Liberty Authors

The Progressives in both parties may be the establishment now but they have always been and continue to be revolutionaries seeking to turn the American dream into a socialist nightmare.

Since the 1890s the Progressives have worked to change our American Experiment from a federal republic operating on democratic principles that recognized our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a democracy where the government grants rights and pursues its own happiness.

Inch by inch, step by step they have worked to change one aspect and then another until today the cacophony of minute changes has become a centrally-planned federally orchestrated symphony playing Hail to the Chief.

 We have transitioned from federal republic into an imperial bureaucracy controlled by a Chicago raised Alinsky style outfit determined to reduce us to abject obedience. This is the direct result of an education system captured by the Progressives delivering generations of uninformed voters and of the entitlement society delivering a near majority of citizens who get more than they give from the federal trough.

This should be no surprise to anyone. A country once famous for the political engagement of its citizens has raised generations on the dictum that neither religion nor politics were the subject of polite debate. The culture of media-hyped sports addiction and hedonistic indulgence has produced millions who know more about their favorite team or about the latest fashion than about their own government.

I don’t know about you but I’m so tired of being lectured by people who get their news from Leno, Colbert, or the Daily Show that I have all but stopped speaking of anything of substance with most people. We have all developed ways to identify fellow patriots. We listen for anyone to say anything that will give us an indication that here is another American who realizes where we are and from where we have fallen. Then we have great conversations, comparing observations and trying to encourage each other that the United States as we have known it will survive four more years of America’s Chavez.

Full story »

Historians spend their lives looking backwards.  Futurists spend their lives looking forward.  My goal has been to blend the two disciplines into one seamless panorama. For if you don’t know the past you have no context for the present, and if you have no context for the present the future appears to be whatever those who shape the present portray it to be.  Those who believed the Eternal Empire was truly eternal, those who believed the sun would never set on the British Empire, those who believed in a 1,000 year Reich, and those who believed the USSR was the vision of the future proved those who shape the present always project a future which shows their empire as the one that will never fall.  

When I was studying to become a Historian I came to a point where I had to declare a field of special study. This is where my obsession with current events intersected with my love for History.  This is when I realized that current events are the forever unfolding always receding conveyor belt of reality.  This is when I first verbalized the perception that as the future slides into the present and the present slides into the past our lives are the history of the future.   Therefore in my writings I seek to frame the flow of today with knowledge of yesterday to create a window into tomorrow. 

History tells us that Imperial Republics fall.  We have the examples of Athens and all the other grasping Greek republics that followed her.  We have Rome the example always deferred to of a republic that allowed an empire to stifle freedom.  The list however does not end there, we can look at Venice and the various republics of Renaissance Italy, and of course the First Republic of France which was birthed in blood and died in fire.  The siren song of empire has seduced republics down through history to trade in their freedom for power which eventually cost them both their freedom and the power. 

It is time to re-think America’s international military commitments. 

Full story »

People avoid silence because they’re afraid of what they might hear.   Although we value our freedom of speech, polite conversation in America is subject to one crushing rule, “Don’t talk about religion or politics!”  Most of us were raised with this stifling warning in our ears.  The purpose was to avoid arguments at the dinner table but the result is a population unconcerned in the two subjects affecting life the most.  I can only talk about the weather for so long which displays the wisdom of memorizing sports stats and watching American Idol.  With the two biggest topics off the table we’re faced with either trivial pursuit or silence.  Bored with the weather and having neglected my memorization and viewing options I propose a topic to stimulate vigorous conversation without causing any bickering: economics.

Barry, Harry, and Nancy knew they had to take us through-the-looking-glass in four short years.  With no effective break on their power for the first two years, Congress moved so fast their yesterday became our tomorrow.  That tomorrow is now today.  The ruling party rammed their agenda through without one opposition vote.  Every revolution needs an emergency to justify radical surgery and the economy is the emergency available. Consequently, these descendants of FDR and LBJ shoved a raw deal down the throat of a great society. 

Full story »

The second amendment doesn't state that we have "the right to keep and bear arms" for hunting, or for self defense, or for sport, or for collecting.  It simply states that citizens have the right to own weapons - and not necessarily guns at that. 

There seem to be a lot of people confused about this.  References are often made to "no one needs a twenty round magazine for hunting or for self defense."  The fallacy of these arguments are within the first three words "no one needs".

Need is not a prerequisite in the constitution to own a gun.  It doesn't state that "those that need to can keep and bear arms."  Need is not a qualification to own a gun. 

If we try to peer into the minds of the founding fathers as to why the second amendment was included, and only topped by freedom of speech, we will most likely come to the conclusion that they believed that a free people would not stay free if they were not armed.  Their reasoning was most likely political and had nothing to do with hunting or personal self defense or sports or collecting.  Rather, that without guns liberty will perish.  Enough has been written on that topic that I won't take it further.

The second amendment gives every citizen the right to own and carry guns.  No limit in number is stated or implied.  No requirement of need is stated or implied.  Hunting, defense, sports or collecting are not given as the reason.  No reason is given why they installed that right in the Constitution.  One can infer the importance of that right by it's placement, only topped by freedom of speech, followed by every thing else.

When you hear an argument that includes "need", stop that person right there and nail them down on that issue.  If hunting or personal self defense come up, shut them down immediately by asking where in the Constitution those are pre-requirements to own guns.  If "sporting" use comes up, shut that one down too, no where in the Constitution does it state or imply that guns are for sporting use.  We can own and carry guns, according to the Constitution, and there are no qualifications needed. 

We can own and carry guns without any reason needed or provided.  It is that simple, that plain, that short.  We can, we simply can.  It doesn't take complicated arguments, it doesn't take flowery prose, it doesn't take explanation.  We simply can.  That's all there is to it.  Read the second amendment, it's brutally short and direct. 

It's as simple and direct as a bullet in a tyrant's heart.

When taxes become destructive they surpass the consent of the governed bending to the will of tyranny.  When regulations strangle competition instead of securing it from evil combinations they become counterproductive and defeat the very purpose for which they were proposed.  When foreign entanglements bleed the nation but do not secure the peace or defeat the enemy they become interventionist vehicles for vested interests.  When spending becomes a hemorrhaging of assists leading to national bankruptcy those who continue to pile debt upon debt seek not the good of the nation but instead its destruction.  When leaders selected to unite instead do all they can to divide they no longer advance the interest of the whole and are instead partisan leaders in a factional fight.

A social contract is one made between a people and their government.  It is an agreement whereby the people surrender certain aspects of their independence for the guarantee of corporate security and the enjoyment of a general welfare.  In the case of most countries this is an unwritten and unconscious arrangement built upon tradition and precedent as in the case of England.  However in the United States we have an actual contract: the Constitution.  This was ratified by the original states, and the subsequent states were formed under it and admitted as full partners to it. 

Full story »

A great many of our laws are the result of "Somebody Needs To Do Something".

A tragedy occurs.  It's ghastly and creates feelings of horror.  Those feelings are soon followed by a desire to "Do Something" to prevent the horror from recurring.  The unfortunate truth is that nothing can be done.  But very few recognize this harsh reality of life - tragedies happen no matter what we do.

The unthinking raise their voices, wailing that something must be done.  Politicians see this as an opportunity to get in front of a camera.  An opportunity to increase votes for themselves.  So they do something, they pass another law.  Another law that doesn't stop the tragedies but for the brief moment gain votes.  The law that was passed continues on long after the brief moment of spotlight is gone.

The result is that the law abiding public loses another bit of liberty.  The public is punished for the horrific actions of an individual.  They stay in punishment forever for that one individual's act.  And it doesn't work.  The wailers feel a sense of accomplishment and go on about their lives until the next tragedy when they wail again, and another law is passed and another bit of liberty is lost.

These losses accumulate, compounding at a phenomenal rate.  Proving once again that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  Of all the faults of humans, ignoring history is perhaps the worst and most damaging of all.

Why isn’t it pointed out by the pontificating talking heads that every mass murder in recent memory has occurred in a legally declared “Gun-Free” zone?   We might as well put signs in front of our schools, malls, army cafeterias and hospitals that say, “If you’re a crazy person no one here is armed.”  Perhaps if we put a sign in front of these establishments that said, “Protected by Smith and Wesson” we would get better results?

Does anyone believe that disarming lawful citizens actually make lawful citizens safer?

Our fearless leaders are following the Progressive playbook to the letter.  First and foremost “Never let a food crisis go to waste.”  Capitalizing on the tragedy caused by a sick person with a stolen gun these wannabe totalitarians see an opportunity to disarm their victims and they are preparing to make a move.  They realize they won’t be able to outlaw the private ownership of guns in America all in one fell swoop.  However, their strategy is always two steps forward one step back.  This is the same strategy that has worked so well for them in capturing the education system, the media, and the two major political parties.

Full story »

Revolutions happened in other countries.  The USSR, their satellite countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, African countries, and of course those banana republics somewhere down south, but one thing is for sure, it can’t happen here.  Following in the footsteps of giants who have used these prophetic words of Sinclair Lewis I want to examine how it did happen here.

In the America of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, in the America we inherited from our forefathers we knew that there could never be a revolution.  We had the Constitution with its checks and balances, its separation of powers, and its Bill of Rights.  These were rock solid, carved in stone, and strong enough to preserve the Republic and safe guard the freedom of its people.

Full story »

Most of us, even those of us who are the products of America’s collapsed public education system have heard of the fall of Rome.  The greatest of ancient western empires began to fall as soon as the vigorous Republic which had created it was replaced by an autocratic military dictatorship.  A dictatorship which hid behind a veneer of republican forms while devolving into a cult of personality around whichever thug happened to have murdered his way to the throne.  For centuries this once vibrant nation of freemen sank beneath the weight of regulations, taxes, inflation, and tyranny.  For centuries after their power had been usurped by the ever more absolute Emperors there was still a Senate, there were still elections, and there were still courts charged with safeguarding the Republic.

Freedom was extinguished, and the yeoman farmers who had supported the Republic and filled its armies became first tenant farmers.  Then they morphed into an unemployed rabble choking the streets of an imperial capital living on government bread and entertained by government circuses.  The armies of the Empire were not filled by native Romans they were filled with provincials who were granted the coveted status of citizen for serving.  When the expanding decay of the central dictatorship undermined the vitality of the provinces and the culture of helpless subjects swallowed the pride of citizenship, Germans and other barbarians were imported to fill the armies.  By the time Rome fell it was no longer Rome.  The capital had moved to Constantinople in the East and Ravenna in the West.

Full story »

  So the Saga begins with my total distrust of social media sites because of their denied but absolutely true collecting, selling or disclosing of all your private information. If they say they do not, they have lied to you and you deserve what you get for being ignorant and petting the beast as it feasts on your living entrails . I know this to be fact because of the tools available to myself and every webmaster, let alone a powerful social site collecting and sharing all of your personal info with the powers that be and other “for profit” partnership ventures. The main site always claims to not share your info, but what about their partners, sister sites or ad brokers? Could this claim in reality be misleading and deceptive?

  A couple of months ago my distrust was slightly relieved when it hit the news that an Occupy Wall Street activist made threats of violence on a social media site. Although threats of violence are wrong and very well should be investigated for seriousness, there was no crime committed. This site backed the privacy of their user by making law enforcement go through the full legal process before releasing the evidence. I took this as the first true demonstration by any Social Media service to actually not sell out and back stab a one of their “consumers”. Yet I have to wonder if this was just a “one time” display of integrity towards privacy?

  It is important that everyone using these Social sites understands that they are truly “consumers”. Although the “Terms of use” at these sites mislead you by stating that it is a privilege to use their free services, they would not make a dime without you. When you agree to their terms and use it for free you are agreeing to allow them to spam your personal assets and time with “paid for advertisements” and “biased censored propaganda”. They collect big bucks because of your personal efforts to go read their product and content. They should be giving you a cut of the profits by at least showing respect for your personal creed, opinions and privacy.

Full story »