These are books that I have either begun or finished in the last two years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Holy Bible

The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, volumes I and II --Jefferson Davis

The South Was Right! --Donald Kennedy

Dying, We Live --Julian Kulski

God's Playground, volumes I and II --Dr. Norman Davies

White Eagle, Red Star --Dr. Norman Davies

Dear America --Combat Veterans of Vietnam

To Hell and Back --Audie Murphy

The Siege of Vienna --John Stoye

A History of Russia --Nicholas V. Riasanovsky & Mark D. Steinberg

What Love Is This? --Dr. Dave Hunt

A Woman Rides the Beast --Dr. Dave Hunt

The Other Side of Calvinism --Laurence Vance

Draußen vor der Tür --Wolfgang Borchert

Western Philosophy: From Antiquity to the Middle Ages --James N. Jordan

Classics of Philosophy --Louis P. Pojman

History of Philosophy --Frederick C. Copleston

The Wealth of Nations --Adam Smith

The Coming of the Third Reich --Richard J. Evans

The Third Reich in Power --Richard J. Evans

The Third Reich at War --Richard J. Evans

The Nazi Conscience --Dr. Claudia Koonz

The Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe

The Social Contract --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Either/Or --Søren Kierkegård

Two Treatises on Civil Government --John Locke

Leviathan --Thomas Hobbes

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind --Antony Flew

King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table, volumes 1 and 2 --Sir Thomas Malory

The Divine Comedy --Dante

The Brothers Karamazov --Feodor Dostyevsky

Crime and Punishment --Feodor Dostyevsky

The Queen of Spades -- Aleksandr Pushkin

The Declaration of Independence

The United States Constitution

The Bill of Rights

The First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

The Templars: The Secret History Revealed --Barbara Frale

The Knights Templar --Stephen Howarth

The Trial of teh Templars --Malcolm Barber

The History of the Knights Templar --Charles G. Addison

The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat --Paul Lendavi

A Concise History of the Middle East --Arthur Goldschmidt, Jr.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich --William L. Shirer

The Siege of Budapest --Krisztián Ungváry

Holocaust --Debórah Dwork & Robert Jan van Pelt

The Really Inconvenient Truths --Iain Murray

Dereliction of Duty --Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

Unfit for Command --John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi

Reckless Disregard --Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

Slander --Ann Coulter

10 Books That Screwed Up the World (And 5 Others That Didn't Help) --Benjamin Wiker

The United Nations Exposed --William Jasper

You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists) --Dr. Fred Schwarz

The World is Flat --Thomas L. Friedman

Boudica Britannia: Rebel, war-leader, and Queen --Miranda Aldhouse-Green

The Birth of Britain: A History of the English Speaking Peoples 4 vols. -- Winston Spencer Churchill

Boudica: The Life of Britain’s Legendary Warrior Queen --Vanessa Collingridge

Roman Britain: A New History --Guy de la Bédoyère

Dio’s Roman History --Dio CassiusEnglish Translation by Earnest Cary.

Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen --Richard Hingly & Christina Unwin

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature --John McClintock & James Strong

Boadicea --J. M. Scott

Agrícola and Germany --Tacitus. Translated by A. R. Birley.

Empire and Emperors. --Tacitus. Translated by Graham Tingay

Boudicca: The Warrior Queen --M. J. Trow & Taliesin Trow

Boudica: The British Revolt against Rome AD 60 --Webster, Graham

Not Yours to Give

---Originally published in The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward Sylvester Ellis.--- One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose: "Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. "Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost. Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly. "I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---‘ "Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again." "This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter. " ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. …But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.' " 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’ “ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’ " ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.' " ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.' " 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.' "I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: " ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.' "He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.' " ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.' " ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’ " 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’ " 'My name is Bunce.' " 'Not Horatio Bunce?' " 'Yes.’ " 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.' "It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote. "At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. "Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. "I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm. "But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. "In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: " ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’" "I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: " ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. " ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.' "He came upon the stand and said: " ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.' "He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.' "I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.' "Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Making a Thought a Crime

The supposed original intent of the Hate Crimes Act, HR 1913 and S. 909, was said to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation, both perceived and actual. Through redefinition of “deviant behavior,” these bills redefine over thirty deviant behaviors into accepted forms of societal practice, including but not limited to; pedophilia, sexual activity with a prepubescent child; necrophilia, sexual arousal/activity with a corpse; and prostitution. This poses a problem in several ways. The First Amendment protects free speech and the right of a person to write, think, and speak anything he wishes, but it stops there. Nowhere does it endorse the illicit and immoral actions of a person. The Founding Fathers believed that this country should be based upon Christianity and Christian principles. Without these principles, there is no solid foundation from which to move forward in a logical progression to prove that something or some act is illegal, immoral, or harmful. Second, these bills are one step closer to the “spy-on-your-neighbor” policies so infamous in the tyrannical regimes which have murdered millions of innocents in the last century. The Founding Fathers knew that without proof of damages, there can be no crime. They also knew that the freedom to think, believe, and say anything a person wishes is his own prerogative. However, that is where it should stop. It is one thing to say something, but another to practice it. And when someone practices illegal or immoral behavior, he should be punished. These bills are not really meant to “protect” anyone. People have a choice in all situations of life, including their choice of sexual “expression.” These bills are, however, an attempt to extend the tentacles of the gargantuan government bureaucracy into areas where it has no jurisdiction. It will turn a right into a privilege by forcing people who do not believe these “deviant behaviors” to be acceptable to shut their mouths or face the consequences. Succinctly put, behavior is not speech. It is an act, and therefore is by its very nature a deliberate choice. But the difference between these two volitional acts is that speech is not yet subject to punitive action.