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).