Dear Chuck Missler,
You’ve done it again. You’ve opened your mouth and put your foot right into it. Back in February you had the audacity to say that Abraham Lincoln was a paragon of liberty and offered only drivel as your verification for such a claim. I wrote to you then expressing my consternation regarding such a claim and offered proof to the contrary, yet I received no reply; and I expect the same to this. I find myself now contacting you regarding your unscrupulous claims spouted in your K-House eNews for June 30, 2009. I have attached the article below to refresh your memory about it.
You claim we “enjoy a glorious freedom and self-rule…We don’t have to hold our Bible studies in secret for fear of the government…We don’t have to worry about being imprisoned for months or years without facing charges.” How dare you make such absurd statements? Are you truly so blind to the world around you or is your cognitive dissonance so potent that you have no idea how things truly are?
Below is a list of “police-state” stories from ONE website merely going back to the first of May, 2009; read them and tell me honestly that this country is free. These are from ONE website which covers many topics (some I like-others I don’t) for a period since May 1st. There are many other sites which cover nothing but similar incidents.
http://www.infowars.com/cop-who-brutally-beat-female-bartender-receives-probation/
http://www.infowars.com/emt-wants-accountability-from-oklahoma-highway-patrol/
http://www.infowars.com/texas-cop-tasers-72-year-old-great-grandmother/
http://www.infowars.com/new-jersey-cop-beats-man-for-standing-on-corner/
http://www.infowars.com/judge-rules-it-is-ok-to-taser-for-dna-samples/
http://www.infowars.com/ny-officer-acquitted-for-body-slam-that-broke-womans-jaw/
http://www.infowars.com/cop-takedown-leaves-innocent-man-in-coma/
http://www.infowars.com/colorado-police-plan-to-take-blood-from-uncooperative-suspects/
http://www.infowars.com/florida-cops-pushes-woman-down-stairs/
http://www.infowars.com/additional-footage-of-pastor-is-again-attacked-by-constitution-free-zone-thugs/
http://www.infowars.com/did-cops-choke-beat-teen/
http://www.infowars.com/cop-kicks-suspect-in-head-for-not-resisting-arrest/
http://www.infowars.com/man-detained-for-displaying-don%e2%80%99t-tread-on-me-bumper-sticker/
http://www.infowars.com/cop-arrests-girl-for-swearing-during-911-call/
Here are a few more for good measure:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/028801.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken128.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert16.html
www.policebrutality.info
Further examples of how fascist this country has become include, but are not limited to: the “oh-so-freedom-protecting” PATRIOT Act; the entire Homeland Security nonsense; the death of habeas corpus; the list can go on and on. This so-called “War on Terror” has stripped away what few rights people had. The country has been losing freedoms since the late 19th Century, but over the past decade they have been on the fast-track to oblivion.
No fear of being imprisoned for months without charges? Are you serious? What about Ashton Lundaby? As far as I can tell the 16 year old boy is still being held without charge: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w93.html. What about all the people being held by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay and other such heinous hell-holes? Or is that different because they have brown skin and are not U.S. citizens?
I found these examples with very little effort. It took me all of two minutes to do a Google search and list them. Perhaps you should put a little more effort into researching your articles before publishing them. I apologize if my letter seems harsh and abrasive. I simply have no patience for people who spout-off as if they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are blathering buffoons.
You are semi-correct when you say people, who choose to, can still meet for religious worship (though examples to the contrary can be found). Unless of course it isn’t a “christian” religion, then the group will be monitored, infiltrated and spied upon by various beaurocracies.
If this country were free, my money would not be responsible for the deaths of countless innocent lives. The bible I have read tells people to love their neighbors and enemies, not massacre their women and children. I have no desire to kill anyone in any country who in no way has harmed me. Though I do not squeeze the trigger of the gun, which fires the bullet through the air, and pierces the skull of its target, I am nonetheless forced to pay for someone else to do it. I am forced to pay for the gun, the bullet, the goon, and everything else associated with it by involuntary taxation. Taxes I am forced to pay, which are used to fund tyranny, not only abroad, but here in the “homeland” as well.
From your article about Lincoln we learned you have a pitiful definition of liberty; now we learn you have a pathetic definition of freedom as well.
Here’s one more for the road: http://matthewevans1968.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-soldiers-defending-our-aldulterated.html
Sincerely,
Matthew Evans
FREEDOM AIN'T FREE
We Americans have been taught from childhood about our rights, and we enjoy a glorious freedom and self-rule that we can easily take for granted. We don't have to hold our Bible studies in secret for fear of the government. We don't have to worry about being imprisoned for months or years without facing charges. We accept our freedoms as a normal way of life, easily forgetting that millions of people in other parts of the world do not enjoy the independence that we do. As we approach and celebrate Independence Day in America, it is appropriate that we spend some time reflecting on our freedoms. Throughout world history, the power-hungry have constantly fought to overpower and dominate others, whether overtly or through sneaky politicking. Freedom - whether political, religious, or spiritual - is wonderful to enjoy, but at the cost of great sacrifice and vigilant protection. In America, we are the heirs of great sacrifices made to give us a heritage of freedom. Let us guard and protect this inheritance, and not squander it like ungrateful children. To keep our freedoms, we need to appreciate the cost. We need to be willing to understand the sacrifice ourselves, so that we have the same legacy to hand our children: On Freedom:
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will." – Frederick Douglass
When something is rare, it has more value, which is why gold and diamonds are valued more than sand. Freedom is growing rarer again – but it must be sought after, dug up, and cherished like the treasure it is. We have readers from around the world – many of which value freedom way beyond those of us who have an abundance of it. Remember – "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" - Luke 12:48
Friday, July 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
My Story
For some strange reason Mr. Mark Souder sent me an email asking for my opinion regarding a few things. I am sure it was simply a mass emailing his staff sent out to everyone who has contacted him previously.
I have sent Souder multiple emails, none of which are polite or supportive. He is a complete moron, a liar, and a politician…aren’t those all synonymous?
Anyway…
Here is his letter and my rebuttal.
Dear Mr. Evans:
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis.
Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely.
I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream. Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
Sincerely,
Mark Souder
Member of Congress
***********************************************************************
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis.
You’re kidding, right? Why didn’t you want to hear from me back when you voted for Bush’s TARP bill? Where was your curiosity then? You voted for that unpopular, ridiculous, socialist bailout—two times! I sent you an email back then and you replied with some lame form letter. Didn’t you want to hear from me then? Now that Obama is continuing Bush’s lunacy you want to know my opinion?
Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely.
Why should the government respond? And when was the last time the government ever did anything wisely? Haven’t you people done enough?! How much more damage do you plan to do? Besides, “the government” has already responded, and failed—as usual! You passed out taxpayer’s money to GM, Chrysler, AIG and many others. You have since given more money to AIG and now GM is knocking at the door with its hand out. How about trying something new and just staying the hell out of the way? Why don’t you people give it a try for once? All of you politicians should take a long (albeit undeserved) break. How about all of you get out of D.C. for a few lifetimes and see how things turn out without your meddling? I have no doubt a true free market would fix itself. Far better than the boondoggles you incompetent boobs in D.C. come up with.
I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream.
You people steal too much money from us already. You can’t possibly consider raising taxes; they need to be cut—to zero! You people spend our money as if you were drunken sailors buying cheap whores. Let us decide what to spend our money on; we earned it, not you. Stop bailing out businesses and industries with my money. Where were you and your bailouts a few years ago when I needed it?
Because of government interference I already have difficulty paying medical bills. Once my children are ready for college, with or without a tax increase, it will be due to government’s officiousness that makes it difficult to pay for.
Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
From my perspective, you are a power hungry liar. Per your voting pattern you would prefer big government and minimal liberty. You are a liar because you are still in office. Regardless of the fact people continue to vote you back into office; you made a contract you have yet to keep. My experience is that government on any level is far too intrusive, far too demanding, far too costly, and far too inept. Governments force me to pay them to force me to do things (or not do things) against my will, and all I can do about it (for now) is complain.
You are supposed to be a representative. It isn’t our perspective and experience you should be asking for. You should be requesting your marching orders. You should be questioning the people of this district as to what we would like for you to do. Well, here’s what I would like for you to do: march your worthless ass out of D.C., find a real job, leave my money alone, and stay the hell out of my life!
I have sent Souder multiple emails, none of which are polite or supportive. He is a complete moron, a liar, and a politician…aren’t those all synonymous?
Anyway…
Here is his letter and my rebuttal.
Dear Mr. Evans:
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis.
Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely.
I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream. Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
Sincerely,
Mark Souder
Member of Congress
***********************************************************************
I want to hear from you on the government's response to the economic crisis.
You’re kidding, right? Why didn’t you want to hear from me back when you voted for Bush’s TARP bill? Where was your curiosity then? You voted for that unpopular, ridiculous, socialist bailout—two times! I sent you an email back then and you replied with some lame form letter. Didn’t you want to hear from me then? Now that Obama is continuing Bush’s lunacy you want to know my opinion?
Please click here share with me your story of the economic crisis. Specifically, how has the government's response in the stimulus and President Obama's budget affected you? Be sure to title your email, "My Story" so that we can quickly process your comments in our system.The economic recession is hitting our entire country hard, but it has been especially challenging here in northeast Indiana. The government must respond, but it must do so wisely.
Why should the government respond? And when was the last time the government ever did anything wisely? Haven’t you people done enough?! How much more damage do you plan to do? Besides, “the government” has already responded, and failed—as usual! You passed out taxpayer’s money to GM, Chrysler, AIG and many others. You have since given more money to AIG and now GM is knocking at the door with its hand out. How about trying something new and just staying the hell out of the way? Why don’t you people give it a try for once? All of you politicians should take a long (albeit undeserved) break. How about all of you get out of D.C. for a few lifetimes and see how things turn out without your meddling? I have no doubt a true free market would fix itself. Far better than the boondoggles you incompetent boobs in D.C. come up with.
I would like to know how tax increases would affect your ability to pay your health care premiums, send your children to college, start a small business, or otherwise achieve your American Dream.
You people steal too much money from us already. You can’t possibly consider raising taxes; they need to be cut—to zero! You people spend our money as if you were drunken sailors buying cheap whores. Let us decide what to spend our money on; we earned it, not you. Stop bailing out businesses and industries with my money. Where were you and your bailouts a few years ago when I needed it?
Because of government interference I already have difficulty paying medical bills. Once my children are ready for college, with or without a tax increase, it will be due to government’s officiousness that makes it difficult to pay for.
Your perspective and experiences are very important to me and will help me better understand the needs of Hoosiers in our area.
From my perspective, you are a power hungry liar. Per your voting pattern you would prefer big government and minimal liberty. You are a liar because you are still in office. Regardless of the fact people continue to vote you back into office; you made a contract you have yet to keep. My experience is that government on any level is far too intrusive, far too demanding, far too costly, and far too inept. Governments force me to pay them to force me to do things (or not do things) against my will, and all I can do about it (for now) is complain.
You are supposed to be a representative. It isn’t our perspective and experience you should be asking for. You should be requesting your marching orders. You should be questioning the people of this district as to what we would like for you to do. Well, here’s what I would like for you to do: march your worthless ass out of D.C., find a real job, leave my money alone, and stay the hell out of my life!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Hypocrisy and Illegal Immigrants
Hypocrisy and Illegal Immigrants
I don’t think people realize when I say I am a libertarian; I mean I am a lower-case ‘l’ libertarian. Though I have become quite disenfranchised with the Party, I still (for now) consider myself to also be a Libertarian (www.lp.org), with a capitol ‘L’. What does that mean? It means, as a libertarian, I am a full fledged anarchist. (Do yourself a favor and research this term/philosophy before you apply your preconceived, government indoctrinated definition to it.) I truly do want to see governments disbanded and mankind to live as free as possible. I want people to decide things for themselves, and the free-market of commerce to direct society; not power hungry, maniacal, miscreants. As long as people are not harming anyone else, what difference does it make what they do? Would I sell my body to be used in perverse manners? No. I wouldn’t make much money if I did anyway. Nevertheless, if someone else opts to do it—it’s their body, I should mind my own damn business. I choose to live life by the libertarian Non-aggression Axiom: Never initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or their property, and honor your contracts. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) Also known as “The Golden Rule” or the “Ethic of Reciprocity.”
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31
Hinduism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."
Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb
Time for me to fess up about something else—I can be a big hypocrite as well. Yep, that’s right, I am admitting it. I am a self professed anarchist, yet I work for a city government; how’s that for hypocrisy? I recently came to a new conclusion regarding an issue I had convinced myself was all wrapped up in my head; but in actuality I was only being hypocritical about it. Erstwhile I was someone who complained about illegal immigrants, wanted them shipped back to where they came from, and wanted to “protect our borders.” I must admit, in the back of my mind this did not mesh well with my anarchist views, but I tried to shrug-off those feelings. I have finally come to grips with something: how could borders be protected and how could someone be “illegal” if I want to do away with organized government? I always thought it to be a personal enigmatic paradox of mine, but it was just plain, old-fashion hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is something I should be use to from my organized religion days, but will likely spend a lifetime purging from myself.
I have decided that I cannot be against illegal aliens if I proclaim liberty for all mankind; the two ideals are not compatible. If I truly want freedom from oppressive government, shouldn’t I want that freedom extended to all people? Besides, since when has any government ever done anything right? Governments are always screwing-up something. Take the “Digital Converter Box Coupon” for example—what a fiasco. The government can’t even do coupons right, how could anyone expect it to secure a border? In the end any methods used to keep people out of the country would quite likely be used to keep people in as well; and what if I want to leave (more likely, when I want to leave…)? Putting a fence around the country would do nothing more than turn it into one gigantic gulag.
Take a lesson from history about wall building:
1. The Great Wall of China was built thousands of years ago, the Manchu were able to break through it and conquer the Ming Dynasty. The Wall is now a run down tourist attraction.
2. The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 and used to separate East (Communist) Germany from West (Allied managed) Germany. How did that one turn out?
3. How about Israel’s West Bank Wall? It is still under construction and expected to be over 400 miles long. Because of this wall Palestinians are unable to find work, receive food and medical supplies; and subsequently those who do not live in extreme poverty—are dead.
Do we really want a bunch of D.C. twits erecting a wall around us and “securing” the borders? Frankly, I will defend the borders of my own property and help others do the same if it is justified and they ask for it.
Here’s my new motto: un pour liberté, liberté pour un
(All for liberty, and liberty for all)
I don’t think people realize when I say I am a libertarian; I mean I am a lower-case ‘l’ libertarian. Though I have become quite disenfranchised with the Party, I still (for now) consider myself to also be a Libertarian (www.lp.org), with a capitol ‘L’. What does that mean? It means, as a libertarian, I am a full fledged anarchist. (Do yourself a favor and research this term/philosophy before you apply your preconceived, government indoctrinated definition to it.) I truly do want to see governments disbanded and mankind to live as free as possible. I want people to decide things for themselves, and the free-market of commerce to direct society; not power hungry, maniacal, miscreants. As long as people are not harming anyone else, what difference does it make what they do? Would I sell my body to be used in perverse manners? No. I wouldn’t make much money if I did anyway. Nevertheless, if someone else opts to do it—it’s their body, I should mind my own damn business. I choose to live life by the libertarian Non-aggression Axiom: Never initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or their property, and honor your contracts. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) Also known as “The Golden Rule” or the “Ethic of Reciprocity.”
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31
Hinduism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."
Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb
Time for me to fess up about something else—I can be a big hypocrite as well. Yep, that’s right, I am admitting it. I am a self professed anarchist, yet I work for a city government; how’s that for hypocrisy? I recently came to a new conclusion regarding an issue I had convinced myself was all wrapped up in my head; but in actuality I was only being hypocritical about it. Erstwhile I was someone who complained about illegal immigrants, wanted them shipped back to where they came from, and wanted to “protect our borders.” I must admit, in the back of my mind this did not mesh well with my anarchist views, but I tried to shrug-off those feelings. I have finally come to grips with something: how could borders be protected and how could someone be “illegal” if I want to do away with organized government? I always thought it to be a personal enigmatic paradox of mine, but it was just plain, old-fashion hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is something I should be use to from my organized religion days, but will likely spend a lifetime purging from myself.
I have decided that I cannot be against illegal aliens if I proclaim liberty for all mankind; the two ideals are not compatible. If I truly want freedom from oppressive government, shouldn’t I want that freedom extended to all people? Besides, since when has any government ever done anything right? Governments are always screwing-up something. Take the “Digital Converter Box Coupon” for example—what a fiasco. The government can’t even do coupons right, how could anyone expect it to secure a border? In the end any methods used to keep people out of the country would quite likely be used to keep people in as well; and what if I want to leave (more likely, when I want to leave…)? Putting a fence around the country would do nothing more than turn it into one gigantic gulag.
Take a lesson from history about wall building:
1. The Great Wall of China was built thousands of years ago, the Manchu were able to break through it and conquer the Ming Dynasty. The Wall is now a run down tourist attraction.
2. The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 and used to separate East (Communist) Germany from West (Allied managed) Germany. How did that one turn out?
3. How about Israel’s West Bank Wall? It is still under construction and expected to be over 400 miles long. Because of this wall Palestinians are unable to find work, receive food and medical supplies; and subsequently those who do not live in extreme poverty—are dead.
Do we really want a bunch of D.C. twits erecting a wall around us and “securing” the borders? Frankly, I will defend the borders of my own property and help others do the same if it is justified and they ask for it.
Here’s my new motto: un pour liberté, liberté pour un
(All for liberty, and liberty for all)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
HEROES
What makes a hero? Is it the job? Is it a deed we have performed? Some may say that the simple act of having a particular career is reason enough to brand someone a hero. But I beg to differ. Let’s use a firefighter for example, let’s call him Dude.
What if a Dude goes through his entire career fighting house, trash, business, brush fires, but never saves anyone from a burning building. Let’s just say that all the fires Dude put out were in empty buildings and that’s why he never had the opportunity to save anyone. It’s not really his fault, that’s just the way dice roll sometimes. Is Dude a hero because he can rush to a burning building and douse water on it? Not really. Once the fire starts it has already done the damage. Someone is going to be without a home, whether long term or short term; an insurance company will be writing a check, memories will be lost, precious mementos gone forever. Many times the water used to put out the fire causes more damage than the fire did. I’m not knocking Dude’s actions, he needed to do what he could to put out the fire; I’m just stating a fact.
I have put out fires with a fire extinguisher; does that make me a hero just because I can put out fire? Not really. Nor does it make Dude a hero. Let’s say that Dude arrived to a burning building and learned there was a small child trapped inside, so he ran into the inferno and saved the child. Would that make him a hero? Oh yes, most definitely. Dude would likely be awarded a medal of honor or the key to the city or some other trinket. But what if you learned that the fire chief earlier in the day had sent another crew of fire fighters to the building and had them set it ablaze? Would that make Dude any less of a hero? It would all depend if he was privy to the information. What if the fire chief hired only those people who would follow his orders and never question his command? Would Dude’s complicity negate his hero status? Of course it would!
If I had my brother kidnap a child, tie him up and hide him in his garage, then stage a rescue of the child, would that make me a hero? If you said “yes” and mean it, stop reading and go back to your TV.
Do people deserve respect and hero worship just because of their uniform or title? Do all police officers automatically deserve respect just because they don a badge and bear a gun? What about the cops who beat Rodney King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King)? What about the BART cop who shot unarmed Oscar Grant in the back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BNaU)? Watch this video and tell me that these cops should be honored just because they where a uniform: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2YodfOWeuI&feature=player_embedded. In all honesty, I do not respect police or any other government thug or bureaucrat. I don’t care what they wear or where they work. I have personally witnessed plenty of things for me to develop a disdain for them. This is not meant to bash or slander anyone, it is only meant to present some truth and cause thought.
“Soldiers are not heroes” is a new site on Facebook which has caused quite an uproar. Many people have begun sites requesting that Facebook ban them. But why? Personally I wouldn’t care if the KKK or the Black Panthers had their own Facebook site. It’s none of my damn business. If I don’t like what a site touts, I won’t visit it, I won’t be a fan, I won’t request to be a friend, etc. But the site does beg the question: Are soldiers heroes?
Are soldiers heroes just because they wear fatigues? Carry an M-16? Drink from a canteen? Kill people? Destroy property? What makes them a hero? Does volunteering your life and freewill to the ravings of a megalomaniac make you a hero? Many well meaning, good-hearted, yet ignorant folks will claim that soldiers defend our freedom and that’s why we should call them heroes, but I’ve already proven this to be false in a previous blog: http://matthewevans1968.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-soldiers-defending-our-aldulterated.html. Can soldiers be heroes? Sure, the same as anyone can. If they perform something truly heroic, they can be called a hero. But, what if they perform something heroic yet they themselves or their compatriots created the dangerous situation to begin with? Are they still a hero? If the Air Force bombards a village and the Army moves in afterwards and retrieves a small boy from the rubble, are they acting heroically? The boy wouldn’t have needed saving if it weren’t for the military bombs.
The true heroic soldiers are those who have returned from war and gone through great pains to tell everyone the truth. Those who thumb their noses at the high command and tell the civilians about the atrocities they witnessed and even committed themselves. Soldiers like Christopher Gaddy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/gaddy-c1.html), and Iraq Soldiers Against The War (www.ivaw.org).
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I refuse to give honor and praise to someone just because of their clothing, job or how well they take orders; they need to earn it just like I do. Just because I am a father doesn’t mean my children should automatically honor me and make me their hero. Any Bozo with a working sex organ can be a father. I hope I have given my children reasons to honor me and I hope I have earned their respect. Of course I can boss them around and order them do as I want—but that’s no way to become a hero.
What if a Dude goes through his entire career fighting house, trash, business, brush fires, but never saves anyone from a burning building. Let’s just say that all the fires Dude put out were in empty buildings and that’s why he never had the opportunity to save anyone. It’s not really his fault, that’s just the way dice roll sometimes. Is Dude a hero because he can rush to a burning building and douse water on it? Not really. Once the fire starts it has already done the damage. Someone is going to be without a home, whether long term or short term; an insurance company will be writing a check, memories will be lost, precious mementos gone forever. Many times the water used to put out the fire causes more damage than the fire did. I’m not knocking Dude’s actions, he needed to do what he could to put out the fire; I’m just stating a fact.
I have put out fires with a fire extinguisher; does that make me a hero just because I can put out fire? Not really. Nor does it make Dude a hero. Let’s say that Dude arrived to a burning building and learned there was a small child trapped inside, so he ran into the inferno and saved the child. Would that make him a hero? Oh yes, most definitely. Dude would likely be awarded a medal of honor or the key to the city or some other trinket. But what if you learned that the fire chief earlier in the day had sent another crew of fire fighters to the building and had them set it ablaze? Would that make Dude any less of a hero? It would all depend if he was privy to the information. What if the fire chief hired only those people who would follow his orders and never question his command? Would Dude’s complicity negate his hero status? Of course it would!
If I had my brother kidnap a child, tie him up and hide him in his garage, then stage a rescue of the child, would that make me a hero? If you said “yes” and mean it, stop reading and go back to your TV.
Do people deserve respect and hero worship just because of their uniform or title? Do all police officers automatically deserve respect just because they don a badge and bear a gun? What about the cops who beat Rodney King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King)? What about the BART cop who shot unarmed Oscar Grant in the back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BNaU)? Watch this video and tell me that these cops should be honored just because they where a uniform: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2YodfOWeuI&feature=player_embedded. In all honesty, I do not respect police or any other government thug or bureaucrat. I don’t care what they wear or where they work. I have personally witnessed plenty of things for me to develop a disdain for them. This is not meant to bash or slander anyone, it is only meant to present some truth and cause thought.
“Soldiers are not heroes” is a new site on Facebook which has caused quite an uproar. Many people have begun sites requesting that Facebook ban them. But why? Personally I wouldn’t care if the KKK or the Black Panthers had their own Facebook site. It’s none of my damn business. If I don’t like what a site touts, I won’t visit it, I won’t be a fan, I won’t request to be a friend, etc. But the site does beg the question: Are soldiers heroes?
Are soldiers heroes just because they wear fatigues? Carry an M-16? Drink from a canteen? Kill people? Destroy property? What makes them a hero? Does volunteering your life and freewill to the ravings of a megalomaniac make you a hero? Many well meaning, good-hearted, yet ignorant folks will claim that soldiers defend our freedom and that’s why we should call them heroes, but I’ve already proven this to be false in a previous blog: http://matthewevans1968.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-soldiers-defending-our-aldulterated.html. Can soldiers be heroes? Sure, the same as anyone can. If they perform something truly heroic, they can be called a hero. But, what if they perform something heroic yet they themselves or their compatriots created the dangerous situation to begin with? Are they still a hero? If the Air Force bombards a village and the Army moves in afterwards and retrieves a small boy from the rubble, are they acting heroically? The boy wouldn’t have needed saving if it weren’t for the military bombs.
The true heroic soldiers are those who have returned from war and gone through great pains to tell everyone the truth. Those who thumb their noses at the high command and tell the civilians about the atrocities they witnessed and even committed themselves. Soldiers like Christopher Gaddy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/gaddy-c1.html), and Iraq Soldiers Against The War (www.ivaw.org).
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I refuse to give honor and praise to someone just because of their clothing, job or how well they take orders; they need to earn it just like I do. Just because I am a father doesn’t mean my children should automatically honor me and make me their hero. Any Bozo with a working sex organ can be a father. I hope I have given my children reasons to honor me and I hope I have earned their respect. Of course I can boss them around and order them do as I want—but that’s no way to become a hero.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Letters to State Reps Reference Proposed Smoking Ban
I recently contacted the state rep and state senator for my area regarding the attempted state smoking ban for Indiana. I was able to pretty much send both guys the same letter with a few tweeks, that makes contacting these morons a bit easier and less time consuming.
Randy Borror, State Representative for the 84th District
Dear Mr. Borror,
This email is regarding the attempted smoking ban for the entire state of Indiana. I have one word to say: don't. I live in a city with a fascist smoking ban. When the city council passed it, supporters were removed from office the following election—keep that in mind.
I am not a smoker and find the odor of it repugnant. But it is my choice to frequent places where smoking is not allowed by the property owner. It is the business owner's right to control his own property. Keep your nanny state out of it! This state already has far too many insanely restrictive and controlling laws. It's time to stop!
Be a representative not a big brother and stand against all intrusive and right’s restricting laws which come your way.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Evans
Fort Wayne
Dennis Kruse, State Senator for the 14th District
Dear Mr. Kruse,
This email is regarding the attempted smoking ban for the entire state of Indiana. If this crazy bill makes it to the Senate, I have one word to say: don't. I live in a city with a fascist smoking ban. When the city council passed it, supporters were removed from office the following election—keep that in mind.
I am not a smoker and find the odor of it repugnant. But it is my choice to frequent places where smoking is not allowed by the property owner. It is the business owner's right to control his own property. Keep your nanny state out of it! This state already has far too many insanely restrictive and controlling laws. It's time to stop!
As a Senator you are suppose to be a representative not a big brother, so stand against all intrusive and right’s restricting laws which come your way.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Evans
Fort Wayne
Randy Borror, State Representative for the 84th District
Dear Mr. Borror,
This email is regarding the attempted smoking ban for the entire state of Indiana. I have one word to say: don't. I live in a city with a fascist smoking ban. When the city council passed it, supporters were removed from office the following election—keep that in mind.
I am not a smoker and find the odor of it repugnant. But it is my choice to frequent places where smoking is not allowed by the property owner. It is the business owner's right to control his own property. Keep your nanny state out of it! This state already has far too many insanely restrictive and controlling laws. It's time to stop!
Be a representative not a big brother and stand against all intrusive and right’s restricting laws which come your way.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Evans
Fort Wayne
Dennis Kruse, State Senator for the 14th District
Dear Mr. Kruse,
This email is regarding the attempted smoking ban for the entire state of Indiana. If this crazy bill makes it to the Senate, I have one word to say: don't. I live in a city with a fascist smoking ban. When the city council passed it, supporters were removed from office the following election—keep that in mind.
I am not a smoker and find the odor of it repugnant. But it is my choice to frequent places where smoking is not allowed by the property owner. It is the business owner's right to control his own property. Keep your nanny state out of it! This state already has far too many insanely restrictive and controlling laws. It's time to stop!
As a Senator you are suppose to be a representative not a big brother, so stand against all intrusive and right’s restricting laws which come your way.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Evans
Fort Wayne
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Stimulus
How Stimulating…
I received another email which caused me to do some thinking. So I thought I would write down my thoughts and share them with you.
Subject: Economic Stimulus Explained
"Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very
exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers."
"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers."
"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?"
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese."
"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy."
"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?"
"A. Shut up ."
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Qaida
If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.
If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India.
If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan
If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.
You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales or going to a ball game, or you can spend it on women of ill repute, domestic beer or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
Funny—a little late and chock full of inaccuracies—but still funny. This email is regarding Bush's stimulus package, not Obama’s. Obama's stimulus is going to be given to the states so they can create busy work such as digging holes and filling them up again; pretty much as FDR did during the Great Depression.
Bush's stimulus check from the summer was held against me when I filed my taxes recently and I am being reimbursed a pittance of what I paid into “the system.” Basically, Bush took the taxes from me and wasted the money on things such as killing innocent people with fancy weapons and spying on me with fancy spy gear. He then borrowed money from China to give a small amount of my taxes back to me with the expectation that I would blow it on stupid stuff I don't need. Now I am being penalized for the refund by being placed in a higher tax bracket. The government is such a racket! But, let’s not forget, not only did Bush loan us back our own tax money with penalties, he gave lots of our money to a bunch of other people who had wasted their own money and found themselves broke: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4AO9TR20081125?sp=true
On the other hand, early information on Obama's stimulus package showed it to be so full of pork it smelled like bacon:
· $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
· $850 million for "wildlife" programs.
· $600 million for new cars for federal bureaucrats.
· $34 million for the "refurbishing" of the Department of Commerce
· $200 million for electric car technology.
· $1 billion for "community development" block grants.
· $10 million to "refurbish low-income housing".
· $4.19 billion to hand out to people for their mortgages.
www.libertyconspiracy.com
Your congress finally passed the stimulus bill on Friday, but only after several changes. I do not know what changes were made and I cannot find any information on the internet about it. I went to www.congress.org and this is all it had to say about the bill:
Summary:
1/6/2009--Introduced. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Calls for the enactment of legislation to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle class through measures that: (1) modernize the nation's infrastructure; (2) enhance America's energy independence; (3) expand educational opportunities; (4) preserve and improve affordable health care; (5) provide tax relief; and (6) protect those in greatest need.
What the hell does that mean? Of the six vague things listed, #5 is the only one that MIGHT help with the economy.
Another part of Obama’s stimulus was the complete removal of everyone’s health privacy. We better hope this was one of the parts bargained out of the plan. Consider this from www.forhealthfreedom.org:
“(Washington, DC)—The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) warns that the economic stimulus bill mandates electronic health records for every citizen without providing for opt-out or patient consent provisions. "Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared—without their consent—with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," says Sue A. Blevins, IHF president.
“President Obama has pledged to advance freedom. Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld,” Blevins says. “Unless people have the right to decide if and when their health information is shared or whether to participate in research studies, they don’t have a true right to privacy.”IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights.
Some provisions of the economic stimulus bill include:
* "The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."* "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties…consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that…facilitates health and clinical research…"
The federal medical privacy rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) already permits the disclosure of personal health information without patient consent for treatment, payment, and oversight of the healthcare system. IHF has long called for modification of the HIPAA rule to restore patient consent in order to preserve the confidential doctor-patient relationship. The stimulus bill fails to restore patient consent, while at the same time, mandating electronic health records and facilitating the electronic exchange of every American's health information.”
The real problem isn’t that the government is attempting to fix the economy; oh that’s bad, but not the truly radical problem. The root problem is that the people think the government can fix it. The republicans supported Bush and the stupid things he did, and now the democrats are going to trust Obama and his ridiculous plans. The government can’t do anything right, how can anyone trust it? Our TV’s were due to all go digital this month. Now it won’t happen until June. Why? Because the government wanted to pass out coupons to everyone so they could purchase a converter box—and they ran out of the coupons. The government screwed up a coupon!
The only thing the government is truly good at is stimulating its own growth.
I received another email which caused me to do some thinking. So I thought I would write down my thoughts and share them with you.
Subject: Economic Stimulus Explained
"Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very
exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers."
"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers."
"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?"
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese."
"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy."
"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?"
"A. Shut up ."
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Qaida
If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.
If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India.
If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan
If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.
You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales or going to a ball game, or you can spend it on women of ill repute, domestic beer or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
Funny—a little late and chock full of inaccuracies—but still funny. This email is regarding Bush's stimulus package, not Obama’s. Obama's stimulus is going to be given to the states so they can create busy work such as digging holes and filling them up again; pretty much as FDR did during the Great Depression.
Bush's stimulus check from the summer was held against me when I filed my taxes recently and I am being reimbursed a pittance of what I paid into “the system.” Basically, Bush took the taxes from me and wasted the money on things such as killing innocent people with fancy weapons and spying on me with fancy spy gear. He then borrowed money from China to give a small amount of my taxes back to me with the expectation that I would blow it on stupid stuff I don't need. Now I am being penalized for the refund by being placed in a higher tax bracket. The government is such a racket! But, let’s not forget, not only did Bush loan us back our own tax money with penalties, he gave lots of our money to a bunch of other people who had wasted their own money and found themselves broke: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4AO9TR20081125?sp=true
On the other hand, early information on Obama's stimulus package showed it to be so full of pork it smelled like bacon:
· $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
· $850 million for "wildlife" programs.
· $600 million for new cars for federal bureaucrats.
· $34 million for the "refurbishing" of the Department of Commerce
· $200 million for electric car technology.
· $1 billion for "community development" block grants.
· $10 million to "refurbish low-income housing".
· $4.19 billion to hand out to people for their mortgages.
www.libertyconspiracy.com
Your congress finally passed the stimulus bill on Friday, but only after several changes. I do not know what changes were made and I cannot find any information on the internet about it. I went to www.congress.org and this is all it had to say about the bill:
Summary:
1/6/2009--Introduced. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Calls for the enactment of legislation to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle class through measures that: (1) modernize the nation's infrastructure; (2) enhance America's energy independence; (3) expand educational opportunities; (4) preserve and improve affordable health care; (5) provide tax relief; and (6) protect those in greatest need.
What the hell does that mean? Of the six vague things listed, #5 is the only one that MIGHT help with the economy.
Another part of Obama’s stimulus was the complete removal of everyone’s health privacy. We better hope this was one of the parts bargained out of the plan. Consider this from www.forhealthfreedom.org:
“(Washington, DC)—The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) warns that the economic stimulus bill mandates electronic health records for every citizen without providing for opt-out or patient consent provisions. "Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared—without their consent—with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," says Sue A. Blevins, IHF president.
“President Obama has pledged to advance freedom. Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld,” Blevins says. “Unless people have the right to decide if and when their health information is shared or whether to participate in research studies, they don’t have a true right to privacy.”IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights.
Some provisions of the economic stimulus bill include:
* "The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."* "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties…consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that…facilitates health and clinical research…"
The federal medical privacy rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) already permits the disclosure of personal health information without patient consent for treatment, payment, and oversight of the healthcare system. IHF has long called for modification of the HIPAA rule to restore patient consent in order to preserve the confidential doctor-patient relationship. The stimulus bill fails to restore patient consent, while at the same time, mandating electronic health records and facilitating the electronic exchange of every American's health information.”
The real problem isn’t that the government is attempting to fix the economy; oh that’s bad, but not the truly radical problem. The root problem is that the people think the government can fix it. The republicans supported Bush and the stupid things he did, and now the democrats are going to trust Obama and his ridiculous plans. The government can’t do anything right, how can anyone trust it? Our TV’s were due to all go digital this month. Now it won’t happen until June. Why? Because the government wanted to pass out coupons to everyone so they could purchase a converter box—and they ran out of the coupons. The government screwed up a coupon!
The only thing the government is truly good at is stimulating its own growth.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Regarding Abraham Lincoln and True Liberty
Here is a letter I wrote in response to an article in which the author heeped mounds of praise onto Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a tyrant and in my opinion, the worst president this country has ever had. The article follows my letter. It was written (or at least published by) Chuck Missler of Koinonia House (www.khouse.org).
Dear Mr. Missler,
Greetings. I am a recipient of your K-house Enews Updates via email. Though I am not an adherent to any organized religion, I usually appreciate your view on things and I feel it adds to a better understanding of various current events. However, I must take umbrage with an article regarding Abraham Lincoln in your most recent email. I am unsure if you personally write these pieces or this particular one, but as you are the founder of Koinonia House I will address this letter to you.
As a disclaimer, I must admit that I do not hold the office of president in very high esteem. I have a personal list of the “worst presidents in history” but cannot muster enough good to create a list of the “best presidents in history” (except perhaps William Henry Harrison who did not have the opportunity to defy his oath of office). As for my list of worst presidents, Abraham Lincoln is on top of the list (FDR is number two and George W. Bush is number three). The criteria I use to determine their placements are twofold: what they have done to the cause of liberty, and how badly they ignored their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The article in question gives a brief history of Lincoln’s life, of which I have no objection. However, the article claims Lincoln to be a great man because he abolished slavery, protected the Union, and loved true liberty. I am writing to say that all of these statements are absolutely incorrect.
The writer of the article makes it sound as if Lincoln loved liberty so much he wanted it spread to all races of mankind, but this is not so. Even in his first inaugural speech Lincoln stated “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He goes on to say that fugitive slaves should be returned to their owners; and that his real problem with the south was their refusal to pay a certain tax. (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) Even the famed Emancipation Proclamation was a farce. It was nothing more than an executive order freeing the slaves in the Confederacy, not the Union. Not only was this just futile since Lincoln did not control the Confederacy, it was hypocritical as well.
Regarding the protection of the Union; how was that pro-liberty? The states entered a voluntary contract with the federal government which hinged on the federal government obeying the U.S. Constitution. The federal government broke the deal by interfering with state’s rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. Instead of letting the Confederacy voluntarily break ties with the Union, Lincoln sent in troops and forced them back into the agreement. Because Lincoln did not allow the southern states the liberty to secede, he directly caused the deaths of countless lives.
I am not a racist who supports slavery—on the contrary—I am an historian who happens to know that the war of northern aggression was fought over money (tariffs) and state’s rights. Because of Lincoln the federal government has become the behemoth it is today. Gee thanks Lincoln. I remember attending organized schools and hearing the praises of Abraham Lincoln, fortunately, as an adult I have learned to ignore what I was taught and search for the truth myself.
Regarding the truth about Abraham Lincoln I recommend you visit this website http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html. But regarding the issue of liberty I continue with this:
You postulate that liberty today has been turned into license. License is defined as an excess of liberty or freedom. How is that a bad thing? Can there really ever be too much freedom? If so, who decides when there is enough freedom? Me? You? The government? Perhaps the pope? I want all the liberty I can have, and I want everyone else to have all the liberty they can have. I want more and more liberty, if it were possible I would like to OD on liberty. Liberty is the freedom to do as I choose, but I must in turn, be responsible enough to stifle that liberty with respect for others. My liberty does not allow me to trample on the liberty of another. Thus you are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect regarding your claim that abuse of liberty has brought about various societal ills. I perceive that you believe liberty is not the freedom to live one’s life as they choose, but as you, the government, or society in general believe is appropriate. For instance, if I choose to partake in cannabis, you would no doubt refuse me that liberty, even though I hurt no one other than myself (some studies show otherwise though) with such an action. If this is so, than your concept of liberty is completely different than its true meaning. True liberty would allow me to partake in any substance, activity, or thought I choose to regardless of society’s opinions, government’s rules or scriptural tenants. For example, I consume alcoholic beverages, but my parents do not due to religious beliefs. In my home I will imbibe as I so desire, but in their home I will not. Do I think their prohibition is silly? Of course I do, but they are free to be prohibitionists, and I am free to be an imbiber. Abuse of liberty happens when someone impairs the liberty of another. If I were to think you have far too much freedom of religion and move to inhibit it, you would cry foul, as you should. However, when others take part in behavior you feel to be improper you push for laws, regulations, licenses, or even war. The “Golden Rule” is the ultimate rule in a world of true liberty.
But singing the praises of a tyrant such as Lincoln only proves my theory that you truly do not hold liberty in the same esteem as I do.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Matthew Evans
ON LIBERTY: HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT LINCOLN
On February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born in a one-room cabin in Kentucky. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, we remember the lanky self-taught lawyer who hated slavery, who pressed forward until he finally attained the highest office in the country – just in time for the bloodiest war in US history. But, even more, we remember the greatness of that man who loved true liberty, who dreamed in his day "of a place and time where America will once again be seen as the last, best hope on earth."
There are many things that can be said about Abraham Lincoln. He lost his mother when he was nine, and two of his four sons died before he did. He stood at the helm of America while it was torn in two, and he not only protected the Union, but managed to emancipate the slaves in the process. Yet, it was not just his humble beginnings or his ability to overcome personal tragedy that made Lincoln remarkable. Nor did the abolition of slavery or the survival of the United States alone make him a great man. Abraham Lincoln was a great man because of what he believed in and what he stood for. He was not only about the business of preserving a collection of states under one federal government. He was a man determined to protect America to be the haven for true liberty that that Founders intended it to be.
In his 1861 address at Independence Hall, which he described as, "a wholly unprepared speech" Lincoln said the following:
"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together.
"It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence."
Lincoln loved liberty. He loved true liberty in its good old-fashioned sense. Today the concept of liberty has been kidnapped, and the word has become a euphemism for humans to do whatever they like without legal repercussions. Liberty does not mean a blank check for immorality. True liberty is lifting "the weight" of tyranny, freeing men to govern themselves and take responsibility for themselves as men and not as slaves. The freedom of the black man was representative of the very freedom that all Americans embraced in the Declaration of Independence. No longer would they be called "boy" - told what to do and how to do it. They would henceforth be men, fully responsible for their own lives. That's true liberty. It is the same with spiritual liberty. By the blood of Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit working in us, we are no longer slaves to sin. In fact, we are no longer under the letter of the Law. Yet, our freedom is one in which we serve God in holiness out of love, pushing closer to the heart of God than the Law could ever lead us. It is never a freedom that condones license to sin, but one in which we walk with God as sons and daughters.
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." -2 Corinthians 3:17
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." -Galatians 5:13
But liberty is never free. It always comes with a price. In the case of our spiritual liberty, the only begotten Son of God was slaughtered on a Roman cross to win our freedom. In the case of America, our freedom was also bought with the blood of our forefathers. And it is now protected only with vigilance.
Our precious liberty is in danger of being taken away. Men (and women) who have abused their freedoms have brought financial destruction on the nation and the entire world. Men (and women) who have abused their social freedoms have torn apart the family, brought children into single family homes, and have spread disease, violence, substance abuse and crime. As we have replaced liberty with license, proving ourselves children instead of men, our government has stepped in to hold our hands; we're in serious danger of losing the very freedoms we love.
We are in the midst of another great civil war. This time it's a war of ideas and of values. It's a war that threatens to destroy us just as certainly as the war Lincoln faced nearly 150 years ago. His words from the Gettysburg Address seem just as fitting now as they were then:
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live…The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That says it.
Happy 200th Birthday Abraham Lincoln. We're grateful to God for your tremendous service to America. May we not fail those who bled for us by treating their sacrifices as little in value. May we treat our freedoms with great regard, walking not as spoiled children but as righteous men. And may we fight so that this nation can have a new birth of freedom; one in which we truly behave as one nation under God.
Dear Mr. Missler,
Greetings. I am a recipient of your K-house Enews Updates via email. Though I am not an adherent to any organized religion, I usually appreciate your view on things and I feel it adds to a better understanding of various current events. However, I must take umbrage with an article regarding Abraham Lincoln in your most recent email. I am unsure if you personally write these pieces or this particular one, but as you are the founder of Koinonia House I will address this letter to you.
As a disclaimer, I must admit that I do not hold the office of president in very high esteem. I have a personal list of the “worst presidents in history” but cannot muster enough good to create a list of the “best presidents in history” (except perhaps William Henry Harrison who did not have the opportunity to defy his oath of office). As for my list of worst presidents, Abraham Lincoln is on top of the list (FDR is number two and George W. Bush is number three). The criteria I use to determine their placements are twofold: what they have done to the cause of liberty, and how badly they ignored their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The article in question gives a brief history of Lincoln’s life, of which I have no objection. However, the article claims Lincoln to be a great man because he abolished slavery, protected the Union, and loved true liberty. I am writing to say that all of these statements are absolutely incorrect.
The writer of the article makes it sound as if Lincoln loved liberty so much he wanted it spread to all races of mankind, but this is not so. Even in his first inaugural speech Lincoln stated “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He goes on to say that fugitive slaves should be returned to their owners; and that his real problem with the south was their refusal to pay a certain tax. (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) Even the famed Emancipation Proclamation was a farce. It was nothing more than an executive order freeing the slaves in the Confederacy, not the Union. Not only was this just futile since Lincoln did not control the Confederacy, it was hypocritical as well.
Regarding the protection of the Union; how was that pro-liberty? The states entered a voluntary contract with the federal government which hinged on the federal government obeying the U.S. Constitution. The federal government broke the deal by interfering with state’s rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. Instead of letting the Confederacy voluntarily break ties with the Union, Lincoln sent in troops and forced them back into the agreement. Because Lincoln did not allow the southern states the liberty to secede, he directly caused the deaths of countless lives.
I am not a racist who supports slavery—on the contrary—I am an historian who happens to know that the war of northern aggression was fought over money (tariffs) and state’s rights. Because of Lincoln the federal government has become the behemoth it is today. Gee thanks Lincoln. I remember attending organized schools and hearing the praises of Abraham Lincoln, fortunately, as an adult I have learned to ignore what I was taught and search for the truth myself.
Regarding the truth about Abraham Lincoln I recommend you visit this website http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html. But regarding the issue of liberty I continue with this:
You postulate that liberty today has been turned into license. License is defined as an excess of liberty or freedom. How is that a bad thing? Can there really ever be too much freedom? If so, who decides when there is enough freedom? Me? You? The government? Perhaps the pope? I want all the liberty I can have, and I want everyone else to have all the liberty they can have. I want more and more liberty, if it were possible I would like to OD on liberty. Liberty is the freedom to do as I choose, but I must in turn, be responsible enough to stifle that liberty with respect for others. My liberty does not allow me to trample on the liberty of another. Thus you are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect regarding your claim that abuse of liberty has brought about various societal ills. I perceive that you believe liberty is not the freedom to live one’s life as they choose, but as you, the government, or society in general believe is appropriate. For instance, if I choose to partake in cannabis, you would no doubt refuse me that liberty, even though I hurt no one other than myself (some studies show otherwise though) with such an action. If this is so, than your concept of liberty is completely different than its true meaning. True liberty would allow me to partake in any substance, activity, or thought I choose to regardless of society’s opinions, government’s rules or scriptural tenants. For example, I consume alcoholic beverages, but my parents do not due to religious beliefs. In my home I will imbibe as I so desire, but in their home I will not. Do I think their prohibition is silly? Of course I do, but they are free to be prohibitionists, and I am free to be an imbiber. Abuse of liberty happens when someone impairs the liberty of another. If I were to think you have far too much freedom of religion and move to inhibit it, you would cry foul, as you should. However, when others take part in behavior you feel to be improper you push for laws, regulations, licenses, or even war. The “Golden Rule” is the ultimate rule in a world of true liberty.
But singing the praises of a tyrant such as Lincoln only proves my theory that you truly do not hold liberty in the same esteem as I do.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Matthew Evans
ON LIBERTY: HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT LINCOLN
On February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born in a one-room cabin in Kentucky. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, we remember the lanky self-taught lawyer who hated slavery, who pressed forward until he finally attained the highest office in the country – just in time for the bloodiest war in US history. But, even more, we remember the greatness of that man who loved true liberty, who dreamed in his day "of a place and time where America will once again be seen as the last, best hope on earth."
There are many things that can be said about Abraham Lincoln. He lost his mother when he was nine, and two of his four sons died before he did. He stood at the helm of America while it was torn in two, and he not only protected the Union, but managed to emancipate the slaves in the process. Yet, it was not just his humble beginnings or his ability to overcome personal tragedy that made Lincoln remarkable. Nor did the abolition of slavery or the survival of the United States alone make him a great man. Abraham Lincoln was a great man because of what he believed in and what he stood for. He was not only about the business of preserving a collection of states under one federal government. He was a man determined to protect America to be the haven for true liberty that that Founders intended it to be.
In his 1861 address at Independence Hall, which he described as, "a wholly unprepared speech" Lincoln said the following:
"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together.
"It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence."
Lincoln loved liberty. He loved true liberty in its good old-fashioned sense. Today the concept of liberty has been kidnapped, and the word has become a euphemism for humans to do whatever they like without legal repercussions. Liberty does not mean a blank check for immorality. True liberty is lifting "the weight" of tyranny, freeing men to govern themselves and take responsibility for themselves as men and not as slaves. The freedom of the black man was representative of the very freedom that all Americans embraced in the Declaration of Independence. No longer would they be called "boy" - told what to do and how to do it. They would henceforth be men, fully responsible for their own lives. That's true liberty. It is the same with spiritual liberty. By the blood of Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit working in us, we are no longer slaves to sin. In fact, we are no longer under the letter of the Law. Yet, our freedom is one in which we serve God in holiness out of love, pushing closer to the heart of God than the Law could ever lead us. It is never a freedom that condones license to sin, but one in which we walk with God as sons and daughters.
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." -2 Corinthians 3:17
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." -Galatians 5:13
But liberty is never free. It always comes with a price. In the case of our spiritual liberty, the only begotten Son of God was slaughtered on a Roman cross to win our freedom. In the case of America, our freedom was also bought with the blood of our forefathers. And it is now protected only with vigilance.
Our precious liberty is in danger of being taken away. Men (and women) who have abused their freedoms have brought financial destruction on the nation and the entire world. Men (and women) who have abused their social freedoms have torn apart the family, brought children into single family homes, and have spread disease, violence, substance abuse and crime. As we have replaced liberty with license, proving ourselves children instead of men, our government has stepped in to hold our hands; we're in serious danger of losing the very freedoms we love.
We are in the midst of another great civil war. This time it's a war of ideas and of values. It's a war that threatens to destroy us just as certainly as the war Lincoln faced nearly 150 years ago. His words from the Gettysburg Address seem just as fitting now as they were then:
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live…The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That says it.
Happy 200th Birthday Abraham Lincoln. We're grateful to God for your tremendous service to America. May we not fail those who bled for us by treating their sacrifices as little in value. May we treat our freedoms with great regard, walking not as spoiled children but as righteous men. And may we fight so that this nation can have a new birth of freedom; one in which we truly behave as one nation under God.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Dear Santa
Dear Mr. Claus,
Greetings and salutations! I am writing to you regarding something I would dearly love to have. I do not think it is that difficult or big of a request. I doubt it would take much room in your big bag of goodies. If you could see it in your heart to grant me my wish—I would be eternally grateful. All I am asking for is liberty, that’s all, just liberty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for, that’s all I want—liberty.
Long, long ago the U.S. actually had a surplus of it. There was so much of it that people were just throwing it here and there and didn’t even care where they put it. Unfortunately, sometime in the past, lots of people gave it up in place of a little security. Didn’t Benjamin Franklin say something about liberty and safety and not deserving either? They gave it up long ago and now I don’t have any and would very much like to have some liberty of my own. I don’t think it is an unreasonable request; after all, I wasn’t around when they gave it up. No one asked me if I wanted to surrender liberty for security. I would have told them “NO! I want my liberty and you can’t have it!” I know that sounds a bit selfish, but liberty means a lot to me and I want some.
I have written to various politicians i.e.: senators, reps, the prez, mayor, etc. and no one has been able to grant my request. So instead of wasting my time writing to them, I have decided to write to someone else I do not believe in. I know it’s silly for a child to believe you will give them a choo-choo train since you do not exist. But it is just as silly for me to believe the state will give me liberty since it should not exist.
Sincerely,
Matthew Evans
P.S. Could you talk to the Easter Bunny about all the taxes I am paying?
P.S.S. Could you ask the Tooth Fairy when we will be allowed to smoke pot?
P.S.S.S. Would you mind sending Frosty-The-Snowman here and telling the “city leaders” to stop passing dumbass ordinances? Thanks!
Greetings and salutations! I am writing to you regarding something I would dearly love to have. I do not think it is that difficult or big of a request. I doubt it would take much room in your big bag of goodies. If you could see it in your heart to grant me my wish—I would be eternally grateful. All I am asking for is liberty, that’s all, just liberty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for, that’s all I want—liberty.
Long, long ago the U.S. actually had a surplus of it. There was so much of it that people were just throwing it here and there and didn’t even care where they put it. Unfortunately, sometime in the past, lots of people gave it up in place of a little security. Didn’t Benjamin Franklin say something about liberty and safety and not deserving either? They gave it up long ago and now I don’t have any and would very much like to have some liberty of my own. I don’t think it is an unreasonable request; after all, I wasn’t around when they gave it up. No one asked me if I wanted to surrender liberty for security. I would have told them “NO! I want my liberty and you can’t have it!” I know that sounds a bit selfish, but liberty means a lot to me and I want some.
I have written to various politicians i.e.: senators, reps, the prez, mayor, etc. and no one has been able to grant my request. So instead of wasting my time writing to them, I have decided to write to someone else I do not believe in. I know it’s silly for a child to believe you will give them a choo-choo train since you do not exist. But it is just as silly for me to believe the state will give me liberty since it should not exist.
Sincerely,
Matthew Evans
P.S. Could you talk to the Easter Bunny about all the taxes I am paying?
P.S.S. Could you ask the Tooth Fairy when we will be allowed to smoke pot?
P.S.S.S. Would you mind sending Frosty-The-Snowman here and telling the “city leaders” to stop passing dumbass ordinances? Thanks!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
It Just Comes Naturally
It Just Comes Naturally
You ever tried to teach your dog not to sniff other dog’s butts? How about training your flowers not to produce pollen? What do you think would happen if you tried to teach your baby to not grow? Why would anyone attempt to teach these things? All of them are natural instincts and it just comes naturally.
That’s pretty much how things are between the Palestinians and Israel. These people have been fighting for the past 2,000 years. They are raised hating each other. Their boogey-man stories star each other as the boogey-man. It’s not a lizard man living under the young Palestinians bed—it’s a Jew! Bigfoot doesn’t live in the dark closet of the little Jewish boy—it’s a Palestinian! It makes one wonder if this 2,000 year old hatred has evolved into a hatred gene in these people. Frankly, the entire Middle East is a 2,000+ year old tinder box of religious rivalry and mutual distrust, which on occasion explodes into flames of clan warfare.
Both sides think their cause to be so just that they sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children trying to prove it. Personally, I am not convinced of anything so assuredly that I would sacrifice the life of my child. I am, however, convinced of things so assuredly that I would protect their lives. Such as: if Obama and his buddy Rahm Emanuel (a Jew) have their way and force everyone 18 to 25 to attend a military style boot camp, we will leave this country. But I digress…
For several hundred years Israel did not exist. The Israel we know today was not established until 1948. When the displaced Jews began to move into what was commonly known at the time as Palestine, they literally removed non-Jews from their homes and moved Jews into them. What a messed up way to say “Honey I’m home!” Why not just move in next door? Eventually the Israeli government moved its own people out of the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Palestinians. Nice forward step, but Hamas continued their terrorism, so Israel felt they needed to create a blockade to prevent the terrorism, but all it succeeded in doing was preventing the Palestinians from leaving Gaza for work and/or supplies. The blockade caused such a hardship on the people of Gaza that Hamas retaliated by shooting mediocre missiles into Israel which resulted in the deaths of several Israelis. Now after tolerating the missiles for a while Israel has taken a rocket launcher to a knife fight, basically, and has been slaughtering the Palestinians. The Palestinians were wrong to kill innocent Israelis with their missiles, but Israel is just as wrong for herding them into Gaza and closing the cattle gate behind them. This is the same as shooting fish in a barrel.
Israel is one of the smallest countries in the Middle East, yet they gave up a large portion of land for the Palestinians to call their own. Where were the Arab nations when it came to offering the Palestinians a new home? Why didn’t Saudi Arabia, with its vast land mass offer a small portion to these people? Not only is there a fence between Israel and Gaza, there is one between Gaza and Egypt. The Egyptians don’t even want the Palestinians to enter their country. Why isn’t Hamas bombing Egypt? If nothing else, what about the old military policy of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Even if the Arab nations hate the Palestinians, they hate Israel more, help out the Palestinians just to shove it in the face of Israel.
The U.S. government has no business sticking its nose in this conflict or even having an opinion about who is right and who it wrong. The conflict has been going on long before English was even a language—so stay out of it!
You ever tried to teach your dog not to sniff other dog’s butts? How about training your flowers not to produce pollen? What do you think would happen if you tried to teach your baby to not grow? Why would anyone attempt to teach these things? All of them are natural instincts and it just comes naturally.
That’s pretty much how things are between the Palestinians and Israel. These people have been fighting for the past 2,000 years. They are raised hating each other. Their boogey-man stories star each other as the boogey-man. It’s not a lizard man living under the young Palestinians bed—it’s a Jew! Bigfoot doesn’t live in the dark closet of the little Jewish boy—it’s a Palestinian! It makes one wonder if this 2,000 year old hatred has evolved into a hatred gene in these people. Frankly, the entire Middle East is a 2,000+ year old tinder box of religious rivalry and mutual distrust, which on occasion explodes into flames of clan warfare.
Both sides think their cause to be so just that they sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children trying to prove it. Personally, I am not convinced of anything so assuredly that I would sacrifice the life of my child. I am, however, convinced of things so assuredly that I would protect their lives. Such as: if Obama and his buddy Rahm Emanuel (a Jew) have their way and force everyone 18 to 25 to attend a military style boot camp, we will leave this country. But I digress…
For several hundred years Israel did not exist. The Israel we know today was not established until 1948. When the displaced Jews began to move into what was commonly known at the time as Palestine, they literally removed non-Jews from their homes and moved Jews into them. What a messed up way to say “Honey I’m home!” Why not just move in next door? Eventually the Israeli government moved its own people out of the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Palestinians. Nice forward step, but Hamas continued their terrorism, so Israel felt they needed to create a blockade to prevent the terrorism, but all it succeeded in doing was preventing the Palestinians from leaving Gaza for work and/or supplies. The blockade caused such a hardship on the people of Gaza that Hamas retaliated by shooting mediocre missiles into Israel which resulted in the deaths of several Israelis. Now after tolerating the missiles for a while Israel has taken a rocket launcher to a knife fight, basically, and has been slaughtering the Palestinians. The Palestinians were wrong to kill innocent Israelis with their missiles, but Israel is just as wrong for herding them into Gaza and closing the cattle gate behind them. This is the same as shooting fish in a barrel.
Israel is one of the smallest countries in the Middle East, yet they gave up a large portion of land for the Palestinians to call their own. Where were the Arab nations when it came to offering the Palestinians a new home? Why didn’t Saudi Arabia, with its vast land mass offer a small portion to these people? Not only is there a fence between Israel and Gaza, there is one between Gaza and Egypt. The Egyptians don’t even want the Palestinians to enter their country. Why isn’t Hamas bombing Egypt? If nothing else, what about the old military policy of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Even if the Arab nations hate the Palestinians, they hate Israel more, help out the Palestinians just to shove it in the face of Israel.
The U.S. government has no business sticking its nose in this conflict or even having an opinion about who is right and who it wrong. The conflict has been going on long before English was even a language—so stay out of it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
