What should Cuccinelli do?

He has principles, does he have courage?

It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government” – Thomas Paine

I am continuously surprised at the lack of depth surrounding the Gun Control debate whirling around us.  The main stream media is certainly in full censorship mode, carefully picking and choosing what rhetoric to cover and what points to omit from the national dialogue.

Inarticulate, easily distracted neo-con apologist. Of no help in discussions of the 2nd Amendment.

2nd Amendment Doofus?

I had the great displeasure of listening to a Neo-Con apologist on the radio the other day.  Mr. Hannity was discussing the 2nd amendment with a woman who was clearly clueless and completely ignorant of the issues she was discussing with the radio host.

To be fair, I did not hear all of it as they went to a station break as I arrived home.  But here is what I gathered.

• Hannity mentions owning a gun is a constitutional right.  Yes it is.  But he gave no reason for this right.  The founding fathers did, however, as they saw the necessity of the rights of individuals to be based upon reason.   Indeed, the entire Declaration of Independence is a piece dedicated to persuasion using reason.  It is not enough to just spew out talking points.   He never mentioned WHY it was in the Constitution while I as listening although there were ample opportunities to inject it into the dialogue.
• Hannity could have asked at any time if she knew why the 2nd Amendment was in the Constitution.  It would have been a perfect   time to correct her disputations and educate the radio audience.
• This ignorant woman wanted “assault” rifles band   They have been since 1986.  Assault rifles are fully automatic military guard functioning weapons, not look-a-likes.  Hannity does not seem to be aware of this.
• Then ignorant woman wants large round clips to be band because “you don’t need them” which is not the issue at all.
  • Hannity’s response was what good is a gun without a clip.
  • He did not address the argument at all.
• Ignorant woman mentions Reagan and the “Brady Bill”
  • Hannity goes into republican hero worship apologist mode.
  • Hannity mentions Reagan had alzheimer’s later in life.  What?

Did Ronald Reagan pen the 2nd Amendment?  What has defending Reagan and the Brady Bill have to do with the right to keep and bare arms?  If the Brady Bill violated the 2nd Amendment, it is not to be defended.  It should be struct down or disregarded, regardless of its political source.

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is very simple and straight forward.  It is to ensure that citizens have the ability to protect themselves and their communities and their States from the Federal government and indeed any government that seeks to encroach upon their liberties by use of force.   The 2nd amendment is their…

• …to safeguard all the rest of our liberties by force if necessary against any government that threatens them.  That is to prevent government from suspending or superseding the rights of citizens.
• …to ensure an approximate parity between the armed citizen and armed agents of government.
• …to discourage the use of force to abrogate constitutional liberties by government.
• …to be adequately armed so as to bring down and disolve any government that attempts to usurp the liberty of the citizen.

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.“  John Basil Barnhill

What should not be missed but often is missed, is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.  It is not enough to go around saying that owning a gun is a constitutional right.  The founding fathers wrote about why this must be so.  They clearly laid out the case for such and given their own situation, to them it was intuitively obvious.

The minute man, the farmer, the woodsman, etc., could be a match for King George’s soldiers.  They were similarly armed without restriction to acquire more adequate arms if needed.  There was parity.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land

The rights safeguarded by the constitution are meant to severely restrict government, especially the Federal government, from becoming tyrannical and despotic.  The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence makes the necessity of the 2nd amendment very clear and lays the justification for its existence just as clear.

Every person entering the military take an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.  This is the first and primary clause.  It is not an oath to carry out executive orders when it abrogates the constitution.  Orders from the President downward are not to conflict with nor supersede the Constitution.  Similar oaths are often sworn by politicians and policemen.

• Plainly put, the provisions of the Constitution trump all other laws and orders, regardless who gives them.
• Supreme means just that.  Nothing supersedes or is above it.  It is the highest law of the land with all laws, including executive orders, subject to it.
• Laws that are in conflict with the Constitution should be considered illegal and a criminal or despotic act.
• Any agent of government that attempts to enforce such illegal “laws” or “orders” is complicit in a crime against the citizenry.

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

Do not expect Federal courts and judges to see it this way.  They are on the federal payroll.  They are agents of the Federal Government.

Pawns for the drones

Using children to justify despotism and tyranny

This will be the justification for Obama and Biden to abrogate the 2nd amendment.  They have and will continue to parade out the ridiculous, spurious and vacuous “if it saves even one child” justification for abridging the liberties of the law abiding.

Yet, how many people, including children, are saved each year from crime and violence because someone had a gun.

• One could argue, if even one child can be saved because someone had a gun, should not gun ownership be mandated?

One must ask the real question.  What is the real reason for the assault on the 2nd Amendment?  It is a good bet that the administration will not recommend armed guards or staff at schools or screening the mentally ill, but will focus on disarming the population.  It is an armed population that is a threat to the use of arbitrary force by the federal government controlled by these promoters of tyranny.

What could be done

What must be addressed is NOT gun control but Federal power.  The biggest perpetrator of murder, mass or otherwise, has always been government.  It has not changed in many millennial.  The most ruthless of all gangs are not Mexican drug cartels or the Russian Mafia or the Cosa Nostra, but government agencies addicted to the use of force as they are placed into action against its own populace by executive order or “state” decree.

The founding fathers also knew this, hence the 2nd and 10th amendments, the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, etc.  But the most recent strike against encroaching federal tyranny comes from Wyoming: wyoming-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-nullify-federal-gun-control-measures-jail-federal-agents.

The Gun Show

Here in Northern Virginia, we have a gun show several times a year in the Chantilly area.  If Obama-Biden move to ban large clips containing more then 10 rounds, what will lawmakers here do?  Suppose the Feds, acting to implement an illegal executive order, attempt to raid the Gun show and arrest any dealer in possession of a gun magazine with more then a 10 round capacity?  This is clearly in violation to the 2nd amendment and clearly should be considered “unauthoritative, void, and of no force” as Jefferson put it.

Does Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Governor Bob McDonnell have the courage to go along with principle?  Will they interpose?  They could as could Fairfax County Sheriff Stan Barry.  They could stand against and arrest any Federal agent bent on engaging in an illegal act such as the usurpation of 2nd Amendment rights.  It has been done in other places and on other occasions.  They are the last line of defense before the people themselves have to take up arms to put down tyranny.

If a Federal agent is arrested for engaging in such an unconstitutional endeavor.  Ask him one more thing.  Did he take an oath to defend the constitution?  If so, add treason to the charges.  Then find out who gave him the order.

Read Full Post »

Guest Post: Why Trade Unions should NOT support Public Sector Unions

Trade Unions and Public Sector Unions are not the same.

I have been a member of a trade union for a long time.  The people I have come to know are among the kindest, most generous and concerned I have encountered.  Yet their political philosophy and action is serving to destroy them.  When politics continuously places one more and more into the collectivist, statist camp, short term gains sow the seeds of long term destruction.

To recap the past year I personally am discouraged and concerned with the attitude of the public toward “Unionization of the Workforce”.  Union Official

Indeed he should be concerned.  But there are underlying economic currents that political action and lobbying for legal protection only make worse and contribute to the very perception he frets about.

Trade unions depend upon the private section for their existence.

1. Capital and entrepreneurs make it possible for men to exchange their labor for wages
2. Without Capital and the free market, this kind of exchange could not occur.
3. The businesses entrepreneur risks his resources in the hope of perceiving consumer wants correctly.
4. Businesses must acquire adequate skilled labor to meet these needs correctly.
5. Surplus profit is necessary to make expansion of the business possible.  This includes its labor pool.  Else, new hires and wage increases will not occur.
6. Labor would not exist if someone didn’t save and form/accumulate financial capital in the first place

…capitalists do not impoverish wage earners, but make it possible for people to be wage earners. For they are responsible not for the phenomenon of profits, but for the phenomenon of wages. They are responsible for the very existence of wages in the production of products for sale. Without capitalists, the only way in which one could survive would be by means of producing and selling one’s own products, namely, as a profit earner. But to produce and sell one’s own products, one would have to own one’s own land, and produce or have inherited one’s own tools and materials. Relatively few people could survive in this way. The existence of capitalists makes it possible for people to live by selling their labor rather than attempting to sell the products of their labor. Thus, between wage earners and capitalists there is in fact the closest possible harmony of interests, for capitalists create wages and the ability of people to survive and prosper as wage earners. And if wage earners want a larger relative share for wages and a smaller relative share for profits, they should want a higher economic degree of capitalism—they should want more and bigger capitalists.”  Economist George Reisman.

Public Sector Unions complete against the Trade Unions.

1. Public sector unions, unlike trade unions do not directly contribute to the success of businesses.
2. Public sector unions must depend upon taxes and the revenue from regulatory violations for income and growth.
3. This income must come from businesses and individuals which drains money from all private sector endeavors as well as the resources needed by individuals to save and make ends meet.
4. For public sector unions to expand and for their wages to go up, they need to increase their “take” from the private sector.
5. In return, the public sector union produces, not a product that can be sold at a profit, but rather additional regulations, regulatory enforcers, bureaucracy, paperwork, litigation and lawyers as well as increased taxation to fund these bureaucratic swarms.   These activities are needed to fund their growth and to pay for and expand their benefits.
6. This hamstrings, cripples and destroys businesses, especially small ones.
7. But trade unions are dependent upon businesses doing well or they will continually be in a position of being forced to accept wage or benefits cuts or both.
8. The bigger the public sector unions become, the more they compete with the trade unions for the funds generated by all businesses.
9. But as noted above, public sector unions, unlike trade unions, do not contribute to the success of businesses, but rather, the more they grow or the more benefits they obtain, the more they harm private sector business and indirectly, the trade unions.

The Trade Unions maintain Solidarity at the cost of public perception.

1. Because of doctrines like union solidarity, trade unions blindly continue to support public sector unions universally.
2. The trade unions continually fail to distinguish themselves from public sector unions (fundamentally bureaucrats and bureaucrat support).
3. The trade unions fail to understand the distinction between free market capitalism and state capitalism (which is what we have in the USA) and so tend to go over to the collectivist camp.
4. Trade Unions think they gain from their monolithic support of the public sector unions politically.  But in the long run they are aiding in the destruction of their own revenue source.
5. Like public sector unions, large corporations and Too Big To Fail Wall St. Bankers, they view political action as their salvation.  Yet in actuality, these other forces work to deprive them of a “living wage”, a “union wage”, pensions, and the very “entitlements” (social security, Medicare, etc.) that they have paid for with their taxes.
6. Trade Unions look to the political order to benefit them when it is the chief cause of their destruction.  Continued political agitation for more laws (protection) produces only bigger bureaucracy with a greater need for funding.
7. Trade Unions look at businesses as adversarial at a time when they need to find ways to make businesses more free to succeed, i.e., become more profitable.   In addition to this they need to be at war with government to prevent intrusion, including intrusion promoted by public sector unions from further impoverishing them directly and indirectly.

Government is an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. It has the power to obtain obedience by force. The political sovereign, be it an autocrat or the people as represented by its mandataries, has power to crush rebellions as long as his ideological might subsists. The position which entrepreneurs and capitalists occupy in the market economy is of a different character. A ‘chocolate king’ has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best possible quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them.” — Ludwig Von Mises

Read Full Post »

Except more of the same

This is NOT considered controversial at all in Wyoming and is expected to pass…

Wyoming lawmakers introduce bill to nullify federal gun control measures, jail federal agents

When I was growing up people used to say “California leads the way” or “It always happens first in California”.  Now they are only trying to lead in debt, debauchery and decline.  Common sense has LEFT the building in Sacramento.  It has moved west and a bit north to Cheyenne.

Read Full Post »

The Dork of Oxford and the little boy

Category Errors are delicious, I’ll have yours.

From Mr. A.M.

Did you notice that the boy doesn’t answer the question? His own argument is, that god created him and he cannot see god. But so, the clay pony would have to assume that the BOY is god. But instead, you claim that there is another good, that they clay pony just can’t see. And why do you assume that the first god that the boy cannot see is the last one?

For Clarity, I am assuming the phrase “another good” is meant to be “another god”.

First of all Mr. A.M. once again dodges the argument in the article.  The past responses are of the same caliber.  He never actually answers or effectively refutes what is written, preferring to focus in on some unrelated minutia.

Actually in the Cartoon, which Mr. A.M. now attempts to discredit (or perhaps waste my time and resources), is one of those humorous philosophical dilemmas. Dawkins, being a materialist, assumes god, if there was one, would have to be a creature not unlike himself, a material being.  He accepts no possibility of a “god” being anything other than an advanced being, an alien, subject to and a product of the physical world that he himself is.

That is why he assumes “if god exists”, he is going to exist as a material being like any other.  Dawkins and Mr. A.M. have no problem violating cause and effect and peppering their rantings with logical fallacies galore. They do not even recognize it when they do so.  But any talk of God and now they suddenly understand cause and effect at least applied to the world of matter and energy to which there belief in materialism has confirmed them.

In Philosophy the question is often turned around as in “where did matter come from?” or more commonly “Why is there something rather than nothing?”  This is the start.  In the physical world, it remains true that whatever had a beginning had a cause.  Since we know that all things had a beginning there was an adequate cause.

In philosophy and logic as well, there is the infinite regression argument.  This argument, from the physical world, is considered invalid because as you trace thinks back to their previous cause you must sooner or later arrive at the first cause.  The Physical universe is not eternal or at least shows no evidence for that being the case.  Sagan my ponder this in the vain hope of a way out of this dilemma but it looks more and more like the Cosmos had a first cause because the Cosmos had a beginning.

Dawkins “Checkmate” only applies if “god” is caused by some other previous material physical phenomena.  Dawkins is attempting to bring the metaphysical into the materialists world he imagines he lives in.  He cannot adequately explain even why he has any conception of a “god” if indeed he is merely matter as he believes he is.  He cannot even explain cogently why he has a belief in anything at all.

The Universe had to have a first Cause because it had a beginning.  That cause is God.  The world we live in and the unseen world we cannot see, yet accept as readily as our physical one, such as the world of ideas, reason, desires, hopes, dreams, goals, love and hate are two different planes on reality.  This is easily seen unless blinded by materialist bias and anti-religious malice.

God does not have a beginning, so he doesn’t need a cause.  God is not a material being, but describes himself as a Spirit or at least living outside the physical realm where spirits dwell.  That is He is being and He is mind.  Whatever He ultimately is, he is not a mere physical phenomenon that Dawkins and Mr. A.M. conceive of.

Dawkins is attempting to apply physical argument to non-physical phenomena.  Oops, Category error.   Besides, why would Dawkins even be able to conceive of the idea of God or gods if he was what he believes he is; mere matter, batches of chemicals whistled together into complex forms by magic (evolution, time and chance, fairy dust).  He finds himself, like Mr. .A.M., at the end of the day loaded with all the incorporeal attributes of spirit or mind so he can enjoy and interact with the world around him and be free to make his own decisions for good or evil without interference from a God he hates.

There is also the question of “does Mind create matter or does matter create mind?”  We know that our minds create objects in the real world from available material.  We design, plan, make blue prints, build houses, breed dogs and ponies, make tools, design circuits, and utilize language to facilitate communication so we can learn and share ideas.  Matter does none of this.  So how does matter create mind?  Everything we see and do, including publish articles about irrational worldviews, is a product of mind.  Matter is merely its tool.  It is never observed to be the other way around.  That would be irrational.  Yet Dawkins and Mr. A.M. believe this very thing.  It is of no concern to them that it is not the matter they are composed of that believes, it is the “ghost withing the machine”, their spirit, their mind that does.  The very part of reality they reject if they were honestly consistent with their beliefs, which, of course, they cannot be.

For Prof. Dawkins, Mr. A.M., and anyone else who is unfamiliar with the First Cause argument, they can go to  Why Russell was wrong I: The First Cause Argument to get a better overview.

Read Full Post »

The Dork of Oxford: Imbuing meaning into a void

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”  ― Richard Dawkins

A statement such as the one above is loaded with materialistic assumptions about origin and being.  At the same time Dawkins attempts to add meaning to these assumptions by stealing from a non-materialistic, indeed theistic worldview, the presuppositions and assertions needed to give it meaning.  He crosses the two yet never realizing he does so.  And he is very consistent in his INABILITY to see it.

His promoters cheer on his brilliant insights when it is simply bad analysis.  For they suffer from the same logical and philosophical malaise.

First off all, Dawkins is a materialist, an atheist and holds an unshakable belief in evolutionary biology, the greatest of all “scientific” jokes.  Now I do not mean that much of what biology with its observations and documentation are wrong.  No much of it is good science.  But it is forced to make unscientific, even irrational conclusions, because of the worldview it must fit into.  Scientism is not science, nor is evolutionary theory, nor is creationism for that matter.

Scientism: the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation. – Collins English Dictionary.

“Scientists” who want science to be the final arbitrator of all truth is what scientism is all about.  It places the materialist into the position of high priest on par with the purveyors of all of the lunatic versions of religion.  Being the final arbitrator of all truth gives one tremendous influence and power over the less educated masses.  But at this point going into motives is digressive.

Some of the assumptions.

• If we are merely matter and energy, why do we open our eyes to behold a “sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life”?  What are the attributes found in matter that recognize these things?  Matter has weight, takes up space, has color, texture, hardness, etc.  This part we get.  But if we are matter flowing here and there, coming together briefly to become us then vanishing and moving on to something else, why do we even care if matter has weight or color?  Why are we cognizant of this fact?  How does something lacking in any mental faculty or observable function organize and sort and quantify and analyze and draw conclusions and suggest plans and design systems to do useful work that servers some other abstract purpose or goal?

These are not observable functions of matter and energy.  They are the frauds of Scientism.  They are the product of a belief about how the world must be because that is the kind of belief that is wanted. 

• Dawkins must believe that matter begets mind.  For example, the law of non-contradiction must somehow arise from the phenomena of matter and energy.  It is a very popular theme in science fiction to believe that once matter becomes complex enough, it crosses some threshold and becomes self-aware or alive.  The Terminator and Matrix sagas are examples of this.

Dawkins’ statement hides the belief that the effects can exceed the cause.  Because he exchanges an empirical hat for a metaphysical one he never sees the irrationality inherent in this.

• Dawkins must somehow contrive meaning from meaningless matter.  Here he uses the terms “noble” and “enlightened”.  In other places he uses the term “wonder”.   But these are mental constructs describing emotional states.   These are not materialistic phenomena.  Perceptions and emotions are not found in hydrogen, argon, beryllium or cesium.  The cleaver use of adjectives does not somehow imbue meaning into believing that somehow dirt has magical mental properties.

The category error (or category fallacy as it is sometimes called) is the materialists’ bread and butter.  In an age of state run schools of collectivism propaganda it is too often missed and goes unrecognized.

Just as Augustine confused the moral with the metaphysical and sent the institutional forms of Christianity careening down a theologically erroneous and sometimes destructive path, learned men since the time of Epicurus, and scientists since Darwin’s time have made good science to serve their religion of Scientism and have become the pawns of the collectivist state where they serve has high priests.

Read Full Post »

2nd Amendment: Executive orders vs. the Constitution

Executive orders DO NOT set aside the Constitution legally. When executive orders conflict with the supreme law of the land (The Constitution) they must be considered at illegal act.  Joe Biden is as wrong as he is ignorant.  But as The Grey Enigma so succinctly puts it, “Wake up: Help is not coming, and neither is permission.”

• Court review is no safeguard since our Judges are appointed by our treasonous government and on the federal payroll.

• The educational community is heavily subsidized with grant money and tenure. They are there simply to provide intellectual cover and justification for the actions of our rouge state.

• The government is bankrupt.
  • It must disarm its citizens in order to milk them further.
  • Financially, we passed the point of NO RETURN quite some time ago.
    • The Warfare/Welfare state cannot survive for long
    • It can only survive if it can figure out how to steal the wealth of its citizens.
  • And that is only temporary and only serves to kick the can down the road a little further.
  •  The government is desperate and continually lies to the American people.
  • It does this through its shills in the main stream media.  After all, they were trained to salivate on queue by our tenured professors.

• State attorneys and county sheriffs must nullify the illegal power of our ruling tyrants.

• Each citizen must arm themselves.
  • Furthermore, that armament should be on parity with whatever our rouge government has armed themselves with.
  • That is what is clearly implied by the 2nd amendment, not to protect duck hunting.

• State and local law enforcement officials must side with citizens to further protect them from federal encroachment and abrogation of the freedoms of citizens granted by the Constitution, something most of them have taken an oath to protect.
  • Otherwise they have sided with the tyrants and are guilty of treason.

From The Grey Enigma… Mr. Biden: I’ll be keeping my guns, you have gone too far

Think on these things…

It is not only our right but our duty to overthrow our government when they become depots and tyrants by the violation of God given rights recognized (not granted) yb the Constitution.  From our founding document that provides the foundation that our constitution sits upon…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Declaration of Independence

How soon we forget history … government is not reason.  Government is not eloquence.  It is force.  And. like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  – George Washington

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.“  John Basil Barnhill

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.”  Bob Lefevre

Men should not petition for rights, but take them”  Thomas Paine

Read Full Post »

Who would you rather meet in a dark alley?

Jesus or Muhammad?

I would like to mention one simple caveat before drawing a comparison between the example of Christ and the example left by Muhammad.  This is NOT a racial comparison but an ideological one.  While it seems that this is hard to grasp for progressive race baiters, most people readily comprehend this.  Let me illustrate this difference.  I have no concerns if a citizen from Germany decided he and his family would like to take part in the “American” experience and migrate to New York.  However if the German citizen was also an avid outspoken member of the Nazi party trying to implement the doctrines and practices of Adolf Hitler, then I would be more than a little concerned.  Nothing is wrong with Germans.  Their ancestry, culture, history is fine.  It is this ideology and the implications of its practice that are of concern.

So it also goes with an Arab.  It doesn’t matter what country or region he and his family are from.  If he and his want to immigrate to America and become part of the fabric of this country, let them come.  However if he is Muslim, then there are other things to consider.  Islam is a political philosophy that includes religion, militarism, law, etc.   It is the implications of practices and implementations of Islam that are of concern.  It is its worldview or ideology when followed by faithfully mimicking the example of its founder that makes it dangerous.  It is not some xenophobic fear that progressives imagine arises from conservative white males.

So what if you were in a dangerous situation, say a dark alley?  This alley has two ways out.  But to get out of the alley you have to pass some shadowy figures at each alley exit.  So you have two choices.  At one exit stand Jesus and his disciples, at the other stands Muhammad and the four rightly-guided Caliphs.  You can expect no help from civil authorities such as police.  Jesus and Muhammad are in complete control of their respective exits and can do what they wish with you without concern.

What you can expect from Muhammad

Muhammad led by example as did Jesus.  Followers of Muhammad’s often refer to him as “the perfect man”.  His example is to be emulated by all true faithful Muslims.   So what was his example?  Although initially there were many competing stories and traditions the common events of his life are well documented by both Islamic and non-Islamic sources.

If you are a non-Muslim

• If you are a women
  • Rape and sexual slavery is a real possibility.  If you are attractive to Muhammad or one of his followers, you may become a concubine.
  • If you accuse them of rape afterward, you must provide four male Muslim witnesses or you will be accused of adultery.
    • If accused of adultery, you may expect to be stoned if the accusers follow Muhammad’s example.

• You may be lied to – called Taqiyya meaning religious deception.
  • Muhammad allowed and encouraged his followers to lie to non-Muslims if it furthered the cause of Allah.
  • It is said that this is akin to “Love you with my face but hate you in my heart”.
  • Taqiyya does not apply to all men, but only the non-believer or the Muslim who is not being diligent enough in his following of Muhammad and Allah.  Usually, the extremist decide who it applies to when dealing with moderate “Muslims”.
  • Some of the source matter used in Taqiyya is the Quran itself because of the doctrine of “Naskh” meaning abrogation.  The Quran itself lays out this doctrine in Sura 2:106.  Abrogation simply means that later verses in the Quran cancel and replace (supersede) earlier verses.
    • Because of abrogation, the earlier, more benign verses are used to give non-Muslims a profile of Islam that is false.  The Muslim knows these verses have been abrogated by much more violent ones.

• You will be considered a Second Class Citizenship – Dhimmitude
  • Sharia law is designed to give special privileges to the Muslim that the non-Muslin does not have, thus establishing Islamic hegemony wherever it is implemented.
  • Muhammad states that Muslims are the best of mankind so they merit considerations that others do not.
  • Non-Muslims need to be humiliated and pay a special tax to Muslims called the “Jizya”.
  • The word of a non-Muslin is not as good as a Muslim and is often not allowed as credible testimony.  Male Muslim testimony is twice as good as female Muslim testimony.

• Do you have children?  They can be bartered, sold and Muhammad’s followers can beat them or have sex with them at their discretion.  They are considered plunder just like your wife and all your possessions.

• Theft, Plunder and War – this was a common practice among Muhammad and his followers
  • Muhammad raided caravans passing through his territory as a means of sustaining and paying his followers.
  • Muhammad was involved personally in at least 26 raids and four major conflicts.
  • Muhammad did not produce a product or trade his labor for wages.  He relied upon his ability to use his followers to plunder the goods produced by others.

• Forced conversion or martyrdom and beheading
  • It was routine to behead captives.  Muhammad oversaw many of these instances and approved such.
  • Often people were given three options.

1. Convert to Islam
2. Beheading
3. Become a dhimmi and pay the jizya.  See second class citizen above.  The jizya (economic oppression) will eventually force non-Muslim peoples to lose economic ground and into an ever lower economic class and eventually insignificance and in some cases extinction.  While non-Muslims are economically viable, they are cows to be milked by their Muslim betters.

• Assassination
  • If you escape the alley you may be visited in the night or be murdered by cunning and deception.  Muhammad approved this on several occasions.

What you can expect from Jesus

The life of Jesus, carried forth at first by oral tradition and then quickly written down starting with 10-15 years after His crucifixion and resurrection by eyewitness testimony is considered by knowledgeable people to be the best documentation that exists in the ancient world.

FYI: This is not about following the institutional Church, of which I have little use for.  Nor is it about following people like Augustine or Calvin, two worse examples of following Christ can hardly be found.  While some individuals may promote men like these to Sainthood it is nearly always based upon their moving writings and not their deeds.  This is about following the example laid out by Christ himself.

If you are a non-Christian

• Found in adultery
  • Forgiveness.  As demonstrated by the woman caught in adultery.  Jesus said to those who condemned her “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”
  • The one caveat being he also said “go and sin no more”.

• If you have ever lied – similar in the Old Testament commandment No. 9 – bearing false witness/giving false testimony.
  • Jesus’ condemnation of lying is stated or implied throughout the New Testament in very strong terms.
  • People who lie and reject the offer of pardon that Jesus Himself purchased on their behalf will be accountable for their own criminal and immoral conduct once they die and stand before God.  This embodies the primary warning he issued on various occasions.
  • Jesus appears everywhere in the New Testament to put a premium on honesty and truth and this is owed to all men, not just Christians.
  • Jesus will not lie to you, however.

• You will not be treated as a Second Class Citizenship
  • No such tradition exists in the teachings or example of Christ.  It is true that until his mission to the Jews was complete, the gentiles would have to wait for the revelation of pardon found in the New Testament.  But that was of historic necessity.
  • However Jesus made many notable exceptions to this and completely removed any distinction after His resurrection.  This was initially implemented in Acts 10.
  • Law based upon the principles found in both Testaments were evidentially based and applied equally to the Jews and Gentiles.  Lying is Lying, eyewitness testimony is eyewitness testimony.  Anybody can claim to be a Christian but the implementation of law applies to everyone.  Evidence for a crime is to determine one’s guilt or innocence regardless of how one’s label.
  • Jesus says clearly to his followers (disciples) that unless you also repent, you will perish.  Jesus makes it very clear that all men have deep moral issues and His prescription for them is the same.
  • Jesus treated all men uniformly, and offered pardon and redemption to all men regardless of background, caste, or status.

• You will not be raped – it is sin and is condemned equally whether Jew, Christian, Atheist or Hindu.  It is something that the civil authorities use the power of the “sword” as Paul puts it to secure justice and peace by punishing such crime.
  • Jesus did not come to change the civil order nor its institutions directly.  He came to change the moral order and by doing so, the change in the moral order would, over time, effect the institutions as in the case of slavery in Wilberforce’s England.
  • Jesus offers forgiveness upon true repentance.  What the civil authorities do is another matter entirely.

• Pedophilia and children as plunder – detestable practices, not going to happen.
  • Jesus example was one of denying self, not indulgence in every form of appetite and passion to the point where you become enslaved to them.  This is true for heterosexual fornication, marital unfaithfulness, homosexual promiscuity and child molestation.  Enslavement to sexual passions can and often does lead to the destruction of self-control and the inability for individuals to govern themselves.

• Theft, Plunder and War – Cannot be found in the example of Jesus.
  • Theft is condemned.  Jesus said to the soldier, be content with your wages, this is, do not use your position of power to exhort monies from those subject to your authority.
  • Jesus encouraged work, thrift, good stewardship and investing.
  • Jesus engaged in no wars.
  • Jesus never was involved in forced conversion or beheading.
    • When this was done by Church institutions or the state under the guise or cover of the Church (like the Spanish Inquisition), it was not because they were following the example of Jesus, they were violating it.

• Assassination – Jesus did not participate in anything like this.  People who do cannot honestly claim to be following Christ regardless of what is stamped on their belt-buckle or hangs around their neck.

Summary and Wrap Up

The debates around Jesus and Muhammad often center around the institutions that arose from some of their followers.  But this is not the same thing as discussing the examples they themselves left.  Any group of people, religious or atheistic, seem to become infected with corruption when they become the state.  Augustine and Calvin pushed for this and have provided the detractors of Christianity many black eyes because of it.  Charles Finney partially went down this road also with deleterious results as Rothbard points out.   Still some successes were had such as William Wilberforce ending slavery in the British empire.

Yet, the abuses that flow from history show a much worse record for Islam and the worse of all for Atheism.  Whenever the state concerns itself with more than justice (not Marxian social justice which is theft and redistribution) and peace it will careen off the tracks and exceed its legitimate jurisdiction.

Never the less, as to examples, Jesus and Muhammad provide very different choices that can not be overcome by the bogus moral equivocation of political correctness.

Read Full Post »

Vacuous Moronic Ignorance: Some of the clueless want control, some already are (controlled).

Vacuous Moronic Ignorance, or “VMI”, is such a broad ever present and ever increasing phenomena.  Here is just three examples compiled in minutes.  Bet you would put together an even more impressive list.

10 gun control bills presented on the first day of the 118^th congress.  From The Hill

Hey Feinstein, assault weapons were illegally banded in 1986.  What you are trying to ban are semi-automatic look-a-likes.  Because you and your supporters are so ignorant of the subject matter, you can educate yourself and your drones by going here.  http://thebubbaeffect.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/its-weapons-wednesday/

The purpose of the 2^nd amendment is to protect us (citizens) from them (the government).  It is not about duck hunting.  It is there to protect the other freedoms that are imbedded in the constitution from being trampled on the enemies of the constitution both foreign and domestic.  Domestic enemies are primarily those in government who seek to control and milk the populace by usurping and violating liberties guaranteed by the constitutional.  The constitution is the supreme law of the land.  When the government violated it, its actions are illegal and the government has become a rogue state and must be opposed.

The magnitude of Economic ignorance on display is incredible.

When people vote because of race instead of on principle, you get clueless political opportunists.

Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis, from arguably the worse run state in the Union, thinks removing the debt ceiling will give Obama the power of a blank check so he and the bloated government, brimming  full of parasitical leeches eager to milk you like a cow, can be free to spend whatever amount of your money they want.  He compares it to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to give this call for blatant thief (arising the debt ceiling) some “moral” cover.  See video here http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/rep-davis-calls-for-confidence-in-the-president-with-debt-limit-control-video/

Can an elected office really be that stupid?  Does he really believe the private sector is a bottomless well that can be endlessly plundered by these government thugs?  Do his constituents vote only along racial lines?  Does anybody vote because of principles anymore?

It is the understanding of the underlying principles and the ramification of philosophies that allow people to look far into the future and correctly assess what will happen and why…

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  Alexis de Tocqueville

Voting on principle has nothing to do with race.  I work with a lot of people.  Many are black.  Some are good friends, many work very hard and excel at what they do.  Some are also lazy and their attitude sucks just like some Caucasian, Hispanic or Asian people.   Could anyone honestly say that Jerry Rice or Adrian Peterson are lazy or call George Washington Carver an underachiever?  What matters is how the beliefs and philosophies of politicians effect the short and long term welfare of the citizens.  Until this is done your vote is probably nothing more than an expression of racism or ignorance, like those who voted for Mr. Davis.

Wasting time by watching things like the Honey Boo Boo Holiday special.

You can tune in and see a toddler in a tiara transform into a Walrus while being raised by a repugnant orca-woman.   But it would be better to salvage your time by learning useful skills like electrical work, how to use a hand gun, or how to bake bread.  Anything that may help you survive the coming economic collapse by being less dependent upon government.

Read Full Post »

The Dork of Oxford – Structure and Information Theory

Dawkins fails to understand structure.

Think of an experience from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else could you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren’t there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place …. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that does not make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.”  – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

The last post on this subject was meant to be a more general discussing noting the differences because the materialist/atheist/evolutionary viewpoint and the ancient dualism of the Greek and Hebrews and theism in general.  It is very easy to see the vast superiority of dualism over monism but rarely is a worldview decided by rationality.

One former reader, a Mr. A.M., asserted I did not understand the concept behind Dawkins “MEME” nor the idea behind the transmission and subsequent combination of information as it undergoes “selective pressures” and as matter flows from place to place (as Dawkins puts it) because the structure of matter is maintained.  Even though I gave valid references for its definitions and noted the good Professors books from which his theorems arise, still the critic missed the overall point of the post.

Now, structure can account for some things such as preserving and transfer existing information from place to place and through time.  For example, ink and paper can be used by an author to transmit a story, a theory, arguments, ideas, describe desires, advice, etc.

In biological systems, the double helix structure of the chromosomes, contain complex combinations of nucleobases held within a phosphate-deoxyribose spine.  The sequencing of the nucleobases (often represented by the letters C, G, A and T) are the source of the information within the DNA that code for protein synthesis.  It is important to understand that neither the DNA, chromosomes, genes, nor the nucleobases themselves are the information (they are not), but the patterns or sequences of the nucleobases are.  It would be the same thing to confuse the ink or even the shape of the ink (such as letters of the alphabet) as the information, when it is really the ink that is used to form letters that are cobbled together to form patterns that follow rules of syntax and grammar, imposed upon some form of matter, that create a language which is the true source of the information.

Letters are symbols used to represent sounds or objects in the real world.  They are organized by people using rules to construct languages so that communication can be facilitated between individuals who have shared understanding of the grammatical rules of that language.  It requires a sender and a receiver with this shared or common understanding to communicate information, ideas, desires, argument or any other incorporeal non-material mental conception via spoken or written language.

The only evidence we really have is that information requires a physical carrier in order to be conveyed to others who understand the same syntax and grammar, whether spoken or written or carved in stone.  There is no evidence that matter or matter’s structure creates this information (let alone ideas, desires, arguments, values, perceptions or moral standards) regardless whether it undergoes selective pressures to preserve and alter the information it carries or not.   An interesting idea for sure, likely born out of the desperation of the materialist to explain the incorporeal, but it is not science.

All known sources of information require an author which means information is the product of a mind.  Even with this, the author requires readers.  If mechanical (say a machine that can read music and play it back on a computer) it must be designed to do so by some entity that understands the information’s syntax and grammar.  It does not magically happen in the real world we live in; only in Dawkins imaginary world does this occur.  Matter does not comprehend syntax, grammar or ideas.  It does not have properties or attributes that are known to allow for this.  Everything that has been observed, and thus can be called science, is that matter can only carry information if an outside influence forces a structure (code, language) upon it.

In order for incorporeal concepts to be passed on to a receiver of these concepts, the receiver must either learn a language or must be programmed or designed in some fashion to understand the concepts that it will receive.  This goes way beyond mere information.  This includes ideas, perceptions, desires, self-awareness, morality, decisions, judgments, perceiving value, beauty, love of music, appreciation of color and composition, creativity, encouragement, kindness, respect, pride and humility, guilt and shame, virtue and honor, hope, faith, logic, articulate speech, design, and in short, anything that defines humanity.   You can believe that matter must have such abilities and you are welcome to such beliefs but don’t pretend its science.

Materialism and its plunge into the abyss of irrationality hides its nakedness in a wordy world of jargon masquerading as science.  Materialistic bias is not science and in fact violates it.  Yet Dawkins must hold on to this worldview, because the alternative is “unthinkable” (Sir Arthur Keith).   There is no backside of Mt. Improbable to climb in slow small incremental steps.

Materialism commits category errors in ascribing abilities to matter and energy it does not have.  It assumes that the effect is greater than the cause and must do so.  It must believe where there is no evidence to believe and insist that it is an evidenced based rational explanation of things it cannot explain.  It must parade itself as an rational alternative theistic dualism by educational monopolies and ad hominem mockery as intimidation because under its layers of wordy edifices there is nothing but naked irrationality and intellectual vacuity.  Yet it passes for science in a world that is easily fooled by skillfully utilized words.  So once again, God is proved by the impossibility of the opposite and mankind’s accountability to its creator is not assuaged.

.

Read Full Post »

For all you out “there” who realize that the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the tyranny of government, especially their own.

The Bubba Effect

As part of our “New Year’s Resolution” bundle of  what is usually well-meaning “fibbs, exaggerations and outright lies”… 😉

We’ve decided that we’re going to start releasing topical data, three days a week,  on specific days.

Starting on Monday, January 7th, 2013;

On Mondays we will release information about “Prepping, tools and skills”.

On Wednesday, we’ll do likewise but the main topic will be “Weapons”. This will include discourses and information exchanges about rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives, traps, slingshots, personal protection “sprays”, you name it.

On Fridays, we’ll talk about FOOD and FOOD Storage, gardening, greenhouses and other skills essential to leading a nutritious, self-sufficient, self-accountable life.

This will allow our readers to “cherry pick” the information they require access to. Not all Preppers are weapons enthusiasts, and not all weapons enthusiasts are gardeners.

As today is Wednesday, we’re going to start the year out by talking about…

View original post 133 more words

Read Full Post »