Gun Control – except they are really trying to get at your money

When they control your guns, then they can pillage and plunder you safely.

The Federal Government anticipates civil unrest and wants to disarm as many citizens as possible ahead of time.  They are broke.  They are insolvent.   They need the taxpayers disarmed.  

USA Watchdog Interview: Guns Protect Honest People-Catherine Austin Fitts

Topics Covered in this interview include…

• The need to disarm tax payers to take more of their resources to continue to hide government and banker insolvency
• The attempt to gain control of the global seed (food) supply
• Inflation, Fiat Currency, Monetary Hedgemony, The use of the military to enforce and maintain US world reserve currency hegemony while misleading the public and our soldiers about fighting for democracy
• The use of gangs in depopulation by government

Read Full Post »

Time to order Non-Monsanto Seeds

Monsanto Seed Network

Good article about the four steps you can take to keep Monsanto out of your garden from The Healthy Home Economist.   Other useful links found their are…

1. Avoid buying from the seed companies affiliated with Monsanto. Here’s a list of these seed companies: http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Garden.aspx
2. Buy from this list of companies Monsanto HASN’T bought and are not affiliated or do business with Seminis:  http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/06/monsanto-free-seed-companies/
3. Avoid certain heirloom varieties because Monsanto now apparently owns the names. This article lists the seed varieties to avoid: http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/17/monsanto-owned-seednames/
4. And the safe seed resource list http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=261

Read Full Post »

The Federal Government anticipates civil unrest, just as does any tyranny.

The Federal Government anticipates civil unrest and wants to disarm as many citizens as possible ahead of time.  Just as all promoters of tyranny do.

The government knows this is coming.  The continuous violation of the Constitution by agents of the Federal Government may eventually require an armed response.

So Obama comes out peddling LIES, what else is new.   President Obama has insinuated that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor inclined to listen to the “American public” on the issue.

Obama must think that the “American public” only consists of sycophants that worship his narcissistic image.  More and more people are turning away from the government controlled propaganda spewing from the main stream media and towards alternative sources.  They had better protect our children and “regulate” (control) the internet too.  That way we can have goebbel-esk propaganda 24/7.

Obama, ever quick to blame others for what is more true about himself and the sheep that follow him, revealed in an interview with The New Republic.  The New Republic is a poorly named magazine.  It supports a socialist progressive agenda aimed at promoting collectivist tyranny and has nothing to do with a republic, constitutionally or otherwise.  According to Obama…

The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion (according to who?), because what they’re really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

That is the supposed reason these recalcitrant republicans are not cooperating.  Nothing to do with constitutional principles of course.  What were we thinking.

Attempting to mislead the real discussion, AS HE ALWAYS DOES ON THIS ISSUE, the president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.  And goes on to add more  non compos mentis commentary.

He said it’s understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

What a stupid idiotic lie.  He knows the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  He can read English regardless of where he is from.  He is another in a long line of rights stealing globalist false-utopian promoting tyrants.  The little hoards of lemmings pushing gun-control do not need to listen, they need to learn to read.  They should start with the constitution so that at least they will know that their unlawful positions make them domestic enemies of it.

This liar also seems to be playing the buffoon.  He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.  He is right about this one.  But he implies that the need is opposite of what it is.  Where is most of the crime?  In urban areas where criminals have guns and the law abiding victims are not allowed to defend themselves.  In the urban area, where gun laws are the most strict, crime is the highest.  He has got it backwards and spins it calling good evil and evil good.

It is well known Boehner is worthless as a defender of the constitution so while he may be eager to compromise with governmental tyranny, any compromise is infringement.  If we lose the second, we will lose the 1st also.

Read Full Post »

The 10th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, Marijuana and States Rights

The federal government is becoming more and more aggressive in its violation of the 10^th Amendment.  The 10^th embodies the doctrine of Federal Limitations.  Whatever powers not explicitly (they are the enumerated powers) given as the jurisdiction to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people.

• Enumerated means it must be explicitly listed (fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied), not divined from some vague possible inference.  It must be clearly stated as a role of the federal government.
  
• All other things are forbidden to them save that which is needed to implement the enumerated powers.  Otherwise it is unlawful to them.  It is as Jefferson said…

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” – Thomas Jefferson

Yet, the federal government has repeated attempted to expand its powers beyond legitimate jurisdiction throughout its history.  However since 9/11 it has become egregious.  The collectivists running the federal government had placed their apologists first in the educational community then the media to conceal their deeds with “moral” cover, endlessly supplied by professors and journalists, for their illegal acts of plunder and murder while masquerading as the cure when they are the cause.  Now they seem to have gone into overdrive.

While “W” was in charge the left was bemoaning every real or imagined violation of the rights of individuals with unmatched vitriol and bias.  Now that the left has taken the reins of government, they have put “W”’s right destroying policies on steroids, turned a blind eye to the Obama administrations even greater dishonesty and destructiveness and become his apologists and defenders just as the neo-cons were Bushes.

Case in point.  California, tied with Illinois for the most poorly run state in the union, cannot be counted on to defend the rights of its citizens from Federal encroachment.  After all, California is run by gutless Keynesian socialists emasculated leftists.  So they apparently will not defend their citizens even when the federal government violates the U. S. Constitution or State laws.  They have no stomach for it because they have the same mindset as the Feds and are in separate need of all federal monies to survive.  Freedom and liberty as concepts are not part of their principles as they confuse liberty with licentiousness, plunder the productive and wage war on job creators.

The link below provides a look at the cost of federal encroachment in time, money and compassion.  Whether it is judges, bureaucrats, or armed federal thugs, all on the Federal payrole, they implement legal plunder, disregard the constitution and imprison regardless of benefits or consequences while Obama and Holder cheer them on.

http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/defending-the-tenth-amendment/3902

If they crossed the line for marijuana and raw milk, what will be next?  About about guns?  The media is already amping up the dialogue while never discussing the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  The last interview on CNN with Piers Morgan and Newt Gingrich is just the latest example of how ill informed the media tries to keep us.

There is also a reason for the urgency of the federal government to violate the 2nd and 10th amendments.

The reason for Gun Control is plain to any thinking person.  The Federal Government anticipates civil unrest and wants to disarm as many citizens as possible ahead of time.

The government knows this is coming.  They also know that law abiding citizens can become a crowd of rioters once they understand that the Federal government is not the cure, but the cause, of their newly found poverty.

Armed Response and Economic Collapse Ahead

The continuous violation of the Constitution by agents of the Federal Government may eventually require an armed response.   But there also exists the possibility that the coming economic collapse will occur before this becomes necessary.  This means that the Federal government may lose some or all control over federal enforcement arms because they can no longer pay them with something that has value.

Once this happens, everybody who once received federal money will turn on the Federal government and their allies in State and Local government, in ever increasing numbers.   This includes the CIA, FBI and ATF, on down to the local policemen hired to enforce the continuously failing “war on drugs”.

The bureaucrats will try to pass more taxes and regulations (their income and revenue stream) to plunder more and more from an increasingly impoverished citizenry but without the use of force, they will be unprotected and their shill cries for enforcement will go unheeded.  It is immoral to protect thieves anyway.  And if the bureaucrats become unprotected, the central and Wall Street banks will be also.

If man is to gain freedom, government must become as decentralized and as limited as possible.  The opposite will lead us back into slavery to banks, bureaucrats and the large corporations that can afford to buy their favor.

Read Full Post »

A warning from the ancient Hebrews

The ignored lessons of 1 Samuel 8 – Government as God.

Many misguided collectivists that stuff the pulpits of Christian Churches today (called by various names such as Pastor, Reverend, Minister, Father, etc.) ignore the straight forward lesson of the Book of Judges and 1st Samuel in the Old Testament.  The Christian Church, as an institution, is divided into liberal and conservative factions, much like politics.  We can ignore the more “liberal” or “Progressive” element for this rant.  I only want to deal with those to actually believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  It is they that tend to fail to understand the warning of Samuel.  The other side has drank this cool-aid long ago.  The are already infected by the collectivist dream.

“Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.” Benjamin Franklin

The power people in the pulpits of the nation on the conservative side are fond of using a verse found in multiple places in the book of Judges which lays down the principle that men, instead of obeying the moral order such as the Ten Commandments, do what seems right in their own eyes.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Judges 21:25 (also see Judges 17:6)

What is usually done in this case is to couple the above verses with one from Proverbs.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.  Proverbs 14:12

Or this one…

There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth. Proverbs 30:12

Or this one…

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

This creates a package that tries to explain the supposed social and economic instability of the Judges period in the context of moral declension (a safe move).  Following this period come a parade of Kings, some good and some bad.  The effect of these verses cobbled together in this way and the supposed principle that arises from it leaves a congregation with the impression that every effort must be made by Christians to place into positions of authority the right people.  After all, big government is inevitable.  So we need a good King/president/leader, someone “righteous”, who has a heart after God, who seeks the Lord, etc.  Never mind if his economic perspective is Keynesian or his solution is collectivism.

This sounds good to those who follow Christ’s vicar, the Calvinist theocrat, people looking for a human savior or that Christian leaders have some kind of magical power that can transcend truth and disregard the consequences of natural law.  The “progressives” already have their political savior in Mr. Obama.  The Conservative folks are much less aware that their course of action leads them towards the same fundamental quest without perceiving it as such.

These two groups are usually caught in the false dichotomy of Right vs. Left, Republicans vs. Democrats, FOX news vs. CNN.  Both sides of which promote collectivism in different ways.  Both sides hold out the false hope that if only we got our guys into the place of power the world will eventually be better.  Both offer up centralized federal solutions. Both claim the moral high ground.  Both propose their own practical method of implementing their Utopian vision usually involving a federal solution.

Actually, the book of Judges never insinuates that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes“ is an undesirable situation.  It simply states that it was the situation at the time these events occurred.  The undesirable aspect of it only comes into play when the verses in Judges are coupled with the verses in Proverbs.

However, before one rolls into Proverbs there is a very clear rebuke given in scripture against this interpretation and puts the debate squarely around liberty vs. collectivism, men with freedom to obey their conscience or men oppressed by government, whether one can enjoying the fruits of ones’ own labor or experiences the continuous and ever increasing plunder of those who rule over them.   In short, it is as Franklin said, the choice is between God and Tyranny*.

This volley against the standard we need a good king vs. a bad king extrapolation, or, in this day and age, good president bad president   is found in 1 Samuel 8.  Prior to this God allowed the people of Israel to obey Him or not with the consequences for each course of action laid out before them and known by them.  They could obey His wise council and prosper or ignore it at their own peril.  Nothing has really changed in an ultimate sense from that day to this.

But the people wanted to be like all the other nations.  They may have wanted to fit in or be respected by their peers (the surrounding nations).  Whatever the reason, they asked for a King.  The prophet Samuel was very angry at this.  Even so, God prevails upon Samuel to let the people have what they want.  God tells Samuel that they have not rejected Samuel’s judgeship; they have rejected God as ruler.

The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 1 Samuel 8:7

Ultimately God warns them, in essence saying Israel may not like what they have but the course of action they are determined to follow will be far worse.

Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.” 1 Samuel 8:9

God then enumerates several things about the kind of king that will rule over them.  Even though the context here is about a king, the principles can be extrapolated to apply to any type of rule by men and about the tendencies of any type of centralized government as is clearly demonstrated not only by the history of ancient Israel but of the world.

• He will utilize your offspring for his purposes whether serving in the military, aiding in pomp and ceremony, or sever in the bureaucracy (vs. 11).
  
• He will use them for the production of goods to supply the governmental structure that will arise around his rule for both guns and butter (vs. 12).
• He will take their daughters to produce his luxuries (vs. 13).
• He will redistribute the best items from those who have it to those who attend his needs.  In essence he will have the ability to plunder the goods of the land and give it to those who serve his purposes just as the modern socialist welfare state does now (vs. 14-17a).  Three and one half verses are needed to cover the different kinds of plunder and theft that will occur under a central government.
• The people will end up as a slaves, devoid of the liberties and freedoms they once had.  Their rights will also be plundered by the cancer of government expansion (vs. 17b).
• It appears that once the king/government has gone this far it is irreversible and God will no longer be available to rescue the people from their dilemma (vs. 18-19).

God does not make any distinctions about the nature of the king.  He does not say this only applies to “bad” kings, but all kings.  Simply, this is what happens.  This is the overall tendency and direction of centralized power.  And while a truly benevolent king or bureaucrat may arrive on the scene from time to time, consolidation of power towards a centralized locus will still continue unabated.

It happens in evangelical churches too.  A pastor or pastors take it upon themselves to come up with a “vision” (purpose) for their local body.  Instead of “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry” as Paul admonishes, he/they come up with some catchy anachronism to illustrate what he and his fellow insiders perceive that “his” local fellowship should be doing.  Other visions are to fit into and be subsumed by this grander one.  They think that this is leading.  But it is not organic and it is not liberty.  It is veiled collectivism encased in Jesus speak.  Instead of the pastoral leadership facilitating the “vision” of others, they provide their own.  Instead of warning and preparing their people for the peril of the times, protecting them from wolves carrying doctrine or behavioral anomalies, and aiding in the development of and facilitation of the “flock” to do the work, they have the “flock” work for and around the vision they see.  Is this leadership serving or is this serving leadership?

But this is how centralized power always works.  The only difference is the magnitude of force that is needed by centralized authority to utilize people as cows to be milked.  The pulpit occupier in the local church has much more limited power and must be more clever.  The government, with its vast and ever increasing centralized control, relies less on reason and more on violence because it can.

The founding fathers had very good reasons for distrusting centralized government.  Whether left or right, communism or fascism, or some socialist hybrid, people look to political men for their salvation.  What they will get is not liberty, but slavery.  This what always happens.  This is the warning from 3000 years ago.  It is not progress but regression back towards slavery.  We are almost there.

*Please, no idiotic comments from the atheistic peanut gallery about God being the Tyrant King or a genocidal megalomaniac.  These kinds of comments only show the complete ignorance of the Bible and the moral history and development of mankind by those making such comments.  They have been discussed and dealt with for 2000 years by many people in many places from many times.  Sorry if Christopher Hitchens was unaware of this.

Read Full Post »

Gun Control In Australia: A warning to the US

The Totalitarian State Marches On.  Politicians: when their lips are moving, they are lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

 

Read Full Post »

Vacuous Moronic Ignorance: Beyond Stupid

Apparently the newest resource in the arsenal of 5 year old girls who hate democracy, the United States, and apple pie is a hideous terror training weapon known as the “Hello Kitty Automatic Bubble Blower”.

According to ABC News (click on picture above), a kindergartner suggested to a friend that they should “shoot” bubbles at each other (weapon pictured above).  They were talking about play at home as there were no weapons found at school.

Fortunately the crack or perhaps “crack-headed”, well trained, politically correct, progressive bureaucrats safeguarding our propaganda facilities (public schools) were on the job and immediately spotted this grave “terrorist threat” as they called it.

Comments from Mt. Carmel, PA. 

The Mount Carmel Area School District told ABC News, “We are confident that much of the information supplied to the media may not be consistent with the facts… The Mount Carmel Area School District takes the well-being and safety of students and staff very seriously.”

This only serves to raise further questions, like…

• Should anyone take the bureaucrats running the Mt. Carmel School District seriously ever again?
  
• Perhaps if the bubble gun didn’t have the word “automatic” attached to it.  Someone suggested semi-automatic or bolt-action bubble gun would have been better.
• How can supposed highly educated bureaucrats implement policies devoid of common sense and decency?
• What combination of drugs, alcohol and 4 year degrees transform them into drones with a touch of Gestapo?
• Are they trying to make Pennsylvanians look stupid?  Or just democrats?  Or perhaps Ivy league schools?
• Do they really take the safety of students very seriously?  Then do they have armed guards to protect the children?  No?  But they can protect them from bubble guns, right?  Wow, I feel better now.

Threatened with Jail

All I know,” said the mother, “is what my daughter has told me and she said she was told she could go to jail, which is a very traumatic thing for a 5-year-old to live with”

This also raises another question.  Why hasn’t someone been arrested for threatening a child?

The kindergartner was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during her 10-day suspension, which was later reduced to two days. The evaluation deemed the girl normal and not a threat to others.  Well, she was normal before this happened.

Porter Hall as Granville Sawyer

So who ordered this psychological evaluation?  Granville Sawyer?  You know the same guy who did the psychological evaluation on Santa Clause.  Whoever it was should be fired or locked up because they apparently are a threat to little children too.

Perhaps the judge’s hands were tied and was forced by law to make this ruling?  Ok, then who wrote and passed such a nit-witted piece of legislation?  It is like the moronic alcohol carding laws in Virginia.  I am 60 years old.  I do not like underage.  Yet the check-out people are force to become drones and examine my ID anyway or else they will run afoul of the management who will be fined handsomely for this terrible and egregious violation of regulation 127.44.d50a-121.

Apparently school administrator refers to someone without Common Sense, who can only act according to the manual for robotic bureaucrats or the Idiot’s Guide to Being a Drone.

Read Full Post »

The Dork of Oxford: The Vanity of this Life

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.” – Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. (Emphasis mine)

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus echoed the same objections that can be seen in Dawkins’ writings today.  Some things don’t change much.  Epicurus held a nearly identical view of the afterlife or “second life” as Dawkins does now.  He thought that mankind would be better served if each man paid more attention to making this life better rather than wasting time and resources trying to appease non-existent “gods” in the hope of obtaining better crops or greater wealth (self-interest) or of being accepted by such deities in the next life (his real objection).  Epicurus believed that this preoccupation with the afterlife was one of the chief problems that kept mankind from enjoying the life they live in the here and now.

Furthermore, Epicurus suspected that the miserable, mean, harsh and impoverished life most people lived was caused partly by their preoccupation with the afterlife.

Of course, this assertion does not make it so, but it still continues to be a common belief among atheists and continues to see the light of day in the writings of Dawkins.  For example…

Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.”  ― Richard Dawkins

There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”  ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

It is clear that his use of words like “vain and presumptuous”, “infantile” and “The truly adult view” are used to convey the impression that his views are intellectually superior to the views held by theists without providing the reasons for his position laid out in cogent argument.  It is typical of the common response one finds on most blogs when an atheist responses to a theistic post.  Their posts are usually peppered with condescension, ad hominem disparity and aspersions of the vilest kinds.  These kinds of responses add nothing to the discussion of the post itself yet their authors often insist that their position is clearly the rational one.  Of course there are the occasional thoughtful exceptions but it is not the norm.

Dawkins’ polite disparagement when writing about the “second” life gives way to the more common umbrage salted with explicatives when publicly speaking and takes on a much more derogatory tone.  His content at times is not much better than the “God is a genocidal maniac so F*** You” kind of thing the average anti-Christian blogger brings to the table as an intellectual offering.  He simply assumes what he says should be taken at face value, that he is always correct in his historical assertions, and tops it all off with a little vitriol.

Observations: It does not seem to matter to Dawkins that his beliefs are contrary to what is known about the world.

As pointed out in previous posts…

• It is never observed that matter has incorporeal attributes in the real world.  In other words, matter never demonstrates attributes such as reason, ideas, desire, nor does it make choices, engineer a bridge, fall in love, or appreciate music.  If matter and energy are all there is, matter must cause these things to come into existence.  In short, the effect must be greater than the cause, which is another way of saying I believe in magic rather than science.
  
• While it is observed that matter can be used as a carrier of information (via Structure), it is never observed that matter is the source of the information that it may carry.
  • When ever the source of information can be determined, it is always because that structure that carries it has been imposed upon matter from outside of itself.
  • When we can determine its source, it is always because a mind has imposed a structure upon matter to carry information.  Basically an force outside the matter itself has ordered and arranged matter so that information can be embedded.
  • When matter is found to carry information  it is for the purpose of communication.
• Information is really the lowest level of mind.  As far as is known, such things as desires, perceiving the value of an object such as a nice purse or a fine watch, motives of passion or pleasure, love, loyalty, honor, hatred, bitterness, gratitude, etc., cannot be explained by the presence of information alone.  And information cannot be explained by matter alone.  These are difference categories of phenomena.

Thus, it is always the case, when the source is known, that information is from an external source that is not material in nature.  Dawkins and some atheists are aware of this, so there have been concerted efforts to fabricate explanations for this source from within the material realm itself.  While at the same time they employ every form of non-material faculty of their being (such as ideas, logic, argument, appeal to emotions, etc.) in order to persuade you their opinion is the correct one.  Opinion being another of those non-material incorporeal phenomena that should not exist if reality is as they say.

We could go on about this but, as I said, this subject has been covered HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.

The highest form of meaningful life?

But this is not really the point Dawkins is driving at in the above quotes.  Dawkins is asserting that hoping in a life beyond the grave is a vain one, so one should only live for the here and now, the existential experience.  So what is supposed to give this very temporary life of ours its grand meaning and significance?

According to Dawkins it is the wonder of discovery that science provides.  This “wonder”, this “feeling” of awe that is to be derived from scientific investigation is on par with the elation that one might experience while listening to music, going to the opera, a trip to the art museum, or standing in the presence of a great poet.

This “feeling of awed wonder”, this “deep aesthetic passion” is not a phenomenon of matter.  It is incorporeal in nature.  It has no mass or volume.  One cannot measure its hardness, taste it, or perceive its color.  Even so, the experience that is supposed to provide our meaningful existence is simply feeling a certain way.  It is a gratification of a desire.  It is an attempt to provide or create a certain state of feeling (the awed wonder) and nothing more.

It is also important to remember that these emotional states are to be treasured because we are very temporary in nature or as Dawkins puts it, “the time we have for living is quite finite”.  Dawkins does not prove his point about that because we all know that we live and die, at least, the material aspect of us does.  What he cannot and therefore does not explain is how matter comes to value this state of emotion in the first place, he just assumes that it does because he does.  And since he is nothing more than matter and energy flowing to and fro, temporarily coming together to form himself before moving on, it must have these unobserved magical qualities.

However, Dawkins assumes that the emotional bingeing that he hangs the meaning of life upon is the same for everybody.  He elevates his “feeling of awed wonder” to the top of the charts without any criteria but the satisfaction he gets from his own gratification.  Since that is his best experience possible, it must be the best that can be had by all and that is what the whole of humanity ought to pursue.

The best a D. Phil can offer?

So this is what a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford comes up with, self-indulgence, emotional gratification, a temporary state of wallowing in a feeling.  Setting aside that he cannot explain why this is so.  He cannot explain how these feelings even exist if the world is nothing but matter and energy.  It seems that his education has simply taught him how to hide his nakedness with clever words used to obfuscate the baseless assumptions he makes about “reality”.

The incorporeal, these “feelings”, are to provide meaning for our material existence.  Yet he declares hope in a second life, where it is said that incorporeal existence continues, is “vain” and “presumptuous”?   This is jaw dropping stupidity at its finest.   What Dawkins ought to do in order to truly maximize his experience is to drop some ecstasy the next time he experiences this “awed wonder”.

Kidding aside, if meaning is found in some emotion and its gratification, why it is assumed, as Dawkins clearly does, that music or science can be universally relied upon to provide its highest most preferred form?  What compels anyone towards this particular emotional state as opposed to any other?  Why not shopping for jewelry for instance?  Or power?  Or Wealth?  Or torture? Or hording?  So what if it harms someone else.  Why would an object composed of mere matter care about that?  So what if one’s desires are or aren’t met.  Get used to disappointment.

Life is pain, Highness.  Anyone who says differently is selling something.”  The man in black, The Princess Bride.

Most people in the world do not have the opportunity that Dawkins takes for granted.  And they find temporary pleasures in other things more available to them.   When people face the end of their temporal existence and they know they must leave this world do they really crave one more experience of “awed wonder” that science can provide?  Or do they wish to be surrounded by those they love?

But this too is mere gratification, a desire to be comforted or the desire to be loved one last time before departing this world is in principle no different than Dawkins desire to want “awed wonder”.  If our incorporeal existence terminates here, as Dawkins wants to believe, it is all vain.  His attempt to find meaning within ourselves is all that he or anyone else can come up with if life ends at death.  It is only temporary distraction from the vanity of life, no better than the pleasure derived from enjoying a good hoagie from Philadelphia.

Self-indulgence and gratification of desire need not take the arbitrary ranked “highest experiences” path that Dawkins suggests.  Dawkins guidance, more often than not, goes unheeded.  He simply provides no real reason for the rest of us to assign scientific awed wonder as the pinnacle of human experience.  Never mind the absurdity of an over-educated elitist attempting to find meaning for his material existence in the metaphysical and non-material attributes of his nature.  The common man may not know how to articulate the contradiction he sees in Dawkins’ own vain attempt to find meaning but he senses this contradiction never the less.

Read Full Post »

Gun Free Zones

The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. – Bastiat: the Law

I actually heard the argument put forward the other day that because of the Sandy Hook Massacre that “they had to do something”.  They being the Federal Government.  After all, it was suggested that parity of arms, as inferred by the 2nd Amendment, would lead to people buying Apache Helicopter Gunships and shooting up small towns.  (I kid you not)

What is odd about this line of reasoning

• The Federal Government is manifestly incompetent in almost everything it does
  • bureaucratically speaking, it contributes excessive and confusing regulations
  • it proves inefficient, nay, horribly wasteful time and time again
  • it sets aside the constitution and oversteps its jurisdiction with almost complete indifference and without thought
  • regulations only causes it to grow larger and gobble up more resources
•  The Federal Government has trained the people to look to it for solutions
  • Public schools and tenured professors are directly or indirectly on the Federal payroll via subsidies or grants
  • The education system receiving funding from the government tends to promote collectivism in some form
  • The education system turns out the journalists, reporters, and all other members of the “chattering” classes.  They are almost always quasi-Marxist or socialist communist or fascist (but don’t recognize themselves in there brown shirts) or some hybrid.

But why should we look to the mismanaged Federal Government for solutions?  Why not let each person look to the local county for the solution.  They can decide if they want armed personnel at schools or not.  The locals, not the monolithic state should determine what is most suitable for them.  So in order to help those who have had their common sense damaged by higher education, I have constructed a simplified example below.

Let’s suppose that the county you live in has two elementary schools.  We will call them School A and School B for simplicity.

School A is designated a “GUN FREE ZONE” while School B has one or more armed personnel.

At School A we post this sign…

And at School B we post this sign…

This way, all those who trust government, who are progressives about gun control, who want to ban “Assault” style look-a-like weapons, or are Biden, Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein or Obama fans can send their children to School A.  All 2nd Amendment supporters can send their children to School B.

This way people like future “Adam Lanzas” can make a more informed decision.

Read Full Post »

Gun Control: Safety or Information Gathering

Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.  Once they have enough control, the mask always comes off, the rotten core is revealed, and immediate violence against dissent commences.

There is no left and right; only those who wish to be free, and those who wish to control. – ZeroHedge Guest Post

Most, perhaps all of the “Gun Control” proposals in this egregious violation of the 2nd and 10 amendments by the “constitutional lawyer” president who apparently has nothing but contempt for it (the Constitution) is aimed at information gathering, not safety.

• But the purpose of information gathering (which is my profession), is to direct the use of force.
• But the use of force is directed by an agenda.
• And this force utilizes the information gathered to direct its application.
• Since this information is being gather about the citizens in general, they are its target.

This kind of activity is illegal under the constitution.  It is not specifically authorized so it is prohibited.

It cannot be subsumed under national security either.  National security is about the security and safety of the people, not the government.  The government, when at odds with the welfare of the people, must be resolved and another put in its place.  At least, so says the Declaration of Independence.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will only cost more lives, not make us safer.

Unlike Adolf Hitler, politicians in this country are not wildly popular.  They are fearful of the citizenry.  Fear causes them to use caution and prevents them from acting without restraint.  But just like they can’t restrain their spending habits, they can no longer restrain their desire to control.  Only when they control the common man will they be able to milk them of all their resources so they can implement the Utopian schemes they have for themselves.  At least that was the plan.  But they will have destroyed the economy before they can implement it.  Then they will have to go into hiding because the people will still have their guns and most of them have a dislike for criminals.

Read Full Post »