Posts Tagged ‘Liberty’

A WAR ON “TERROR”?

We, as Americans, must understand that we are at a crossroads in our generation as were our fathers of the WWII generation.  The survival of America as a constitutional republic and Americans as a free people is at one of its most challenging and defining moments in its history. Political forces and parties of men and women have irresponsibly forgotten that we are a constitutional republic.  Some are, without a doubt, on a malevolent course to totally transform us from what we are (a republic) to what they would likes us to be (a socialist, Marxist or global state).

Liberal progressives are the worst of all.  Substituting “moral equivalents” for war, they have taken advantage of the culture’s desire to resolve its problems.  They have used these “moral equivalents” such as the “War on Poverty” and the “War Against Drugs” as opportunities to expand government power into the lives of all its citizens.  Americans, believing that it is a good thing to solve these problems, have been duped by an ever-expanding and ever-encroaching government.

The U.S. Constitution allows for the declaration of war precisely because there are times when individual liberties must be curtailed for the good of the whole nation and to better combat our enemies.  But wars are declared and wars come to an end.  The liberal progressives’ “moral substitutes” for war mentioned before have no end.  The “War on Poverty” has gone on for more than 40 years with no signs of success; all at a huge cost to Americans’ individual rights and liberties and the plunder of their wealth by continuous, burdensome and over-bearing coercive government taxation.

We now have a “War on Terror” – or Terrorism.  President Bush’s colossal failure in the beginning of this armed conflict, I believe, was declaring war on “terror” and NOT on Al Qaeda (who attacked us).  Following the foolish and misguided principles of political correctness, He “declared” war on “terror”.  Because He declared war on a tactic (terror), and not on a people with ideological ideas of terror inconsistent with our values, we have left ourselves open and vulnerable to attack from within, and without.  Our government also, under the guise of protecting us from “terror,” infringes daily upon our constitutional rights as a people. 

Fighting a tactic (“terrorism”) has left our borders open to our enemies.  The Obama administration has even used taxpayer funds to bring many of these “immigrants” to America, helped them find jobs and settle here.  But does he really believe that America has need of the abilities that can only be found among Somali, Yemeni, Palestinian or Hamas immigrants?  Something more sinister is at work here and is evidenced no less by the Obama Administrations’ Department of Homeland Security.

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) task is to protect Americans.  Yet while they say they are protecting us from terrorism, they have identified the most likely potential terrorists for the American people: those who are principled pro-lifers, pro-second amendment, pro-tenth amendment, anti-tax advocates, limited government advocates, tea-partiers, opponents of illegal immigration and – of all people – returning veterans!  Which group was not mentioned in the security report?  You guessed it: Muslim extremists, muslim clerics or anyone who might help Al-Qaeda or their demons.

The DHS and other police agencies have sought to limit, watch, screen and snoop on us in ever-increasing ways.  By every other means available to them, they expect us to willingly give up our constitutional rights under the guise that we are at war.  But war against an idea or a tactic (“terror”) will have no defined end.  Fighting a tactic will only serve the federal government’s purpose because it gives them continuous power to limit our liberties.

It’s time for Americans to wake up and, in the words of the Templar Knight to Indiana Jones, “choose wisely.”  2012 will be our time to say to our political leaders once again, we will not give up our constitutional liberties; we will not go quietly into the dark; we will prevail and America will not be a socialist, Muslim, marxist or global state.  

Over our White House will always fly the “Red, White and Blue”.  As freedom loving Americans, we will never accept a crescent moon, a hammer & anvil or a UN flag to fly over our nation.  America will remain, though a melting pot of people, a constitutional republic.  And we, as a people, will never yield to any party, elite, foreign power or ideology, our God-given rights, American values and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.  

´til next time,

Danny

Article_Link: https://inviewof.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/a-war-on-¨terror¨/

Is State Redistribution of Wealth Social Economic Justice?

President-elect Obama believes that the Constitution is flawed.  According to him, it is so because it fails to address wealth redistribution.  He says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.  He assigns a great deal of this failure to The Warren Court because it failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth.

In 2001, Obama said

“… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution … [emphasis mine] 

one of the … tragedies of the civil rights movement was [that] … the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Is Mr. Obama correct in his assertion that our Constitution, which has served our Republic well for over 2 ¼ centuries, is flawed?  Is this document, which birthed, sustained and allowed the American people to thrive, prosper and become the envy of the world, so fundamentally flawed, that it took him, in 2009, to finally bring it to light?  Or is it more probable that it is Mr. Obama’s reasoning and political views which are flawed? 

It’s very obvious that Mr. Obama, who is a supposed constitutional scholar, does not understand [or does he?] that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to write domestic policy or rule that it is “just” for wealth to be “redistributed”. 

JUSTICE FOR ALL 

Before considering the issue – Is redistribution of wealth just? – let me say that many, erroneously, I believe, carelessly throw words like “injustice” around as labels for whatever they happen to find personally or morally unsatisfactory.  These claims often involve a careless confusion between what people deserve morally and what they deserve economically. 

Let’s consider this analytically and from the standpoint of justice.  Justice, if it means anything at all, means at least, that whatever is done must be done fairly, honestly and righteously.  Living in a nation where a major tenet is “liberty and justice for all,” we must grant that whatever justice is, it must be for all.  One of the characteristics of justice, we are told, is that it is blind.  It is so because it cannot discriminate based on appearance or lack thereof. 

Liberal policies which are consumed with egalitarian (equality) issues are bent on defining justice, among other erroneous ways, as equality of result based on need.  To them, equal result, not equal opportunity, is “just.”  Although often they are not, sometimes inequalities based on need are just.  A just distribution of grades for a college course should have nothing to do with whether a student “needs” a particular grade.  In this case, the just grade should be assigned on the basis of what the student has earned, not what he needs.  The notion of “need” is extremely ambiguous.  People “need” things for many different reasons.  A student may feel he needs a particular grade in order to qualify for the football team, in order to graduate, in order to continue on the dean’s list so as to qualify for a scholarship, or to increase the student’s self-esteem.  However much sympathy such needs may generate, they should not be relevant in cases like this.  Many believe, perhaps rightly, that a good society will not allow certain fundamental and essential human needs to go unmet while a surplus exists.  Unfortunately need is too elastic a concept to serve as the precise standard required for distributive justice.  Needs have a way of expanding as people become accustomed to former luxuries.  It also seems to me that such efforts by a society to meet essential needs should not be described as justice, but rather as charity. 

How important is it for us to properly understand the issue of social justice?  It is of such importance to the continuance of a free society that Friedrich Hayek spoke of social justice as “the Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has entered many societies in the world.” ¹ 

I would like to now examine, by analogy, Mr. Obama’s, and other liberals’ assertion that wealth redistribution is economic justice.  I believe you will see in this argument that redistribution of wealth is not only unjust, but also incompatible with freedom.  Let’s imagine, for reasons of our discussion, a society where the following conditions exist:

          1) “Justice” has been achieve by state redistribution (equal distribution, distribution according to need, or any other theory of                distributive “justice”).

          2) All citizens are free to exchange or transfer their holdings in any way they choose.

          3) Any transfer of a person’s holdings by theft, fraud, force or other criminal activity will be recognized as unjust and forbidden by law. 

Therefore, with everyone in our imaginary society now in possession of a just portion of holdings, all subsequent transfers will be just no matter how much they depart from the original state (original redistribution).  It follows logically then that in any free society, where our conditions are met, any noncriminal voluntary transfer or exchange of holdings like property or money will be a just transfer.  It doesn’t take a great mind to see that it would not take long for new holdings to again vary greatly from the original pattern created by state redistribution. This “situation” would confront Mr. Obama and all defenders of wealth redistribution (and other kinds of wealth transfers) with three options: 

          1) They might be sensible and realize that even though great discrepancies in holdings now exist, the disparity resulted from voluntary, legal, and just exchanges.  And so even though the later situation no longer resembles the preferred pattern of distribution (equality), the situation must be judged just and no further meddling with the new result is justified. 

          2) Given the mind-set of liberal ideologues, what is more likely is that after a certain period of time, Mr. Obama would announce that the distribution is once again unacceptable (“unjust”), which fact would require the state to step in to rectify the situation.  The use of words like “rectify,” “do the right thing,” “spread the wealth around,” or “do justice” in this context would certainly be odd since nothing immoral, criminal or unjust occurred.  How then can there be anything to rectify?  But suppose that redistribution, under the name of “justice,” was again implemented by state power and again after free transfers between individuals the same deviations from the preferred equality were again evident?  And suppose this was done several times over with the same legal and free transfers between individuals yielding the same result – “inequality.”  What then?  Would continued state redistribution schemes be just?  Absolutely not!  Note that at the time of each redistribution, people who had acquired holdings honestly and fairly would be deprived of them without recourse; and this would be done in the name of justice!  This, of course, is not justice, but tyranny. 

          3) Should the state eventually grow tired of constantly forcing periodic redistributions, it could pursue the third possible course of action.  It could simply deprive the citizens of the freedom to transfer and exchange their holdings at will.  The state would intrude into the everyday affairs of each citizen and control each and every action. To maintain the status of a “just” society, the state must either continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to, or continually (or periodically) interfere to take from some persons resources that others for some reason chose to freely transfer to them.  

This example makes it clear that Mr. Obama’s liberal, leftist, socialist political views of redistribution as economic justice has little to do with justice or morality.  It has to do more with the increase of state control and ultimately totalitarianism, tyranny and loss of liberty. 

“Social justice,” as viewed by Mr. Obama and other leftist socialists, is possible only in a society that is controlled from the top down.  There must be a central agency with the power to force people to accept the state preferred pattern of distribution.  Again, this is the reason Friedrich Hayek could speak of social justice as a Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has historically taken over many societies. 

Freedom loving Americans must resist this ideological shift to the Left even though they might, in the short run, be “beneficiaries” of Mr. Obama’s misguided political policies of “redistribution of wealth.”  The alternative may just be to wake up one day in a totalitarian America where liberty has been lost because we embraced the deception that it is “just” (fair, right) to take what belongs to someone else because the government deemed it so.  

Theft, even when politically allowed and engaged in by state policies, is theft nonetheless.  And theft always brings a curse.  

May we, as Americans whose heritage is freedom of opportunity for all, not be taken in by the liberal ideologues and elites whose goal is not to be public servants of the people, but rather imperial lords with power over the people. 

‘til next time, 

Danny 

* For more research see Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom or view his educational Free to Choose videos online at:  http://www.ideachannel.tv/

———————-

¹(Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. II, page 136)


Radical Ideas

 

We are living in unprecedented times in our history.  I have been alive for more than a half century and never in my life have I ever been aware of such dangerous times as these: globally, nationally, economically, socially, morally and spiritually.

I read a radical idea the other day and thought I’d pass it on to you.  And yet, this radical idea is found in one of the most important historical documents of our great Republic.

See for yourself: > “One Nation Under God, Indivisible …? 

’til next time, keep interceding for our leaders and our nation,


Danny

The Most Important Right of All

All human beings, born and unborn, have a fundamental right to life. 

When we speak of being “pro-life” we are restating one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence.  It reads as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ….”

 

The founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration “that to secure these rights” (among which “are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) “Governments are instituted among Men.”  Government, we are told in this precious document, must exercise “just powers” (derived “from the consent of the governed”) which must protect  these “unalienable rights.”  When any “Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends”, (protecting these “unalienable rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) it is the “Right of the People to alter or to abolish” that “Form of Government.”

Because Life is the fundamental right given us by our Creator, pro-death or pro-abortion  laws, which our government promotes and sanctions, are an exercise of unjust power.  It is the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes the very destroyer of these basic human rights:  especially the right to life.

We must understand this in the most simple and basic of ways to keep from being embroiled in the confusion of arguments that ignore the basic premise of all other rights:  life.  The founding Fathers understood the importance of the intrinsic dignity of the human person as a creature created in the image of God.  The right to life is the moral claim that a person has to exist.  Since people are “endowed by their Creator” with the right to life it cannot be taken by the whim of human “choice” because it is an “unalienable right” [a right from which one cannot be alienated or separated].  Even the order of these unalienable rights in the Declaration were intended to prioritize their importance. 

Life … Liberty … pursuit of Happiness. 

One cannot have the “Liberty” to pursue his own “Happiness” if one is dead.  Life precedes Liberty because the right to liberty has no meaning apart from the right to life.  The pursuit of happiness follows liberty because one cannot pursue anything if he has not the liberty to do so. 

Our culture of death today has it all turned around.  They speak of “liberty” first and whatever is best for me and makes me happy next.  Life?  Ah, it’s dispensable.  Abort the child.   In this twisted thinking, freedom is the most important of human rights; life comes last.  Clinical abortion, the destruction of infants in their mothers’ wombs, violates the foundational right of all other rights: the right to life.  But liberty and pursuit of personal happiness without life is ludicrous.  Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless.    

The existence of the “right” to totally unrestricted abortion, as exists in our culture today, is an malevolent evil to which our culture, for the most part, is now totally desensitized.  It is plenary evidence to the seared conscience of a nation, and world, that has abandoned reason at the altar of convenience and is confused about what really matters.  

Abortion is the most pressing human rights issue of our time.  A nation or people who cannot, or will not, roll back this unjust power over the unborn will not long endure.  Divine judgment is inevitable. 

We need to petition All Mighty God for a government and elected leaders that protect the right to life.  If we don’t have it, let us exercise our right to vote and to “alter and abolish that form of Government” that has become destructive to securing the right to Life for the most frail among us: the unborn.

God grant us mercy and grace to see politicians, who are enamored and passionate about the killing of the unborn, retired from public “service”, and the scourge of abortion removed from our land in our lifetime.

‘til next time,

Danny