Last Brain Cells Dying Off - Wiping Out The Founding Fathers

Now there is a movement on college campuses to remove anything related to America's founding fathers - because, according to them, they are racists - and now rapists to boot.  This movement will naturally move from the campus into other areas of our lives.  And removing the rememberences of the founders is only a step away from removing their positive values and ideas.

"What, people should be free?  We should not meddle in other countries' business?  We should be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor?  Those are the crazy ideas of racists and rapists!"

The article below argues that Thomas Jefferson was not a rapist.  As for being a racist, there is some evidence to support the charge.  As a Christian and as a voluntaryist, I truly believe that all people are created equal and that all people own themselves.  I believe that racism is morally wrong.  (I also believe that all people should be personally responsible for themselves.)  But can't we reject the flaws in people while acknowledging their strengths?  Must we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Who among us is perfect?  Who among us is worthy of casting the first stone?  Not me.  How about you?  We all have our skeletons.  We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Every person needs a redeemer if he or she is to be redeemed.  Every person - Thomas Jefferson, you, and me, must stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ and make account for our lives.

There should be no monuments to any man, because no man is good enough.  But I don't see any problem with portraits or statues for context.  The imperfect Jefferson gave us the Declaration of Independence and much of our ideas of human liberty.  He helped launch the world forward, chipping away at tyranny and despotism.  We should thank and remember him for that, even if he was flawed otherwise.

http://libertygoneviral.com/2015/11/26/college-of-william-mary-students-want-statue-of-incestuous-rapist-and-racist-thomas-jefferson-removed/

Bob Dylan and me

I always connected with Bob Dylan at some level - of course I heard and appreciated his songs since the early '60's, but the first Dylan album I bought was "Blood On The Tracks" in 1975 at the ripe old age of 18.  This is where I really began to appreciate his genius.  I bought albums on and off through the next 25 years, but it was about 1999 when I really became "attached" to Dylan.  I saw him for the first time in concert that year, along with Van Morrison and Joni Mitchell.  He totally rocked, way more than I expected. 

Everything up to that point made me feel more and more like a kindred spirit with him.  Me at 42, and at 38 years into his career, I finally felt that I was on a path that Dylan understood, and wrote about.  I've bought every album and read every interview since.  Bob is my brother.  He just doesn't know me.

Today I read an old Rolling Stone interview of Dylan by Kurt Loder in 1984.  You can find the whole interview here: 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-recovering-christian-19840621

I'd like to share an excerpt - I could relate to everything he said.  The interesting thing for me, is I think that in these past 31 years, even though Things Have Changed, and I have changed I don't think Bob Dylan has changed:


People have put various labels on you over the past several years: "He's a born-again Christian"; "he's an ultra-Orthodox Jew." Are any of those labels accurate?

Not really. People call you this or they call you that. But I can't respond to that, because then it seems like I'm defensive, and, you know, what does it matter, really?

But weren't three of your albums — Slow Train Coming, Saved and Shot of Love — inspired by some sort of born-again religious experience?

I would never call it that, I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term. I don't think I've ever been an agnostic. I've always thought there's a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there's a world to come. That no soul has died, every soul is alive, either in holiness or in flames. And there's probably a lot of middle ground.

What is your spiritual stance, then?

Well, I don't think that this is it, you know — this life ain't nothin'. There's no way you're gonna convince me this is all there is to it. I never, ever believed that. I believe in the Book of Revelation. The leaders of this world are eventually going to play God, if they're not already playing God, and eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God. He'll do things, and they'll say, "Well, only God can do those things. It must be him."

You're a literal believer of the Bible?

Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am.

Are the Old and New Testaments equally valid?

To me.

Do you belong to any church or synagogue?

 Not really. Uh, the Church of the Poison Mind [laughs].

Do you actually believe the end is at hand?

 I don't think it's at hand. I think we'll have at least 200 years. And the new kingdom that comes in, I mean, people can't even imagine what it's gonna be like. There's a lot of people walkin' around who think the new kingdom's comin' next year and that they're gonna be right in there among the top guard. And they're wrong. I think when it comes in, there are people who'll be prepared for it, but if the new kingdom happened tomorrow and you were sitting there and I was sitting here, you wouldn't even remember me.

Can you converse and find agreement with Orthodox Jews?

 Yeah, yeah.

And with Christians?

 Oh, yeah. Yeah, with anybody.

Sounds like a new synthesis.

 Well, no. If I thought the world needed a new religion, I would start one. But there are a lot of other religions, too. There's those Indian religions, Eastern religions, Buddhism, you know. They're happening, too.

When you meet up with Orthodox people, can you sit down with them and say, "Well, you should really check out Christianity"?

 Well, yeah, if somebody asks me, I'll tell 'em. But, you know, I'm not gonna just offer my opinion. I'm more about playing music, you know?

Your views apparently seemed clear to many record buyers. Were you frustrated by the commercial resistance — both on record and on the road — to your fundamentalist-influenced music?

 Well, after the '78 gospel tour, I wanted to keep touring in '79. But I knew that we'd gone everywhere in '78, so how you gonna play in '79? Go back to the same places? So, at that point, I figured, "Well, I don't care if I draw no crowds no more." And a lotta places we played on the last tour, we filled maybe half the hall.

And you don't think that was because of the material you were doing?

 I don't think so. I don't think it had to do with anything. I think when your time is your time, it don't matter what you're doin'. It's either your time, or its not your time. And I didn't feel the last few years was really my time. But that's no reason for me to make any kinda judgment call on what it is I'm gonna be. The people who reacted to the gospel stuff would've reacted that way if I hadn't done, you know, "Song to Woody."

You think so?

 Yeah, I know it. I can usually anticipate that stuff — what's going on, what's the mood. There's a lotta young performers around. And they look good and they move good, and they're sayin' stuff that is, uh, excitable, you know? Face it, a lotta that stuff is just made and geared for twelve-year-old kids. It's like baby food.

Your latest album, Infidels, is hardly subteen fodder. Some critics have even detected a new note of conservatism in some of the songs — even outright jingoism in "Neighborhood Bully," in which the metaphorical subject is said to be "just one man" whose "enemies say he's on their land." That's clearly a strong Zionist political statement, is it not?

 You'd have to point that out to me, you know, what line is in it that spells that out. I'm not a political songwriter. Joe Hill was a political songwriter; uh, Merle Travis wrote some political songs. "Which Side Are You On?" is a political song. And "Neighborhood Bully," to me, is not a political song, because if it were, it would fall into a certain political party. If you're talkin' about it as an Israeli political song — even if it is an Israeli political song — in Israel alone, there's maybe twenty political parties. I don't know where that would fall, what party.

Well, would it be fair to call that song a heartfelt statement of belief?

 Maybe it is, yeah. But just because somebody feels a certain way, you can't come around and stick some political-party slogan on it. If you listen closely, it really could be about other things. It's simple and easy to define it, so you got it pegged, and you can deal with it in that certain kinda way. However, I wouldn't do that, 'cause I don't know what the politics of Israel is. I just don't know.

So you haven't resolved for yourself, for instance, the Palestinian question?

 Not really, because I live here.

Would you ever live in Israel?

 I don't know. It's hard to speculate what tomorrow may bring. I kinda live where I find myself.

At another point in the song, you say, "He got no allies to really speak of," and while "he buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied . . . no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side." Do you feel that America should send troops over there?

No. The song doesn't say that. Who should, who shouldn't — who am I to say?

Well, do you think Israel should get more help from the American Jewish community? I don't want to push this too far, but it just seems so . . .

 Well, you're not pushing it too far, you're just making it specific. And you're making it specific to what's going on today. But what's going on today isn't gonna last, you know? The battle of Armageddon is specifically spelled out: where it will be fought and, if you wanna get technical, when it will be fought. And the battle of Armageddon definitely will be fought in the Middle East.

Do you follow the political scene or have any sort of fix on what the politicians are talking about this election year?

I think politics is an instrument of the Devil. Just that clear. I think politics is what kills; it doesn't bring anything alive. Politics is corrupt; I mean, anybody knows that.

So you don't care who's president? It doesn't make any difference?

 I don't think so. I mean, how long is Reagan gonna be president? I've seen like four or five of 'em myself, you know? And I've seen two of 'em die in office. How can you deal with Reagan and get so serious about that, when the man isn't even gonna be there when you get your thing together?

So you don't think there's any difference between, say, a Kennedy and a Nixon? It doesn't matter at all?

 I don't know. It's very popular nowadays to think of yourself as a "liberal humanist." That's such a bullshit term. It means less than nothing. Who was a better president? Well, you got me. I don't know what people's errors are; nobody's perfect, for sure. But I thought Kennedy — both Kennedys — I just liked them. And I liked Martin . . . Martin Luther King. I thought those were people who were blessed and touched, you know? The fact that they all went out with bullets doesn't change nothin'. Because the good they do gets planted. And those seeds live on longer than that.

Do you still hope for peace?

There is not going to be any peace.

You don't think it's worth working for?

 No. It's just gonna be a false peace. You can reload your rifle, and that moment you're reloading it, that's peace. It may last for a few years.

Isn't it worth fighting for that?

 Nah, none of that matters. I heard somebody on the radio talkin' about what's happenin' in Haiti, you know? "We must be concerned about what's happening in Haiti. We're global people now." And they're gettin' everybody in that frame of mind — like, we're not just the United States anymore, we're global. We're thinkin' in terms of the whole world because communications come right into your house. Well, that's what the Book of Revelation is all about. And you can just about know that anybody who comes out for peace is not for peace.

But what if someone genuinely is for peace?

 Well, you can't be for peace and be global, It's just like that song "Man of Peace." But none of this matters, if you believe in another world. If you believe in this world, you're stuck; you really don't have a chance. You'll go mad, 'cause you won't see the end of it. You may wanna stick around, but you won't be able to. On another level, though, you will be able to see this world. You'll look back and say, "Ah, that's what it was all about all the time. Wow, why didn't I get that?"

Sandy Hook Tragedy and Gun Control

For those who think that if guns are banned or further regulated these tragedies will end, consider this: 1) Prior to the 1980’s, in spite of the fact that most people had guns and there were very few gun laws, events such as Sandy Creek almost never occurred.

From the Wikipedia reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States, “There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.”

The first mass school shooting occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas. The next one was at the end of 1974. Between 1974 and the early 1990s, more incidents began to occur but were still quite rare.

Beginning in 1995 multiple-victim school shootings began to become more frequent, and the introduction of gun control laws increased. But the shootings continued. The main question should be “why?”

2) In spite of gun control laws and “gun-free zones” such as schools, these events happen today with distressing regularity. If 1 and 2 are demonstrably true, we need to ask another question: What is different? What has changed in the last 20-30 years that has caused this violence to increase?

One thing that is different is that with news being instantly available, more people are aware of the media attention that such events get, similar to the increase in airplane hijackings in the 1970s. Desensitization via graphic violence in movies and video games may also play a role.  These could be contributing elements to the increase, but I firmly believe this is what is really different (please watch it all):



The vast majority of Americans who own guns would never use them in violence except in self-defense of themselves and their families. The guns themselves pose no danger. No gun ever woke up one morning and decided to kill someone. It may sound trite by now, but it’s true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

The second amendment to the U.S. constitution is not only about sportsmen or well-regulated state militia. The amendment refers to the individual. The individual’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If it was only about militia, the amendment would have clearly been a group, militia right. It is not, and the Supreme court has clearly said so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.

The court was affirming what was not even questioned by the founding fathers.

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

The founders also were not only concerned about self-defense. They also insisted on the individual right to keep and bear arms to ward off tyranny. An armed citizenry is not easily subdued by despotism. An armed country is a free country:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

It can convincingly be argued that the second amendment is necessary to uphold all the others. A stable, non-medicated person who owns a gun is a citizen. A stable, non-medicated person who has his gun taken away is a subject. Or worse, a potential victim, of both the criminal and the state.

Keeping a level head in discussing gun control is a difficult thing to do. Emotion jumps in quickly, especially in the aftermath of incidents such as Sandy Hook. But we would be much better off going after the real problem rather than going after an inanimate object that if taken away, everything else remaining the same would be replaced with something else, and our self-defense and the defense of our liberties would be irretrievably gone.

Keeping America Safe (Kinda Brings a Tear to Your Eye)

.
My wife left to visit her sister in Missouri this morning. On her way through Homeland Stupidity, she was told she could not carry her toothpaste on the plane. The toothpaste was in a 4.6 oz container, but was more than half EMPTY, leaving her with about 2 oz. of toothpaste. The container was clear and this was obvious. Since the limit is 3 oz, I told her she should be able to take it, since any idiot could see it wasn’t 3 oz. But the brave, non-producing tax-eater would have none of that.

My wife, a 53 year-old grandmother of nine, asked, “it’s half empty, why are you taking it?” Answer: “We don’t know what’s in it.” My wife: “Um… toothpaste?”

I know the people in the TSA needed jobs after they got fired from McDonald’s. Our compassionate government made sure that they were employed and secured the money (from actual productive people) to make it happen. Now we can all be proud that they are keeping America safe from toothpaste. And grandmothers.
.

Unfortunately, We Still Have A Long Way To Go

.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:

POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT

A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.

Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 5

.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way.  In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes.  Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power.  But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc.  We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.

Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm.  The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned.  Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war.  Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests.  Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while.  No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.

So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted.  Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:



It isn't good enough. It's too little.  Too late.  As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:

WE.  WANT.  OUR.  FREEDOM.

We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances.  We refuse to be polite.  No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters.  We want our freedom, and we want it now.  We will be heard.  We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail.  We are prepared to do what it takes.

He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily.  Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version

We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:



Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence.  We do not believe in instigating violence.  To become violent is to become THEM.  Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way.  We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood.  We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means.  It starts with putting our foot down.  NO MORE.

We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free.  The entire United States is of course, our first choice.  But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free.  But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.

It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority.  So how are we to get our place?  Note:  I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.

One option is secession.  If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours.  Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,

"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

They would be powerless to stop us.

Of course, they might be foolish and try.  They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones.  When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps.  Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion.  Switzerland with an American attitude. 

So first, peaceful separation.  All would be welcome.  All races, creeds, colors, and religions.  The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable.  Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.

However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary.  I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future.  To me, it looks inevitable.  What is not inevitable is what happens next.  It is up to us. 

At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free.  And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.

Tell-Tale Signs

.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now.  Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.

So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis?  All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America.  I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:

So nice to know that you are forbidden by law to defend yourself in the Mall of America.  This iconic building, filled with thousands of people, some unarmed security guards and perhaps some police (I didn't see any, but they must be there somewhere) is one of those famous "soft targets" for terrorists and crazies.

But it's OK, because guns are forbidden.  Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car.  Right?
.