South Park Was Right

If you have never been insulted by an episode of South Park, you either haven't watched the show, or you don't have a pulse. Whether you like the Comedy Central show by Matt Stone and Trey Parker or not you have to give them this: they insult and criticize everyone. In the eyes of Comedy Central, the 200^th episode of South Park went too far: it included a depiction of Mohammed.

If you are a fan and missed the 200th episode, you're probably wondering what terrible thing Cartman did to the founder of Islam. Perhaps the show had Mohammed kill Kenney in some unique, but too-hot-for-TV, manner. If you saw the movie, you might be wondering if there was some sort of love triangle between Saddam Hussein, Mohammed, and the Devil. In each of these cases you would be wrong.

The prophet Mohammed appeared in the episode twice. The first time, he was heard (but not seen) from the back of a U-haul truck. In his second "appearance" he was inside a bear costume. For these offenses, Comedy Central did something it has rarely ever done: it censored an episode of South Park. Nina Shea, writing at National Review Online reports:

For the follow-up 201^st episode, Comedy Central ramped up the self-censorship, replacing with audio bleeps not only every mention of the word "Mohammed", but also the entire speeches with which {creators} Parker and Stone had intended to conclude the story – speeches that, ironically, were about standing up to intimidation. In the words of the Hollywood Reporter, this rendered the entire episode "practically incomprehensible".

Perhaps the powers that be at Comedy Central should have spent more time watching South Park and less time censoring it. Additionally, the episode prompted some followers of Mohammed to do something they do frequently: threatened to kill those who would criticize the "religion of peace". Zachary Adam Chesser, a.k.a. Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, posted a comment on a "fringe" Muslim website threatening the life of both Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Mr. Amrikee stated that both Stone and Parker were likely to end up like Theo van Gough. Mr. van Gough was killed by a Muslim for making a short film criticizing Islam and its views towards women. Additionally, Mr. Amrikee posted the home addresses of both South Park creators.

Writing about the incident at the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, warns that this threat should be taken seriously. She was the co-creator of the short film that Theo van Gough was killed over, and has been in protection since his death. She also encouraged Hollywood to engage in a "solidarity campaign" aimed at showing support for Stone and Parker, and showing that Islam and Mohammed can be criticized without fear of violent reprisals.

While a number of people have stepped up to defend South Park, the fact that the network the show airs on failed to defend the show speaks volumes. Hollywood has not been known to fight against Muslim intimidation, I wouldn't expect them to start. We are told endlessly that there are "moderate" muslims in the world who don't condone killing in the name of Islam. If this is true, it's time for them to step up to the plate. Western culture allows us to criticize anyone. Muslims may not like what appears on South Park. I promise you there are people who were upset that Jesus was shown watching porn. However, I doubt there are many Christians looking to kill the creators of South Park.

“I Swear By My Life…”

This weekend, my wife and I attended a local "family day at the opera". We have a lot of fun at these family days, and my daughter really enjoys them. Who knows, maybe it will spark some future career interest in the arts in her. This is the second year we have gone to this event, and we have had a lot of fun both times.

This weekend I was wearing a shirt I bought online with a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. On the front it says, "If you can read this, you should read Atlas Shrugged". On the back, it contains one of the more important quotes from the book:

I swear, by my life and my love of it

that I will never live for the sake of another man,

nor ask another man to live for mine.

The shirt is a very vibrant green, and I am sure you can find one just like it if you do a quick search on any of the internet t-shirt sites. However, while we were at "family day" I had someone from the staff come up to me and compliment me on the shirt. He said that the quote was particularly important in today's world. I tend to agree. The quote, and the passage in the book it comes from, argues that no able bodied person should leach off another individual if they are able to provide for themselves. There are too many politicians today that would argue we should take from people who have provided for themselves, to give to others who haven't. Instead of some people succeeding in life, everyone should be mediocre. Instead of most people having good health care, everyone should have sub-par health care.

What amazes me about this weekend is that this isn't the first comment I have gotten from wearing this shirt. I have a number of other politically themed shirts, but none of them get as many comments and compliments, and from as broad a walk of life, as this one does. All of the comments are positive, and most are very positive.

I have a theory as to why many people like this shirt, and it's the same reason I think sales of Atlas Shrugged have continued to increase over recent years. I think it's because the theme of both the book, and the signature quote that is written on my shirt resonate with many, many Americans. We want to be left alone, we want to take care of ourselves, and we don't want to pay crushing taxes to go to a permanent welfare group. I believe in helping those less fortunate than me, but I don't believe in paying someone to not work, and I don't believe in creating a permanent class of people who are 100% dependent on the government for everything.

This is important because I believe more and more Americans are paying attention to politics, and more and more Americans are starting to feel like this. It's one of the reasons the Tea Party movement started, and it's one of the reasons there was such a backlash on Democrats for Obamacare. The quicker politicians realize that there are more and more voters paying attention to what they are doing, the quicker Congress might actually start focusing on the things that are important to voters like jobs, the economy and security.

A Call to Action

I consider myself an amateur historian. Amateur because I don't study history for profit, I study it because I find it an incredible story. I would argue that the story of America is one of the richest, most beautiful stories ever told, and stands against any work of fiction ever written. I love the National Archives in Washington. Seeing the actual Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution is a very moving experience. On the west side of the Archives, the following inscription is written in big bold letters:

The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles of those who conceived and builded the structure of our nation.

I never fail to be moved when I read that inscription. As an amateur historian, I will tell you that I find it hard to believe the tyranny that has been forced on our nation by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Senate, and by the current President of the United States. I do not use the word "tyranny" lightly. Tyranny is defined as "oppressive power". Today, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the most massive redefining of our economy to take place since The Great Depression. Under the guise of "health care reform", this law gives the government the power to decide what kind of health care you and your family receive.

In addition to this travesty, it will increase our deficit according to Democrats own internal memo's. The law costs $1 Trillion. That's $1 Trillion we don't have to spend. The law attempts to pay for itself through taxing the very services, devices, and people, it claims to help. A few days ago a comment on this blog went, "Oddly, when I woke up this morning and looked outside, I didn't see any communist nationalistic troops with tanks rolling down my street." True. However, is your health care better today? Do you get better appointments at the Doctor's office? Is your Doctor even still in business? Do you suddenly have medicine you couldn't get on Saturday? Is the "change" in your insurance worth the estimated $500 Million in new taxes we will see on January 1, 2011? The honest answer to most of these questions is "no".

This health care law by itself hasn't destroyed our nation. However, with its passage into law today, I can see the end of our nation from here. Our country can't afford the price tag of this bill in this economy, coupled with the price tags of Social Security and Medicare. Both of these programs are running out of money. Some estimates state they will be out of money in the next ten years, just as we're paying increased taxes for the law signed today. The Democrats in Washington have decided a one and a half year crusade to centralize healthcare decision making power is more important than getting people back to work, and more important than improving our economy.

The "Greatest Generation" fought to protect our country, and the west in World War II. However they failed to pass on the values of their generation to their children. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire, and failed to fix Social Security or Medicare, and failed to protect our nation from the encroachment of soft tyranny. This "beneficial tyranny" believes in protecting everyday people from themselves at the price of their freedoms. President Obama says, "I will protect your health, just give up your right to make your own health care choices."

It's now up to our generation to stop this soft tyranny, and to begin to repeal it. It's up to the Baby Boomers who are still willing to fight, the Generation X-ers who must fight, and Generation Y that is coming into its own politically. Lines have been drawn around freedom, and around uncontrolled, nation destroying spending. If you're reading this blog, YOU must make a choice. You must decide if you will continue to fight for this country or if you will sit back and let Democrats in Washington decide how to run your life. Will you take care of yourself and your family, or will you trade your freedoms for the shackles of government handouts.

In 1964, Ronald Reagan told an audience that they had a rendezvous with destiny. Today, we face that same rendezvous. Will we fight for our freedoms? For our nation? In the coming months, each of us must ask, as Reagan did, "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Another famous Reagan quote also applies to today:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Now is a time when we must decide: Will we protect our nation and leave freedom and this great country to our children and grandchildren, or will we let planners in Washington make our decisions for us and voluntarily put the shackles on our children's children?

Do You Know Basic Civics?

I first heard about this story on the Rush Limbaugh show today. I was simply appalled. A conservative non-profit group recently released The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs. This report sought,"... to measure for the first time the impact that earning a bachelor’s degree and acquiring additional knowledge of America’s history and institutions exerts on public opinion." The results were not good. The group, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, administered a basic civics test to some 14,000 college students (half were freshmen, half were seniors). They also got a number of elected officials to take the test.

If you want to take the test yourself, you can at this site. I took the test and scored an 83%. According to ISI, 71% of Americans failed the test. The average score was 54.2%. I thought many of the questions were very basic. The very first question is a great example (this is copied from the site, so the bullets don't work):

1) Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?

A. life, liberty, and property

B. honor, liberty, and peace

C. liberty, health, and community

D. life, respect, and equal protection

E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I am embarrassed that this question could cause anyone trouble. However, 30% of the elected officials who took this quiz got the answer wrong. Here's another one:

3) What are the three branches of government?

A. executive, legislative, judicial

B. executive, legislative, military

C. bureaucratic, military, industry

D. federal, state, local

51% of Americans who took the quiz missed this problem as well. Some of the other stats are equally embarrassing. To be fair, there are a few questions on the test that are a little more difficult, such as:

14) The Puritans:

A. opposed all wars on moral grounds

B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity

C. believed in complete religious freedom

D. colonized Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young

E. were Catholic missionaries escaping religious persecution

(The answer is B, and this is one of the questions I missed)

The bulk of the questions should really be easy to anyone who has graduated junior high. The problem is that we have gotten away from teaching basic civics to our students. There are any number of explanations for this, but none of them are acceptable. If our children don't understand how the government works, or even their basic rights, how can we expect them to govern themselves and to carry freedom forward to the next generation? Being a citizen of the world means nothing if you don't understand your own country and heritage.

This represents a pretty big problem for our future. If our children don't know the rules the government plays by, how do they know when the government has overstepped its boundaries? How do they recognize tyranny, even a "benevolent" one?

Citizen United vs. F. E. C.

Imagine someone told you that the government banned a movie during a presidential campaign because this movie talked about that candidate in a bad light. Imagine that the government decided it had the power to prevent a book from being published if it was a 500 page work of fiction and the last sentence said, "Vote for Joe Blow for President". Would you think that was acceptable? Or would you argue that both the movie and the book should be protected under the First Amendment?

Despite what you may have read or heard in the media, this was the heart of the case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a conservative charity that had made a film called "Hillary: the Movie". Here is how the website for the movie describes it:

Hillary The Movie is complete! The movie you’ve been waiting for is here and exploding onto the scene! With nearly 40 in-depth interviews with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons, this is the film you need!

The cast to end all casts includes: Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more!

If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!

Hillary The Movie is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!

Obviously, this movie was not going to be flattering to Mrs. Clinton. Citizens United wanted to air commercials promoting the movie before the Democratic Primaries. However, under McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, because the group was promoting this film 30 days prior to a primary it was illegal. In other words, the government had the power to regulate what commercials were being aired prior to an election.

Citizens United fought this in court. As time and court hearings came and went, they picked up an unusual group of supporters. You would probably not be surprised to find that Citizens Untied is a conservative non-profit group, or that both the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute were supporting Citizens United in their fight. After all, conservatives stick together right? What may surprise you is that groups such as the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press were also supporting Citizens United. The President's temper-tantrum during the State of the Union last week didn't make it sound like there was bipartisan support for this case, but there was.

Bradley Smith points out that, "The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional." The court did not address political spending by foreign countries, or by businesses that are headquartered overseas. There are other sections of the law that covers that and those sections have not been affected by this ruling. What the court found particularly offensive is the broad power the FEC had taken on to ban books, tv spots, or movies that discuss political candidates prior to elections. Shouldn't every voter be concerned with this?

Our nation has a rich heritage of political discourse. Sometimes this is done on TV, sometimes in pamphlets, sometimes in newspapers. Sometimes they're funded by private individuals, sometimes non-profit groups, and sometimes companies. But all of this is protected free speech. This is the very speech our founders tried to protect. Robert Robb points out today that:

No one would argue, for example, that because a corporation is not an individual, the Fifth Amendment's protection against the taking of property without just compensation doesn't apply to it, or the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. How can corporations be entitled to some of the protections in the Bill of Rights but not others?

I've read a number of articles that have said in reality this decision is likely to have a very limited impact on political adds. Let's pretend it doesn't. Let's pretend American companies and unions suddenly throw lots of money into political adds in the next campaign. I say, "So what? " Anything that increases our political discourse should be a good thing. And protecting the Bill of Rights should be supported by all of us.

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

This post has grown out of an entry that I posted at Red State here. I received some interesting comments on it at Red State, so I thought I would rework it and open the post up here for discussion. I introduced this entry at Red State as part of the "Red State Book Notes" project.

This weeks reading for the "book notes" included the chapter “Minimum Wage Laws” from Economics in One Lesson. If I had titled the chapter, I would have called it “The Evil-and-in-all-Ways-Morally-Repugnant Minimum Wage Law”. In the interest of full disclosure, I have always thought minimum wage laws violated the very concept of a free society. If I run a small business and work out a contract with an employee to work for me for $5 an hour, why does the federal government believe it is entitled to step in and tell me I must actually pay that person $7.25 an hour? This is a private transaction between two people.

However, we are told that by having a minimum wage we guarantee people make a just and decent “living wage”. But do they? As Hazlitt points out in this book:

The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering.

This makes perfect sense if you think the process through and ignore the typical political rhetoric. Let’s say you own a small business. Applicant A shows up for a job interview. While the person is nice enough, you quickly determine their labor isn't worth the $7.25 an hour to you. You won’t hire this person. You will wait until someone comes along that you believe is worth the $7.25. The federal law has made Applicant A unemployable.

The argument is sometimes put forward that we need a minimum wage law, or need to increase it because the gap between the “have’s” and the “have nots” has gotten too big. First, there is never any evidence put forward with this argument. Secondly, as the above shows, a federal minimum wage law will only make any gap there is that much larger. Finally, this gap never takes into account the increased living conditions of today’s “poor” versus their counterparts from 50 years ago.

When I originally posted this, I got a comment that minimum wage laws prevent industry from exploiting people. This argument assumes that individuals can’t take care of themselves. The supporters of minimum wage laws assume that someone working $5.00 and hour won’t leave to earn $5.25 an hour. It also assumes that only the government can prevent an employer from taking advantage of an individual. Our world is now so interconnected it’s easy to find out what employers pay. If you are worth more, you’ll find a job that pays more.

Finally, if you accept the theory behind the minimum wage law, then you must also accept the power of the federal government to decided a "maximum wage law", or a point above which you cannot be paid. If the government can legally set a price below which you cannot pay someone, why can’t it set the price above which you cannot pay someone? Further, since minimum wages apply to almost every industry, a "maximum wage" would as well. The maximum wage law has gotten some traction when it is suggested that it apply to companies that have taken bailout money. That is just a short skip from all companies.

A minimum wage law is just another instance of the federal government interfering in what should be private transactions between two people. You can wrap it up in the pretty argument of a “living” wage, or in “helping the poor”, but at the end of the day, its just the government sticking its nose into our private lives when they shouldn’t be there. It’s a failed attempt to legislate prosperity.

Of Government and Men: Personal Accountability

It may seem strange to write about a personal trait in a series about the government and its responsibilities. This series has been dedicated to what I think are some of the most important philosophies behind our government. So why a post dedicated to a personal trait found in individuals?

In today's world of buzz words, "accountability" usually means being held responsible for something, and not always in a good way. Holding an employee “accountable for their actions” is a good example. However, personal accountability can also be used to apply to the everyday things. For example, you are "accountable" for your day to day actions. You are "accountable" for your job, your own health, and your happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, a gold plated health plan, a great job, or even a home. The government doesn't have the duty, or even the power, to provide you with these things. Remember, anything the government can give you, the government can also take away.

I believe the problem with many of our issues today is that we have stopped looking to provide for ourselves. We want someone to give us a nice house, two cars, and a check. If they will take care of us (through "free" healthcare), then maybe we are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for it. The truth of the matter is that you are the one responsible for your life. This is a hard lesson, but life forces all of us to make choices. Some of those choices we may not like, and we may not like the results of some of those choices. However, only you can make those choices, and you are the one responsible for their outcomes. When you let someone else decide your life, you are still responsible for it, because you have given that person or that group the ability to make choices for you.

There may be situations that are beyond your control, but that doesn’t change the fact that you, and not the government, are responsible for your life. If you lose your job, you must decide what to do next, not President Obama. The President can make our nation more or less likely to create new jobs, but for the most part he can’t affect your individual employment.

If there is only one lesson you learn from this series, I hope that it is the following:

You are responsible for your own life, not the government. Your life is what you decide to make of it for better or worse.

You should be an active participant in government so that we can all try to keep the government from throwing roadblocks in our way. You should pay attention to politics and to what candidates do so that you know how the government may affect your life. However, how you react to changes in the government or in your personal life are up to you. These lessons have been forgotten by many in elected positions today. I believe the bailouts under President Bush, and the continued bailouts under President Obama are wrong because they violate this principle. By allowing companies or individuals to be classified as “too big to fail” the government restricts the freedom of those companies and their competitors. When the government provides money to a company to protect it from failing, it suddenly gains power in that company. We can look at GM and the firing of its CEO by the President to see this in real life. The President shouldn’t be able to fire any employee in the private sector.

When the government invests in a company, that company’s competitors are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage. How is it a good idea for the government to decide which companies should be successful and which ones should fail? Those who support the auto bailouts should ask if they would support an oil-industry bailout under President Bush.

Personal Accountability at the personal, corporate, and government level means that we are each responsible for our own successes and failures. The more we forget that, and the more we allow laws to “protect us from ourselves” the more we lose our freedoms. It may feel good to try and protect people from themselves, but there is no way to do that without restricting their freedoms. How many laws would we have on the books today if the laws were clearly spelled out in terms of what that law prevents you from doing instead of what the law might give you?

Pray? Go Directly to Jail!

Would you believe that in the United States you can be sentenced to six months jail time and a $5,000 fine for praying? You can if the ACLU has anything to say about it. Here is the situation, as reported by the Washington Times. In January, a school in Florida had a lunch for school employees and booster club members who, "…had helped with a school field-house project." The lunch was held on school grounds, but not during school hours. There seems to be some dispute as to whether or not students were present at the lunch. The principal of the school, who is also a local Deacon, asked the Athletic Director to offer prayers for the meal. The ACLU found out about this and rushed to court.

The ACLU had previously taken this same school to court and the school settled out of court. The ACLU claimed the school was violating the religious freedom of the students because the school allowed students to pray at school events, had separate, religious themed graduation, and was attempting to convert students. As part of the settlement, the school agreed to, "…several things, including provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events." The ACLU also asked that the Senior Class President be forbidden from speaking at the graduation ceremonies because she was,"…a known Christian, [and] might say something religious."{emphasis mine}. According to lawyers for the school, this was the first time in 33 years the student body president was not allowed to speak at graduation.

This story really worries me. We have reached a point in society where a court can order individuals to not pray, or face a fine and jail time. How does the ACLU defend this as religious freedom? According to the website dictionary.com, the word persecute is means "1) to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently." One could accurately say that the ACLU and the court system in Florida are persecuting Christians for praying.

I don't believe school officials should attempt to convert students to any particular religion during school hours and class time. However, I think we have taken that notion to a very dangerous place when we threaten to jail people for praying at a meal. Is this really what our founders intended when they said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"? We protect abortion, and demand people recycle and protect the environment. We will stop our economy dead in its tracks to protect the smallest of muscles, but if we wish to express thanks for our next meal, we could face jail time. Is this really where we want our society to be?

GIS: Freedom or Invasion of Privacy?

GIS stands for Global Information Systems. These web gis systems can be anything from a UPS tracking software that allows you to see where your order is to a chip in your cell phone that allows anyone with the know how to track your current location. Many of these systems you have to decide to use, such as tracking software. Others are engaged whether you want them to be or not. In those cases, like the cell phones, are they an invasion of your privacy?


There are good points and bad points to these GIS programs. If you are in a car wreck and can't remember where you are, you may very well want someone to locate you via your cell phone. But are you comfortable knowing that "big brother" can find you as long as your cell phone is on? Google maps has spark a number of concerns because of the "candid" pictures of people that have shown up on their program. One friend of mine's father-in-law got caught on the street view version of google maps while checking his mail. If you enter his address into Google maps, you will find him standing next to his mail box.


On the other hand, Google argues their photos were done in public in broad daylight. Anything captured on their program would have been visible to someone driving down the street. Does it then constitute an invasion of privacy? I have a 5 year old daughter and another kid on the way. I would love to be able to pull up a website when she is 16 and know where she is. But do I want other people to be able to do the same?

Most issues I talk about on here I try to argue one point or another. This is one issue that I am really not sure about, and would like to hear other opinions on. What do you think? Are programs such as Google Maps an invasion of privacy? Or are GIS systems simply a new reality that we have to adapt too?

This is a sponsored post.

Of Government and Men: The Nature of Freedom

Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.

--John Adams

I would go one step further than the second President of the United States and say that all people should be educated on the principles of freedom. The Webster dictionary that sits on my desk has 13 definitions of "freedom". The first three define freedom as (1) being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, (2) exemption from external control, and (3) the power to determine action without restraint. I define freedom as the ability to live your life, and to determine your own life, free of the restraints of others.

In the United States, we have the greatest collection of freedoms found anywhere. Here we are allowed to worship, speak, and basically proceed with our life as we see fit. So long as you don't harm others, you are free to decide what to make of your own life. We are blessed with many political and economic freedoms. Some nations have some freedom in politics or some freedom in economics, but I am not aware of any nation has the same degree of political and economic freedom as the United States.

Where do these freedoms come from? The Declaration of Independence says, "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." There are two very important points here, and they answer our question. Rights are given to us by our Creator, not by man, and not by government. Anything the government or a man can give you, he can also take away. However, there are certain rights that are unalienable. These rights cannot be denied to anyone, except by their own actions. Secondly, in order to have a government, individuals allow that government to restrain their rights to some degree. That authority is given to the government by the permission of those who decide to live under that government.

All rights have limits. You can't run into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!" without there actually being a fire. You can't walk into your neighbor's house and take whatever your neighbor has as your own. These limits exist because your rights and freedoms begin to infringe on the rights or freedoms of others. You also don't have the freedom not to be offended. In today's society, there are some who believe they should never be offended. That isn't a right.

Nor do you have a right to equal results from your efforts. Equality, as Mark Levin defines it in Liberty and Tyranny, "…is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law." This does not guarantee equal results. Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying that inequality will exist as long as liberty exists and that inequality will result from the very freedom we live in. You and your friend are both free to create your own businesses. However, both of you will not succeed or fail to the same degree. One of you will make more money. In America, you are your own limit. If you have a goal, so long as you are willing to work hard, you can reach it. If you're not willing to work hard, someone willing to work harder than you will reach that goal. That is the nature of freedom in America.

One of the lessons of the Spider-Man comics is: With great power comes great responsibility. The freedoms we enjoy in our government are no exception. I think those who lived before us have many lessons to teach us. Ronald Reagan once said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Freedom must be protected by soldiers, and it sometimes requires blood to pay for it. But it also requires an educated citizen voter. I don't mean educated in the since of a high school or college degree. I do mean that you as a voter have a duty to understand your government, understand your freedoms and rights, and to understand who the people you are voting for (or against) are. This does require some work and effort on your part. But as President Regan pointed out, it is the requirement of a free people to protect that freedom.

Are there other limits or responsibilities you feel are important that I missed? Share them in the comments below. As I update this post in the future, I may include your comments. This is the first of a series on our government. The introduction is posted here, and the next chapter in the series will be available next Sunday.

Hope and Change in Iran?

Imagine a country ruled by an older group of religious experts. They decide the path for the nation. They decide who can and can’t run in elections. They also decide who wins those elections. Now let’s pretend that during the recent election, the citizens of this country get fed up with this religious council’s domination of their lives. They decide to protest in the streets. These protesters are sometimes beaten or shot by military snipers under the control of the religious council. The religious leaders force all foreign journalists to stay under guard in their hotels. They close off access to the outside world for the protestors by shutting down or restricting access to the internet and cell phones. The protestors, led by students and women, continue to demand their voice be heard in spite of increasing violence. As the protests continue, the religious group gets more violent and they begin snatching protest leaders in the dead of night from schools, homes, and even hospitals where they seek treatment for the wounds inflicted by the state controlled police. In this imaginary world, where would a Democratic President, one who campaigned on “hope” and “change”, one who got his rise into politics as a community organizer side? Surely he would work with the students seeking change in their own government through peaceful means.


President Obama has shown us that the obvious answer isn’t always the one he will pick. In the not so thinly veiled references to Iran above, President Obama has decided to align with the Mullahs and with President Ahmadinejad. In trying to look neutral, in trying to avoid “meddling” in Iran, the President has given a victory to the ruling clerics. A silent American President helps the Mullahs and hurts the students.


However, as of this writing, it is not too late. President Obama can still align himself with the protesters and the side of democracy in Iran. He can send a clear message that the United States will support the democratic process in Iran. And he can make a difference. Instead of inviting Iranian ambassadors to a Fourth of July cookout, call opposition leaders in Iran and check on their safety. Instead of sending mixed messages about the “debate” in Iran, get prepaid phone cards into the hands of students and protesters. Instead of saying we can’t be seen as meddlers in Iran, demand international journalists be given the freedom to cover the news inside of Iran.


President Obama can work to promote democracy in Iran and help U.S. interests at the same time, and without using the military. If the protesters have their way, there could be a very different Iran in a short time. If there is regime change from these protests, it will be regime change brought about by the people of Iran, not the United States. However, the protests can’t continue without support from the outside world. There are people friendly to the U.S. inside of Iran. If we support their efforts towards democracy, they may create a friendlier attitude towards our nation.

Why Do We Have CAFE Standards?

Last week President Obama had a major press conference to announce a proposed new national fuel economy standard for vehicles. This new standard will average out to around 35 miles per gallon. This new standard implements some policies from the Bush administration years ahead of their original target date and creates a national corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard.

CAFE standards started in the late 70’s and were specifically targeted at passenger cars. At the time they were created to lessen our use of foreign oil. They have failed miserably with this goal. According to the Heritage Foundation, the US has increased its foreign oil consumption from 32 percent to 52 percent of oil used since the standards were adopted. The new time lines announced last week will affect the 2016 model year cars. These standards will require that all of a particular class of vehicles sold by any manufacture average out to meet the target miles per gallon. The footprint of the vehicle is the best way to think of the different classes. If Ford sales 1,000 cars in a certain footprint, those 1000 vehicles must average out to have the target fuel efficiency. If Ford sales a lot of cars with lower efficiency, then the other cars must have a much higher efficiency in order for the 1000 vehicles to average out to the required mandate.

There are trade offs to higher fuel economy. According to the Obama administration, the new national standards may add around $1300 to the purchase price of your vehicle. This is only an estimate, and some groups claim the real price is higher. There is also only so much fuel economy you can get from an engine. The rest has to made up by making the car lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has expressed concerns that the lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles result in more fatalities every year. CAFE standards have resulted in an estimated 1,300 to 3,900 deaths per year, depending on the year and the source. Some environmentalists would argue that these deaths are acceptable if we lower the amount of pollutants discharged each year to help solve global warming. The truth is that CAFE standards won’t solve global warming. The next time you drive to work and see a convoy of tractor trailer trucks, or pass a construction site, remember those vehicles are exempted from CAFE standards due to their size. The CAFE mandate also argues against itself. The theory is that more fuel efficient vehicles reduce our need for oil and gas. In reality, fuel efficient vehicles make driving cheaper. Cheaper driving means more vacations, more car trips, and more gas used.

Personally I don’t think the government should be telling auto makers what fuel efficiency their vehicles must achieve. The government doesn't mandate XM radio (yet), why fuel efficiency? President Obama has never run a business, and I don’t believe there are any automotive engineers in Congress. The government should try to address other problems. Perhaps after the economy is fixed, the nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea are resolved, and terrorist stop trying to kill us I will change my mind. Until then, I think the government needs to keep its eyes on the ball, and stop worrying about whether my car gets 20, 30, or 40 miles per gallon.

Prager University

I attended the "Obama the First 100 Days" tonight featuring Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Hugh Hewitt. There were a lot of interesting topics discussed, and I think I got a few ideas for future posts.

At the end of the night, Dennis Prager asked everyone to check out a new project of his called Prager University. It's on You Tube. I looked at it when I got home and was impressed with the first course. I don't typically listen to Prager, but I still found this very interesting. The clip is five minutes long, and I am keeping this post short so you will have time to watch it. Enjoy!

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

Quite possibly the best book I have ever read on the U. S. Constitution and what the Founders intended.

If I could only write one sentence about The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen, that would be it. If I could add a second sentence, it would be, "The book is easy to understand and is intended as a High School text book." If you are looking for an easy to read book on the Constitution, this is it.

The 5000 Year Leap was written because Mr. Skousen wanted a book that, "…catalogue[d] the ingredients of the Founding Fathers phenomenal success formula so it would be less complex and easier to digest." This combined with recognition of mistakes elected representatives were making inspired the book. It is written as a high school text book, and does a very good job of explaining the fundamentals of our government. Mr. Skousen came up with 28 principles that represented what the Founders were trying to accomplish.

Mr. Skousen shows a deep understanding of the Constitution. For example, under the chapter The 17^th Principle: Checks and Balances, there is a complete list of checks and balances found in the U.S. Constitution. There are 18 of them.

The book does not specifically attack one party or another. I am not sure the Republican or Democratic Parties are mentioned at all in this book. Right and Left are mentioned, but not in the concept of Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Mr. Skousen uses these terms as he claims the founders would have understood them. According the political theory at the time of the Constitution, government ranged from the "left" or complete tyranny imposed by a monarchy to the "right" or absolute anarchy with no government at all. The founders intention was to get the United States government in the exact center of this political spectrum. Our founders thought of our government as a three headed eagle, with the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive branches all being represented by one head of the eagle. In addition, one wing represented the "Problem Solving Wing" or what government could do with unlimited funds. The other wing represented "The Conservation Wing" or the wing responsible for making the best use of all funds available. If both these wings work together, the eagle flies straight and doesn't lean towards tyranny or anarchy.

The 5000 Year Leap quotes the founders extensively. If you read the book with an eye to today's politics, it is easy to see that our elected officials (Republican and Democratic alike) have either forgotten the lessons listed here, or never knew them. Some of the chapters may cause you to question your own political beliefs and what you have thought of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't believe Mr. Skousen, it is easy to follow his footnotes to do your own homework and make your own decisions.

I would beg anyone with a high school age student to buy The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World and ask them to read it. Every voter should read this book before they head to the next ballot box. Every elected official should be forced to read this before being sworn into office. If you only buy one book that I review on this website, this is the book.

****

If you like this post, you may also like:

Book Review: Glenn Beck's Common Sense

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

Of Government and Men: Introduction

A Quick Quote...

I finished Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto on an airplane today. The end really struck me:

President Reagan said,"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

We conservatives need to get busy.


This is what I have been thinking for a while now, but I couldn't articulate as well.

Posted with LifeCast

The Presidents Policies Are A Threat To Freedom

Our country was founded on the belief that people should be allowed to determine their own path. My success or failure should be determined by the choices I make. As companies grow to the size of an AIG or a GM, it is easy to see them as faceless giants. They are still companies and people who are guaranteed their freedom.

Our nation has a long history of cherishing freedom. The pilgrims were looking for freedom when they came to the United States. Our Founding Fathers sought to protect our very "...Life, Liberty, and the Prusuit of happiness". We fought many wars to protect our freedom and to protect the freedom of others.

Our nation now faces a new "soft tyranny". While the President is not throwing us in prison, or torturing us in the dead of night, he is slowly but surely eroding our Freedoms. Our Constitution does not give the President hiring and firing abilities at private corporations. The U S Constitution does not provide a provision for the President to design the cars of GM or Chrysler. The President does not have the authority to demand Chrysler and Fiat merge any more than he or our Congress can put salary caps on executives.

Each time the President oversteps his bounds the Congress must pull him back. If Congress won't , we the voters must reign them both in. It may seem like a good idea to "stick it to" the executives of AIG or GM, but it is really an erosion of Freedom. Remember, any power granted to this President makes it easier for the next one (Democrat or Republican) to grab more. This President attacks GM and AIG. The next may attack Hollywood or U S Today. If we don't convince our officials to roll this behavior back, to stop this "soft tyranny", we may one day find ourselves living in a "hard tyranny"

Posted with LifeCast

I Support AIG Employees

“The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear, and panic.”

-New York Daily News Editorial

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of the U. S. Congress. Our Congress voted to write a law that would retro-actively attack a small group of private citizens. These are the very tactics our country fought against in the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers specifically outlawed this behavior in the U. S. Constitution. The thugs in Congress have decided they don’t have to play by the rules of the Constitution (assuming any of them still know where to find it to read). Our Congress has ignored the example of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and instead have chosen the example of King George during the 1700’s. One Republican even joked that these employees should kill themselves. Every single Republican and Democrat that voted to tax AIG employees at 90% yesterday should be forced to leave in disgrace.

According to varying news accounts, AIG paid out some $165 million in bonuses to between 73 and 463 employees. Most stories report the 73 number; I have seen one that reported the 463 employees. Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd want these people burned at the stake in the public square. Why? Because they had a contract with AIG, and they were arrogant enough to believe their employer would honor it. The employees fulfilled their end of the bargain, and expected AIG to pay them for it. I don’t know how many of you go to work and give your employer the option of paying you. I expect to be paid when I go to work and I know Congress expects the taxpayer to pay them.

Pelosi and other Democrats have stoked popular anger to the point that AIG employees are receiving death threats. According to the International Herald Tribune, “The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, was planning a bus tour Saturday of A.I.G. executives’ homes, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.” The Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, in conjunction with some Republicans, and with the approval of President Obama are trying to steal money from private citizens simply because they have stoked public opinion against these people. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of what they have done, and we as citizens should be embarrassed by their behavior. Should anything ill happen to these employees, the blood will be squarely on the hands of Pelosi, Frank, President Obama, and their partners in this, “…populism run amok.”

Democrats Kill D.C. Scholarship Program

There is a school choice program in D.C. that Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to kill. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program allows parents in the District of Columbia to move their children out of dangerous and failing schools and send them to better performing, safer schools with some federal help. By "dangerous and failing" , Dan Lips and Robert Enlow write:

"One out of every eight D.C. students reported being assaulted or injured with a deadly weapon during a recent school year. That’s equal to the percentage of D.C. eighth-graders who scored “proficient” in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress."


Currently there are some 1,700 children enrolled in the program. At a cost of $14 million, these children are able to attend schools that help them prepare for college, and keep them safe. In an age of multibillion dollar bailouts to banks and auto companies, this program is on the cutting board because Democrats believe in teachers unions more than they believe in families, children, or freedom. Freedom of choice is o.k if Democrats are talking about killing an unborn child, but it is unacceptable when discussing getting a good education for a student in a bad neighborhood.

The current spending bill as passed in the House kills the D.C. scholarship program after the 2009 -2010 school year. Any students still going to private schools will be forced to go back to their zoned public school. Yesterday, Natasha Shannon wrote in the New York Daily News defending the DC program. Ms. Shannon is able to send her two daughters to a better school than she was able to attend as a kid. She graduated valedictorian of her class in Harlem and began attending a community college. In college she had to attend remedial classes in order to stay in school because her high school hadn't prepared the valedictorian to attend a community college.

Democrats have not argued that the D C public school system is working. Instead, Democrats in Congress are dumping money into the D. C. system, and expressly forbidding it be used for any school choice program like the one currently in place. Without authorizing any study on the success of the current DC program, they are killing its funding. Democrats are showing they care more for teachers unions than for parents and children. I thought it was Democrats who fought for minorities and not big business.

For once there is a government program that appears to be working, and is providing families with freedom. Surely we can fund it at the same time we are trying to save badly managed auto companies and banks.

Atlanta Tea Party Update II

This if for those of you interested in what the Atlanta Tea Party looked like on Friday. Michelle Malkin has a number of videos from other cities on her site. I found this clip there.

UPDATE: Atlanta Tea Party

In spite of the weather today, I was able to make it to the Atlanta Tea Party. It looks like there were a number of these events from across the nation. People are mad at President Obama and Congress for the spending of the last thirty days.


The event here in Atlanta was met with a, "...monsoon style downpour...". Despite that, I would guess there were around 200 people there. Here are links to the AJC and to 11 Alive news. Both of these articles are pretty accurate based on what I saw. Here are a few pictures I snapped before the great downpour:




This was my favorite sign. If you look close at the umbrella's, you start to get a feel for the rain. I shot this from my chest hiding under my own umbrella:




Freedom Works seems to be doing a lot of work on these protests. If you are interested in the assorted tea parties, or want more information, check out their website.