My Beauty Best Teacher

Imagine that you lived in a state of nature- your plane crash landed on some previously unclaimed island that has no inhabitants and there is no hope of being rescued or contacting your previous home nations. Or you go to the moon, or an asteroid, or the bottom of the ocean, or some other location where there are no laws and no legal rights are written down. What sort of rights would you have?

Another way of asking this question is for you to think of things that others would do to you that you would think are wrong- that you would believe are wrong because you know that to do these things are wrong, with or without a government or any sort of legal authority telling you that they are wrong. These are what are called your natural rights.

What sort of natural rights would you have, whereby you would feel violated and wronged by others, even if there were no government or state or authority? Let's say you crash land on the island or find yourself on the moon- would you feel that you had been horribly wronged and violated if your fellow citizens didn't pay for your healthcare insurance in case you got injured? You're on an asteroid, and you demand that the other people on the asteroid buy a house for you or subsidize your loan, and they say no- have you been wronged and your natural rights violated? Of course not- you don't have any sort of right to have others pay for your healthcare insurance, house, car, food, or anything of that sort.

Imagine that you begin to work on your island, tilling a field and growing a crop, where others lay around and do nothing other than to watch you. After you are done growing your crop, they all band together in a large group and vote to have you distribute your crop to everyone, with everyone getting an equal share, even though you contributed all the labor. Were you wronged? Did someone violate your rights? Or let's say on the moon, you provide some sort of service that is essential- taking care of the banking, entertaining others by playing a sport, taking a risk and thinking up a new product- and you work hard at your service and in return others pay you some sort of compensation, that they voluntarily pay for your service because they recognize its worth; and after this, someone else comes along and demands a share of your 'money' in order to pay for someone else to conduct a study of the effects of drinking in prostitutes in China, or to build a road that you will never travel on the other side of the moon, or to cut a check to the older people stranded on the moon, or to hire a bureaucrat to supervise you and tell you all the things you are doing wrong. Would you be wronged then?

Of course you would have been wronged- your labor is yours, and the profit from your labor is yours, and the government does not have any 'right' to your labor, not unless you are a slave to the state. You are okay with voting to provide a military to protect your property from outside aggression, or police or fire service to protect it from theft or fire, or to create a court system to resolve any disputes that may arise regarding your property. But for the government to come and demand the fruits of your labor and lay claim to it is tyranny- it is your property, it existed before government, it will exist after government, and you are the only person who can lay any sort of right to that property. This in your natural right to property.

The purpose of our government is to protect these natural rights- life, liberty, and property. There is no such thing as a 'tax cut for the rich'- the government does not have any sort of claim on the rich citizens' property, so a more proper name for this would be a 'lessening of the unequal taxes levied on those earning high incomes'. You do not have any sort of right to healthcare or housing; but neither do you have any sort of right to social security or medicare- those are provided to some in our society by violating my rights and the rights of other young people in society to keep and earn property in order to provide forced charity to those who have had ample opportunity to earn and pay for their own retirement and healthcare- but they have no right to this sort of forced charitable giving.

Understanding property rights and the nature of them is important, because once the state becomes destructive to these property rights that state is on the road to tyranny. We can see it already in our nation, where our government has arbitrarily violated contracts because a car company is going bankrupt, failed to properly issue permits to energy companies who have gone through the (excessive and capricious) permit process, or the forcing someone young and healthy and full of life to buy a product like health insurance in order to subsidize the costs for others in society. Once it has been established that your property rights can be violated by a government- that rights to keep and earn property that existed before government was around and would be around even if government was not around- then the next step is to go after your freedoms and liberties, and lastly, your life.

Fight for the right to keep and earn property, and stop engaging in class warfare, because it will only lead to tyranny and injustice.

For more, check out John Locke, property rights, and economic theory.: An article from: Journal of Economic Issues or John Locke and Property as a Human Right Today: Towards a New Theory of Property Rights.

John Locke said that the purpose of government is to protect and enforce our natural rights, mainly our right to live, our right to live free from interference in our lives, and our right to earn and keep property. Here is his argument, shortened for time. Imagine that you live in a state of nature, a place where there are no laws or government. If someone killed you, it wouldn't matter if there were no laws, because it would be wrong- that means that there are rights that exist before and after government. If you went to Mars, and there were no laws, and someone put you in a cage, that would be wrong- they would have violated your natural right to liberty. And if you go into the middle of outerspace and someone robs you, that would be wrong, because your right to earn and keep property existed before government was ever around and exists even if government isn't there. These rights do not come from the government, and it is not the lawful creator or destroyer of those rights.

So, continuing the lecture, given that we have these natural rights, and given that in a state of nature they may be inadequately protected, the rational thing to do is to agree (ie, to consent) to give up our right to enforce our rights to a government, which will be better able to protect these rights. We do not give up our natural rights- we simply give up the power to enforce them. Therefore, the only reason why government exists is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.

That is not to say that government should do nothing. One could convince me that providing a bare-bones safety net of welfare (food stamps or medical care) helps to protect life. One might be able to convince me that liberal rights for criminals could better protect my liberty. And one might even convince me that paying for fire and police services help to protect my property better. As you can see, I'm not a fringe nut- I'm more of a Reagan Republican. That being said, think about what government does right now, what Obama wants government to do, and what your Congressman votes for government to do- do they believe that the purpose of government is to protect your life, your liberty, and your wealth?

Obama is going to give a State of the Union address tomorrow- I predict that in it, he is going to talk about how the government can take more of your property (or some other sovereign individual in our nation), control more of your liberty (or someone else's that you may or may not know), and quite possibly might let slip that he is changing the rules regarding the valuing of human lives (pro-choice and all that stuff).

Call up your Congressman and ask him if he believes that the sole purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty, and property. He better say "heck yah!", or else you better donate to his opponent next election and knock door-to-door so that you can throw him out of office.

Listen to a great interview with 760 WJR's Frank Beckmen as he speaks with Amity Schlaes, Senior Fellow for Economic History at the Council on Foreign Relations, about Obama and if he is repeating Roosevelt's mistakes, and you'll see why I am getting so upset about property rights violations by the Obama administration.

Life, liberty, and property. Remember those words.

Of course, no holiday in my family could be complete without long discussions on nerdy topics such as who really legally owned the One Ring of Power from the Lord of the Rings. Via The Volokh Conspiracy:

Property Acquisition in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

Literary critics have unaccountably ignored the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy classic The Lord of the Rings was written for the purpose of explicating the different modes of property acquisition under the common law. Nonetheless, a close examination of the work demonstrates that nearly all the different methods of acquisition are described in detail, and their ethical implications examined. During the course of the story, a variety of characters acquire possession of the Ring of Power using every conceivable legal device.

I. Acquisition by Creation.
The Dark Lord Sauron forges the Ring of Power with the help of knowledge gained from the elven smiths of Eregion. His right to the Ring is thereby based on creation. The claim may be tenuous because it is not clear whether he made illegal use of the elves’ patented production processes (the suspicion of illegality is strengthened by the fact that Sauron made every effort to keep the elves from finding out what he was doing).

II. Acquisition by Conquest.
The Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeats Sauron in battle. The human King Isildur cuts the Ring off of Sauron’s finger (along with the finger itself), thereby acquiring it by right of conquest. Even assuming that the conquest was legitimate, it is not clear whether the law would support an exclusive claim of ownership by Isildur, without any rights simultaneously vesting in the elves (who played an equal role in winning the battle).

III. Acquisition by Find.
On his way home from the war, Isildur is ambushed and killed by orcs. The Ring is lost. Centuries later, it is accidentally found by the hobbit Deagol and his brother Smeagol (AKA Gollum). Deagol claims a property right based on his status as finder.

IV. Acquisition by Adverse Possession.
Gollum kills Deagol and takes possession of the Ring, which he retains for many years. Over time, he comes to think of himself as the real finder of the Ring, and he is strengthened in this opinion by the passage of an enormous length of time. Because Gollum’s possession of the Ring is open and notorious, under a claim of right, and for an extremely lengthy duration far beyond the statutory time period, he may have a claim based on adverse possession. However, Gollum’s claim is defective because a claim of adverse possession cannot succeed if it resulted from a criminal act by the claimant. In addition, adverse possession cannot normally establish title to personal as opposed to real property.

V. Acquisition by Agreement.
Gollum loses the Ring to the hobbit Bilbo Baggins in a riddle contest in which the Ring was a mutually agreed stake.

VI. Acquisition by Gift.
Bilbo gives the Ring to his nephew Frodo Baggins. His intention to give Frodo the ring is clear (though he waivers initially), and he hands the ring over in person, thereby effecting proper delivery.

VII. Temporary Acquisition by Necessity.
While Frodo lies unconscious, his servant Sam Gamgee temporarily takes possession of the Ring in order to save both of their lives from imminent danger.

VIII. Attempted Reacquisition by Self-help.
After Frodo regains the Ring from Sam, he plans to destroy it by throwing it into the fires of Mt. Doom. Both Sauron (who believes that he is the rightful owner) and Gollum (ditto) attempt to get the Ring back before Frodo can destroy it. They both resort to illegal self-help remedies rather than bringing the appropriate common law action and a preliminary injunction against destruction of the Ring before the case can be heard. Gollum succeeds in regaining the Ring from Frodo, but falls into the fire, destroying both the Ring and himself.

Moral of the Story
Much trouble could have been avoided if only the parties to this extended property dispute had properly followed the law of acquisition

Based on my own readings of property law and some guesses on other laws, I would rule that the One Ring of Power belongs to the elven smiths of nation of Eregion, who used patented processes to create the One Ring, and thereafter had an employee (Sauren) use those processes on his own to create in secret his own product. It is unclear who legally inherited the property and rights of the nation of Eregion when it was destroyed, but its survivors and descendants went to Rivendell, Blue Havens, and Lothlórien, who are ruled by Elrond, Círdan, and Galadriel, and so it is my ruling that the One Ring properly and legally belonged to one of those three elves. The claim on the One Ring was never abandoned by them- after learning of its whereabouts, they always sought to recover it. And all subsequent actions thereafter were merely the trading of stolen property.

Yet two of those three had an opportunity to reclaim the ring- indeed, it was offered to them and they turned it down and stated that the ring was indeed Frodo's. Based on this reasoning, I would rule that Frodo did indeed have legal ownership of the ring after that until its destruction. So in reality, the Lord of the Rings was simply a story of a disgruntled employee who took company property and refused to give it back until said property was destroyed.

For more information on the history of the One Ring, see The Lord of the Rings: 50th Anniversary, One Vol. Edition, The Annotated Hobbit, and The Silmarillion.

The Democrats are going to make another push for their healthcare bill. Let's not forget why we opposed this bill in the first place. As I wrote in Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property :

The Democrats healthcare plan is going to need my tax money to be put in place, and thus it does not increase the protection of my property from government, and recent reports and reviews by several groups in government and business have concluded that this healthcare plan will indeed end up costing most American’s more money in the end, further eroding my property.

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Nor does the plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.

My objections to the Democrats healthcare plan are based on an understanding of what the proper role of government in our society should be, as written about by those great men who founded our nation. They wrote that the purpose of government is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property, and not to create vast bureaucracies of unelected officials who will control my life, my liberty, and my property.

Don't forget what is in this bill that the Democrats want to pass- Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill, and none of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).

I've tried to simplify this for you before- Simplifying the Healthcare Debate and Simplifying the Healthcare Debate Again. But all you really need to know about this healthcare bill you already know- that Obama's Health Care Plan Attacks Life, Liberty, and Property:

Obama's health care plan attacks life, by subsidizing abortion clinics at birth, by denying care and treatment (through rationing and bureaucratic delays) during life, and by denying care and treatment (through 'consoling and discussion') at the twilight of life.

Obama's heath care plan attacks choice, by replacing the patient-doctor relationship with one of patient-bureaucrat-doctor, where if you choose a procedure or drug, a government employee can tell you no. It removes responsibility to work hard and insure your own self, and gives up your freedom and liberty to government run and regulated faceless bureaucrats.

Obama's health care plan attacks property, because in order to pay for it, he needs to raise money. That money is either borrowed, which lessens the worth of all other money in the system, including mine, or the money is raised, by taking it from me. I worked for whatever money I earn- if the government did not exist, I would still work for whatever money I earn and it would be mine- therefor the government is not the creator of money nor the lawful taker of it. Obama's heath care plan will take my property in the form of higher taxes, fees, or borrowed funds.

Remember why you opposed this healthcare plan in the first place, and do not let your Congressman forget.

Culled from the Financial Standard ,Nigeria Properties Online reports:

Property securitisation entails the raising of funds from the capital market for housing development, using the house to be developed as collateral security for the capital so raised. In other words, the houses to be developed serve as asset-backed securities (ABS) to which investors subscribe in the capital market. The investors are subsequently paid their 'dividend' when the houses are completed and sold by estate developers. In some types of property securitisation, the investors get annual dividends if the houses so developed are rented and the tenants pay annual rents...Through property securitisation, investors can trade shares held in properties built with their funds. This in effect means that an investor who wants immediate cash could sell off his shares in a securitised property. Property securitisation makes cheap and easy funding available for the housing sector.
This is because, through the capital market, individual investors could pool their resources together for development of property which would be sold or rented at market rates.
The scheme, if properly managed, could provide a positive turning point in housing development in Nigeria. It could lift the burden of housing finance off the government and private developers. Investors will now do it as a worthwhile venture, and housing development would no longer be seen as a social service which the government must shoulder. This implies that housing development would experience exponential growth, and the growing need for accommodation by teeming Nigerians would be assuaged.

In a recent interview with ABC, President Barack Obama was talking about the fee that Bank of America believes is now necessary to charge customers because of recent changes to bank card fees imposed by Democrats in the Dodd-Frank bill':

“This is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up that is ready to go," he said. "... (petty government bureaucrats) can stop (the fees being charged by private banks) because if (petty government bureaucrats) say to the banks, ‘You don't have some inherent right just to – you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers – are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently.”

I made some changes- I removed the word 'you' that Obama used and replaced it with what I thought he meant, and I removed the word 'it' and replaced it with what the 'it' was.

As you can see from this statement, the President does not believe that privately owned and operated companies in the United States have an inherent right to create wealth. He believes that wealth did not exist before the government was around and does not exist after government is not around- if Obama and a bunch of hard workers landed on a deserted island that was in a state of nature, he would believe that he would be morally correct to take the fruits of the labor of others since they have no inherent right to what their own labor produces. Obama thinks that government has the right to take from others, whether they created that wealth through their own actions or not, because he thinks that wealth and prosperity is created and sustained by government policies, even though all experience hath shown that this is incorrect.

America was founded on different ideals- our nation was founded on the idea that property existed before the government and will continue to exist after government, and that even in a state of nature with no government, people do have an inherent fundamental natural right to the property that they create through their actions. If a bank charges a fee and gets a profit from this, they have every right to keep that profit, as it is their inherent natural right to create and keep property in our nation, free from government intervention and threats of confiscation. Only in tyrannical governments are the rights of life, liberty, and property not protected, and tyrannical governments then are those which have less happy lives, less free people, and are always considerably poorer in property than those nations which have embraced natural rights philosophy like our founding fathers did.

As we all know, in order to support yourself through reason and stay alive in a society, you must be able to own and use the product of your labor- you must be able to create wealth and keep that wealth in order to live and live free. If the tools of your survival and the products of your hard work are subject to random confiscation by the Obama administration, then your life also becomes subject to possible random destruction- or to put it another way, the tyrannical nature of the Obama administration to target businesses as 'enemies' is making our nation more poor and bit by bit making your life more miserable and less rich in goods and happiness and freedom.

Obama is increasingly by his own statements demonstrating his unfitness for the office of President of the United States of America; 2012 can't come fast enough to get rid of this guy.

This blog is about my attempts to increase protection of private property from tyrannical and unjust takings by government, my attempts to increase protection of liberty and freedom and its practices from the tyrannical and unjust actions by government, and my attempts to protect life and celebrate the joys of being alive.

You see, I love people. Even though there are bad people out there and people that do bad things, I still believe deep in my heart that people are a blessing from God, made in his image and thus in a small way a glory to him, and that every person that is born is someone that should be treasured and loved as one of God's creations. As a teacher, I fully believe in the spirit of 'no child left behind' because I believe that every student should receive a great education no matter what their background. In high school I was part of the Free Tibet movement because I thought that the actions of the Chinese government against the culture and people of Tibet were wrong. Believing that the best way to prevent destructive wars and mass-murder dictators is through a strong military, I've been a big supporter of the military. I've weighed in from time to time on abortion. And I've celebrated the practices of living by putting up pictures of beautiful women and writing about fun movies or great books. Life is something that me, and many conservatives like me, value and support and love.

On the other hand, there are those people out there who don't celebrate and love life. They are supportive of the ending of unborn lives. They supported the Soviet Union and China in their economic and social policies, even though many millions of people died because of those policies. They are against using military force to remove evil mass-murder killing dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these people feel that adding more people to the United States is not a good thing.

Froma Harop may indeed be such a person who does not love life, liberty, and property. She could be characterized by many as a 'liberal' based on the sort of editorials that she writes in the Detroit News- editorials like "Dems need better pitch to tax the rich" and "Obama, Democrats saved the nation" and "(Health) Insurance requirement is fair" are clearly liberal. Liberals don't love life, liberty, and property- they love government and control and power. Froma Harop, who supports the national government taking property rights away from individuals through unjust tax policies or insurance mandates, who does not like liberty based on support she has for czars and regulations over our lives, not surprisingly also is not a big fan of people. In her editorial today called Fewer people good for us all, she writes:

...For Americans concerned with a loss of open space and thickening congestion, a 10 percent growth rate should seem darn high....

...I don't know many Americans, or noncitizen immigrants for that matter, who think that 100 million more people would make the United States a better place. If the U.S. population is slowing, let's celebrate — and hope it slows some more....

I would imagine that Harop, like Obama, believes that children are a mistake, and that the world be a lot better place if there were fewer people in it. Perhaps we spew too much carbon monoxide out of our mouths and are ruining the environment so we should all be killed; perhaps it is because we all are prosperous and doing things and that bothers Harop because she wants us all poor and controlled; perhaps it is because by adding all of these people, these treasures from God, we have demonstrated that our nation indeed is a great place because of its conservative traditions; but for whatever reason, rather than celebrate life and the expansion of it in America, liberals like Harop reveal their disdain for life, liberty, and property.

No wonder liberals don't like the reading of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, documents which celebrate and enshrine the ideas that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to redistribute income, provide healthcare, tell me what I can and can not eat, protect the 'right to abort a child', or do all the other things that liberals would have the government do. They don't like reading these documents because unlike me and fellow conservatives like me, perhaps they don't love life as much as they sometimes pretend they do, as demonstrated by columns like the one by Froma Harop in today's Detroit News.

One of the cornerstones of modern-day conservatism is the belief that America's energy resources can and should be responsibly exploited. This means that the United States should allow private companies to drill for oil, mine coal, build nuclear power plants, tap into natural gas reserves, get shale oil, and utilize whatever other energy resources that these companies wish to use, provided that they respect the property rights of others.

Oh, I know what liberals and left-wingers will say- the horror of pollution! But the faults of energy development do not lie with the companies themselves, but rather with the government for not establishing clear and defined property rights- for example, rather than having the government act as police to safeguard public water, the water rights should be more clearly defined and if companies destroy or harm the property (the water) of others, they should be forced to pay in a court, much as if they destroyed other private property. The faults with 'pollution' then lie not in the companies for breaking ever expanding government rules and regulations over ever expanding public lands, but for the government for not putting in place limited and clear rules regarding private property rights and then divesting itself of public lands by selling these lands off to private entities that can then do a better job of protecting. Like most problems in our society, the solution is less government, not more.

With the main liberal concern out of the way, our nation would be free to exploit and use its vast resources- enough oil for 30 years, enough natural gas for 575 years, enough coal for 500 years, etc. With oil, gas, and coal be utilized to its fullest extent, our nation will have cheap and plentiful energy, enabling it to develop some of the most amazingly energy intensive industries there are- 'renewable resources'. The horse needs to go before the cart here- we  need to have cheap and plentiful energy in order to build the energy intensive operations and industries like building solar panels, developing batteries, building geothermal plants, etc. A wealthy, productive society thriving on cheap energy can afford to become environmentally friendly, as opposed to a cheap, declining society that the liberals and Democrats appear to be pushing us towards with their anti-energy policies.

In a free market, one in which the government is not subsidizing any of the industries (and this includes cutting subsidies for oil and gas and coal), the most efficient energy resources will be developed in an environment that encourages private property ownership and protection. American can be great again, if it moves away from the liberal model of public ownership of lands and public protection of the environment with restrictive regulations and rules and taxes on energy production combined with subsidies for 'favored' industries and campaign donors. It can be great again if it moves towards a more conservative model of private ownership of lands and private protection through impartial courts of the environment, with few restrictions and regulations and subsidies on energy production, encouraging the most efficient producers and users of energy in a free market.

Via Powerlineblog's post AMERICA’S VAST ENERGY RESOURCES I read this quote from the Institute for Energy Research. IER describes the problem (and the opportunity) bluntly:

Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.

As it turns out, many of the problems of energy scarcity and rising costs in the United States have been caused by the government itself. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report that outlined many of the policy and regulatory constraints that impact domestic energy production. While the report focused on natural gas specifically, many of the laws and procedures also represent roadblocks to any form of safe and responsible energy production. The list of energy barriers included the following policies, all of which can limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development:

(John from Powerlineblog)The list of statutes and other legal impediments that follows is three pages long. Only liberal politicians stand between the American people and development of our vast energy resources.

Expect more of this once Obama is in charge. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality declared that a temporary puddle on a business owners property was 'wetland', and so that business owner had to set aside that property until the end of time and not develop it. This puddle exists as snow run off from a recently built parking lot, and is only in existence for several months, and was not in existence when the property owner bought the land, and has never been declared to be wetland at any time ever. But, just days before this property owner was ready to pour concrete to expand his parking lot over the puddle, the DEQ swooped in and made this decision. The property owner defied the DEQ, saying that this was an arbitrary exercise in bureaucratic power, and now the DEQ is now fining him and threatening him with jail time.

Here is the full story. Notice also that many of the commentators support the DEQ, claiming that it was the property owners fault, and that he needs to justify developing the land, not that the DEQ needs to justify why he can't develop it. Most of the people leaving comments are going to vote in a police state that will rule your lives.

This is the type of state we are entering. Unelected bureaucrats are going to be making decisions about what can be developed and what can't be developed, all on their own whims, under pressure from environmental groups and left wing nuts. They will chase jobs out of our country, drive down our prosperity, and make our world a worse place than it is now. We need to fight this. What can we do to help this guy? Write letters? Contact the DEQ? Don't let injustices like this one stand my friends- do something.

The Atheists over at the About.com blog continue to attack me- it blows their mind that someone who may have conservative personal beliefs is let anywhere near children. Although they claim to be open to new thoughts and tolerant of anyone, they reveal their typical liberal leanings of intolerance and close-mindedness.

My brother in particular has a problem with something that the nutty Atheists claim. The blogger wrote: ""I find it very amusing that Conservative Teacher would condemn the redistribution of property from those who have to those who have need as "coveting neighbors property" when that's exactly one of the practices of the early Christian community — at least as described in Acts."

This is nothing more than a common lie sputtered by atheist keyboard warriors who have done little research and have spent little time looking into this issue. See here for refutation: http://www.studytoanswer.net/contemporary/christian_communism.html

In it, you will see that the testimony of Acts states that while the early Christians in Jerusalem did hold all things in common (4:32), this was a communalism based upon collective need (as a small, despised minority surrounded by a richer and more powerful religious establishment) rather than upon a sense of replacing the established social and economic orders. Further, even though these early Christians were choosing to consider their property as belonging to all, they were yet free to dispose of it entirely as they saw fit, and were still legally and even morally in control of their individual private property.

Hear that Mr. Atheist blogger- your commie dreams are not founded on solid ideas and research at all.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Alaskan Minority Report, where the commentary stinks worse than half-baked Alaskan cod. You see, once I mentioned that I felt that schools were violating the first commandment and had become houses of worship for other false idols, like the Green God, Men, or Reason (the capital 'R' is because schools don't teach reason, they teach the worship of man created reason), I started to be attacked by one after another left-wing commie.

In this blog, I got a typical left-wing knee-jerk reaction of victimhood. While I pointed out that I felt that schools were trying to destroy God, blogs like this one started to whine about how I must be part of the grand Christian conspiracy, and in reality it is atheists and communists who are hiding in fear and not running our school system. This is followed by more 'woe as me, I don't control everyone else's thoughts and actions'.

Let me tell it to you straight from the front lines of public education- you won, I lost. Liberals, communists, progressives, environmentalists, atheists, Muslims, and hippies won- conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and upstanding tax paying citizens lost. That's the truth. Pretend you are the victim all you want- Obama will give you competition for that, since he and the liberals still claim they are victims even thought they control every lever now- but the truth is, I have to fear you breaking down my door to take more of my property and liberty, not the other way around.

Face it Alaskan Minority Report- you are a bigger threat than me to life, liberty, and property.

Our healthcare system has many market characteristics in it, and this has allowed people the freedom necessary to build a system that although not perfect, has provided quality coverage to almost all Americans at a good price. And yet now Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats in Congress want to change all of this and overhaul the system with this healthcare reform bill, and I am hear today to say that everyone should be against this plan.

There are problems in the system, and this plan does nothing to address those problems. It does not address the problem of portability. This Democrat plan does not address the issue of tort reform. It does not increase competition across state lines. Indeed, this healthcare plan that the Democrats are proposing does not do anything to advance the liberty and freedom and choices of the people of this great nation.

The Democrats healthcare plan is going to need my tax money to be put in place, and thus it does not increase the protection of my property from government, and recent reports and reviews by several groups in government and business have concluded that this healthcare plan will indeed end up costing most American’s more money in the end, further eroding my property.

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Nor does the plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.

My objections to the Democrats healthcare plan are based on an understanding of what the proper role of government in our society should be, as written about by those great men who founded our nation. They wrote that the purpose of government is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property, and not to create vast bureaucracies of unelected officials who will control my life, my liberty, and my property.

Do not become blinded by anecdotal stories. Do not be fooled by rhetoric. Do not be misled by your own ambitions or desires. This proposal to gain more control over our health care by the Democrats is not about specifics, clauses, or numbers, although those are important to the debate. No, this issue is instead a fundamental question about freedom, life, and property in our nation.

I encourage everyone to support efforts to speak out against the Democrat’s healthcare proposal. Contact by email or phone your Congressmen, Senators, Governor, state officials, even county officials. Sing the song of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty are precious in this world, and are now under attack, not by evil people who seek your harm, but by people who through good intentions and intellectual reasoning would lead us into tyranny.

Surprisingly, Memorandum hasn't picked up this story and made it the number one story out there, but it should, because it demonstrates everything wrong with liberals and Democrats and their judicial philosophy. The story comes from Time and CNN and is called The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves:

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

If you are like me, you're stunned and shocked and angry from what you just read. My reaction was "you have got to be freaking kidding me!"

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand.

If only Pineda-Moerno were a terrorist than I am sure the court would have found something wrong with federal agents sneaking onto his property to put a tracking device on his property.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

When one reads the decision from the Ninth Circuit, one has to wonder just what the heck they were thinking, and what liberals in general are thinking. They blather about freedoms and rights, but when it comes down to it, these are not conservative judges agreeing with the government's claim that it can go on to your property and bug your car without a warrant- they are liberals. Liberal judges, appointed by Democrats, using 'empathy' and 'diversity' as guidelines, are fighting for the government to control your freedoms of speech ('fairness' on the radio or 'net neutrality' on the internet), these liberal judges are fighting to take away your right to guns (liberal dissents on recent gun cases), and these liberal judges are now chipping away at your Fourth Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit court is the court most closely controlled by Democrats and liberals, and thus is a great indicator of the type of society and laws that they'd put in place on us if they were in charge or get any more power.

The DC Circuit court has 11 judges on it, and 6 were appointed by Republicans, 3 by Democrats, and 2 empty spots. Since it is so controlled by Republicans and conservatives, it is a good indicator of the type of society and laws that they'd put in place were they in charge of us or given more power.

The thing is, it is up to you to decide what type of court we get. The way that our federal court system works is that federal judges are appointed by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Democrats always nominate liberal judges, while Republicans nominate both liberal and conservative judges (they pick liberal judges to try to be balanced and fair in a mistaken belief that Democrats will return the favor once they're in power). If you're looking for someone to blame for this decision, the appropriate person to blame is Democrat Presidents who appointed them and Democrat Senators who confirmed them, and since Democrats continue to support them, you pretty much can blame any Democrat anywhere on the ticket.

Recently I read The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (Penguin Classics), by G.K. Chesterton. I've heard a lot about Chesterton, and have always wanted to read some of his stuff, and I would still suggest reading something he has written, but probably not this book to start. Although it is good, the longer the book goes, the less good it gets, and the ending to me felt like I had to read it 10 times just to say 'oh, I get it now, clever'- not the kind of ending that will stand out in your mind. That being said, it was a good book, and had some good parts to it.

The book takes place in 1900 London, and focuses on a policeman who is fighting anarchists. He manages to get himself elected to the anarchists council, where each person is called by a day of the week. Our hero is called Thursday, and he schemes to stop and expose the other anarchists, including the man bad guy, Saturday. Through this surreal plot and the nutty characters, Chesterton comments on moral relativism and nihilism, and this is the best stuff in the book.

The main character, Gabriel Syme, is a guy who I sort of understand. He grew up in a home where 'change' was the mantra of the day, where his parents were beholden to progressive ideas, and where the whole family attempted to portray sophistication and rebellion. And as time went on Syme began to see how revolting this behavior was, how demented and sad these people were, and so he himself revolted to sanity. He ran from change and progressivism to common sense, to law, to gentle and courteous behavior.

I understand Syme- as our society embraces 'change' and values are lost, MTV grows more lewd, Micheal Jackson is a 'hero', not eating meat and smoking drugs is embraced, and our culture becomes more progressive, I personally am increasingly revolted. When I was younger, I was less conservative, I was more moderate- but this revolting behavior of our society is causing me to revolt against it, and to embrace traditional values, to have more common sense, and to be a better person, much like Syme was.

Chesterton, like other great authors like Orwell, understood the way the world works and understood how tyranny and oppression develops. Remember 1984 and Animal Farm- the dangerous characters, those that were bad and evil, were not the uneducated country boys who believed in private ownership and conservative values. The dangerous, evil, and bad characters were the educated, sophisticated, moral relativistic, and value free ones.

So it goes with Chesterton. As Syme talks with a policeman in Chapter 4, the policeman says:

(The anti-anarchist police) deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher.

Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men. They accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.

The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed- say a wealthy uncle- he is then prepared to accept the universe and praise God. He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them.

Yes, the modern world has retained all of those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church.

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it a punishment. They do not believe that the crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime. These people talk about 'a happy time coming,' 'the paradise of the future,' 'mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,' and so on.

And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

I realize that is a long passage, but it was one of the most meaningful in the book, because it conveys that the enemy is indeed a terrible thing, and not because they wear a black mask or have a golden gun, but because of what they themselves believe. As you read that passage, perhaps you understand why Chesterton is so highly regarded- did you get a sense that he was describing someone in our political system?

Chesterton might have called them anarchists or philosophers, and later they might go by other names like fascist or communist, but to me, their ideas about economic suicide for no reason, their dislike of labeling things right and wrong, and their views on life and mark them as the modern Democratic Party. And at the center of the inner circle there is a man who speaks to applauding crowds and says pleasing phrases, but he is under no illusions, and his actions have terrible consequences for our great nation.

Buy the book here and learn more about the left-wing movements...

Friedrich von Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom that (via wikipedia's entry, which serves my purposes here) centralized planning is inherently undemocratic, because it requires "that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people." The power of these minorities to act by taking money or property in pursuit of centralized goals destroys the Rule of Law and individual freedoms, making the individual "more than ever become a mere means, to be used by the authority in the service of such abstractions as the 'social welfare' or the 'good of the community'" In both socialism and nazism he saw "the increasing veneration (of) the state, the admiration of power, and of bigness for bigness' sake, the enthusiasm for "organization" of everything (we now call it "planning") and that inability to leave anything to the simple power of organic growth."

President Obama increasingly uses the state to plan out society, acting in an increasingly autocratic way, imposing his will and the will of his small minority of elites on the people who is supposed to be serving. In his own words he states this as his goal- he says “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer” as he claimed new powers for himself in making recess appointments while Congress was not in recess; he has already explained that “where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves,”; the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, even said that "Obama would be ready to rule on day one." President Obama sees his role in our political system as our ruler; and if he is the ruler that makes us his serfs and slaves.

And it is not just his words which indict him as an autocratic tyrant who wishes to make us his serfs- it is his policies as well. Increasingly he is centralizing the distribution of wealth under his personal authority- turning TARP into a slush fund from which he can bail out favored industries; using stimulus funds to reward favored industries and give loans to his pet projects; and spending through the general budgets massive amounts of funds that are poorly tracked and accounted for. And his policies almost always involve transferring wealth from those who he personally does not like- the rich, oil companies, health care companies, banks, people who live in suburbs- to those people who he favors, by means of policies such as higher tax rates, more progressive tax rates, higher license and permit fees, increasingly regulation, pressure through the media, or cap and trade schemes.

President and his supporters in the media and in various blogs de-humanize people and their lives, arguing that the time they spend laboring in corporations makes them lesser, that the corporations and companies that they invest their time and effort in are 'not people', and that those people in the heartland of America are lesser people as well- racist, uneducated, unenlightened, and clinging to their guns and false religion.

Liberals and progressives cannot refute this argument- their solution to every problem facing society is 'more government', as if government can do only right and never wrong through its actions and inactions. The solution for Obama and Democrats is always to do more- to control people more, to take away more of their wealth and property, and to restrict their actions more. Their supporters in Occupy Wall Street rail against bailouts while Democrats and President Obama bails out banks, auto companies, green industry, and any other failing enterprises, unwilling to let the market act in creating more efficiency of resources and effort. He pushes for bigger and bigger industries, centralized under increasingly smaller cartels- like health-care exchanges or regulations like Dodd-Frank.

Troll through liberal and progressive blogs, and you will see this is the case- they argue for more control of your life, liberty, and property by smaller and smaller numbers of people who act in increasingly autocratic and undemocratic ways.

Throughout history, there have been two groups largely battling it out for control of society- those people who believe that they are better than you and should make decisions regarding your property and life and choices, and those people who believe that they are no better than anyone else and shouldn't make decisions for others regarding their property, life, and choices. Today, the Democratic Party is the party of control, judgement, elites, and Masters, and the Republican Party isn't- oh, I'll give you that it isn't the opposite, but it sure is a heck of lot better than the Democratic Party. And so your choice in 2012 becomes more clear- vote Democrat for Masters and Serfs, or Republican to block this vision.

Read The New Authoritarianism to see how this inspired my own take, and be sure to order and read your very own copy of the Road to Serfdom.

The coming year will give voters a real choice of visions- divide up the wealth in our nation differently or grow the amount of wealth in our nation.

This is the title from Tom Mullen's latest blog post "A Nation of Hyenas." As he says, he was inspired by watching Wild Kingdom, in which the cheetah caught and killed some food, and then a bunch of hyena's came and took the property away. Why? Because there were more of them, and they were bigger and stronger. Later that night, while watching a heated exchange between a liberal and a conservative on TV, Mullen heard the liberal give the justification for the government having the power to take away property, possess banks and auto companies, and force me to go to their schools and hospitals:

“That’s why we have a democratically-elected government and the people want the government to do something.”

It is the horrifying reality of what any government bailout or other redistribution of wealth represents. We as Americans have forgotten that all government action is exercised under exactly these circumstances: at gunpoint. That is the purpose of government, to exercise brute force on behalf of its constituents when it becomes necessary to do so. That is why our government was originally so limited. The founders of our nation believed that brute force was only justified in self defense. Therefore, government action was limited to protecting its constituents from harm by other people, whether it was harm by a fellow citizen or a foreign army.

The first philosopher to really grapple with this issue was a guy named Thomas Hobbes. He said that humans are brutal people, who when left to their own devices will take other people's property, lives, and freedom. The only way to control such a brutal creature as man is to create an even more powerful and brutal government, one that will control him and keep him in line. The problem though is once you create a brutal and powerful government, how do you control that very government so that it doesn't take away life, liberty, and property?

Our founding fathers thought that a combination of separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, limited government, and a religious civil society would do that. Sadly, years of liberal rule has eroded these founding principles, and now we are left only with the unrestrained brutal all powerful government- a hyena who will gang up on you and steal your property.

As a good patriot, today I am celebrating the 4th of July like every American should- displaying my patriotism with flags and fireworks, improving my property by mowing my lawn and trimming the bushes, enhancing the quality of my life by eating great food and spending time with my family, and remembering my liberty by re-reading our founding documents and doing what I want free from government control. It doesn't matter to me what the elites who increasingly rule over me think- I'm going to eat a nice juicy hamburger made with real butter and cheese in it, sit on a chair and watch a ball game for a bit, and maybe even smoke a cigar. The fireworks I'll light off will be loud and bright and I'm not entirely sure if they are legal, if one of my kids gets a skinned knee from playing a game of touch football I'll take care of it, and we'll drive to go see our parents in our biggest SUV. I'm going to live the dream of a free man on this 4th of July and savor in the freedoms that are under continual assault by elites from the beginning of time until today.

If you haven't done so already, make sure you take a minute of your time today to reflect and read the Declaration of Independence, and don't feel silly about reading it before the BBQ or as the bedtime story for your kids tonight.

In particular, read and think about the first part of it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Those lines mean something, to me, to conservatives, to Republicans, and to America, and we should always remember how revolutionary those ideas are, how incredible it is to actually believe them, and how much of a leap of faith you must make to follow them. You really need to BELIEVE in those ideas- not just say them and not just work to put policies in place to govern our nation, but believe in your heart of hearts in those words that lay out truth of the human condition and the nature of government.

Those ideas needed to be fought for back in 1776, and our Founding Fathers did so in the Revolutionary War- but the ideas in the Declaration of Independence still need to be fought for today and every day, because it is the nature of tyranny to slowly strip away life, liberty, and property and to enlarge the government so that it unaccountable and tyrannical. Today, we have watched our liberties been rationalized away by our leaders, our legislators spend us into servitude and seize our own property to do so, our courts regularly mock the Constitution and believe it to be a dead thing, and especially lately, unimaginable tyranny and government control of our day-to-day lives.

You and I will always been free and independent- no government can take that away from us- but every day, our free and independent condition is lessened- with each new dollar taken from us, with each new exception to our rights made, with each life lessened, and with each regulation passed. As a nation, we are dishonoring our Founding Fathers and what they fought for and letting down our children, who will not get to grow up in a nation based on life, liberty, and property, but instead will be raised in increasing tyranny and rule of man.

So on this Independence Day, rededicate yourself to our founding ideas, enjoy your life, liberty, and property, and be sure that you spend some time reading the Founding Documents to your friends, family, and children. Happy Independence Day 2011!

As a good patriot, today I am celebrating the 4th of July like every American should- displaying my patriotism with flags and fireworks, improving my property by mowing my lawn and trimming the bushes, enhancing the quality of my life by eating great food and spending time with my family, and remembering my liberty by re-reading our founding documents. If you haven't done so already, make sure you take a minute of your time today to reflect and read the Declaration of Independence, and don't feel silly about reading it before the BBQ or as the bedtime story for your kids tonight.

In particular, read and think about the first part of it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Those lines mean something, to me, to conservatives, to Republicans, and to America, and we should always remember how revolutionary those ideas are, how incredible it is to actually believe them, and how much of a leap of faith you must make to follow them. You really need to BELIEVE in those ideas- not just say them and not just work to put policies in place to govern our nation, but believe in your heart of hearts in those words that lay out truth of the human condition and the nature of government.

Those ideas needed to be fought for back in 1776, and our Founding Fathers did so in the Revolutionary War- but the ideas in the Declaration of Independence still need to be fought for today and every day, because it is the nature of tyranny to slowly strip away life, liberty, and property and to enlarge the government so that it unaccountable and tyrannical. Today, we have watched our liberties been rationalized away by our leaders, our legislators spend us into servitude and seize our own property to do so, our courts regularly mock the Constitution and believe it to be a dead thing, and especially lately, unimaginable tyranny and government control of our day-to-day lives.

You and I will always been free and independent- no government can take that away from us- but every day, our free and independent condition is lessened- with each new dollar taken from us, with each new exception to our rights made, with each life lessened, and with each regulation passed. As a nation, we are dishonoring our Founding Fathers and what they fought for and letting down our children, who will not get to grow up in a nation based on life, liberty, and property, but instead will be raised in increasing tyranny and rule of man.

So on this Independence Day, rededicate yourself to our founding ideas, enjoy your life, liberty, and property, and be sure that you spend some time reading the Founding Documents to your friends, family, and children. Happy Independence Day 2010!

Today around the nation there were rally's held to oppose the Democrat's healthcare plan, and I attended the one in Birmingham, home of Democrat Gary Peter's. It was a great turn out, and there were quite a few notable people there- Oakland County Executive L Brooks Patterson, County Commissioner David W. Potts, Michigan Governor-hopeful Michael Bouchard, and even theplogprof. It was a good time- saying hello to friends, educating one another about various issues, and sending a message to politicians that the people are opposed to this Obamacare proposal.

There were also supporters of the healthcare plan at the rally, and like the Greeks of old or our revolutionary forefathers, I engaged these people in debate, and the crowd circled us and listened to us as we each advanced our aguments. And every time, through every twist and turn of logic that these healthcare supporters took me, I won the debate by relying on facts, statistics, history, and the core principles of our nation. And every time I won the debate, these liberals would give me the finger or yell 'f-you' at me, and I would simply say that I am trying to fight tyranny and stand up for life, liberty, and property.

My favorite debate was with a guy from England, who, over a course of several minutes, went through all of the talking points of liberals- Bush bankrupted America, spent all our money on the war, Obama needs to put our nation more in debt to dig us out of Bush's jobless recovery, etc. I really enjoyed how proud he was of having not read the bill (HR 3200)- when I started quoting from it, he started yelling that that isn't the bill he supports. I wondered what bill he does support, and he told me that one that would create a heaven on Earth, as if man could create such a thing. After a while it grew tiring to talk to this guy though- his world was a maze of conspiracies and evil capitalists- and when cornered, he quickly would turn to character-assassination- he called me a liar, another guy a stooge, another guy unintelligent, etc. Typical rules for radicals- if you can't win the argument, attack the person.

This was usually the way I won the intellectual arguments- I found it much easier to win the ethical arguments. One Obama supporter (she had an Obama hat on) told me that it wasn't personal- that all she was trying to do was make me pay for insuring more poor people and provide better coverage for those who were in need in our nation. I told her that that was personal- my property was not hers to distribute to those who she favored. Her reply was that the government already does it- she mocked me by gloating about all of the liberal projects that my tax money already funds, and mocked me by saying that now that the Democrats were the majority, they were free to take my money and redistribute it for whatever they wished. When I told her that she was proud of tyranny and gloating about taking away my liberty and property, she said "yes, we can" and turned away from the debate, as if tyranny were something to be proud of.

Recently I bought a yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag, and I brought that to the rally to wave. One lady, who was holding up a 10 foot long banner supporting healthcare (paid for by a special interest group- it had the logo on the back corner), asked me what the flag meant. I told her that my position on this issue as simple- I don't want government to get in my business, to tax me any more, and to let me live my life in freedom and liberty. She scoffed at that- she said it wasn't really a free world because of all the capitalists and private companies that ran the world, and that the only way we can truly be free is if the government runs everything. I think Stalin and Mao made those same arguments.

The highlight of the afternoon came as I was engaged by a supporter of the single-payer system (that's what her sign said), and told me that my view didn't matter at all, and that I should just pay for the increased healthcare and be happy about it. I told her that I was a person who had rights, and she laughed at me, and several of her friends came and told me that I was in the minority now. I started to grow angry, so I began to yell louder and louder that I was a person, that I was endowed by God with rights that no one could take away, and that those rights were life, liberty, and property. These Obamacare supportes laughed at me, and said that I was in the minority, and I began to yell louder and louder yet- the rights were God-given and include my right to live free and to keep and earn property. Liberals may laugh about these things, but I still believe in the Declaration of Independence and the ideas it espouses- revolutionary ideas that say to fight tyranny such as this proposal.

Don't get me wrong- the overwhelming number of people at this healthcare rally were patriots who were waving flags asking to be treated fairly, asking to not pay for government programs with debt, suggesting positive solutions like tort reform or increased competition, and voicing concerns about the constitutionality of the Obamacare program. They were grandmothers and young children, teachers and car workers, and when spoken to, they were good people who frequently had a good grasp of history and economics. They understand that this healthcare proposal is bad, and they were against it, and the only thing that they are hoping that will change is that they want our leaders, our Representatives and Senators, to hear them and their concerns.

UPDATE I: theblogprof has some great pictures from the event up as well, click here to see his post. I'm visable in one of the pictures.

UPDATE II: Welcome readers from Instapundit and Moonbattery!

UPDATE III: Welcome readers from American Power!

Let's not forget the big picture during this primary season- defeating President Obama's attempt to hold on to political power. This is not a partisan issue- I don't suggest that Obama needs to be defeated merely because he is a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive or whatever- but rather this is an issue about putting someone in the White House who is better at getting out of my way.

I'm great a working hard, creating wealth, making my own decisions in my life, living with my own mistakes, and producing goods and services for our great nation- and so are you. All you require to be prosperous, happy, and free is a government which protects your life through national defense and police services and the like, a government which protects your liberty and freedom by making sure that enemies without and within do not gain the ability to order you around, and a government which protects your happiness by making sure that the property you do earn you keep. You are all great Americans.

And yet, President Obama does not think that you are great Americans- he thinks that you make bad decisions, that you don't understand how a baby could ruin your life, and that you are not creating the right sort of property or spending your property in the right way. And this dangerous man with these dangerous attitudes has become President of the United States of America and is now using the power of that executive office to take away your liberty and freedom and property and make your life a little less full.

You've felt it, just like I have, over the years and getting worse over the last three- that feeling like people don't matter any more, like peoples lives are inconsequential, and that feeling that our world is a little less alive. It is not surprising that you've felt this way- as government has gotten bigger and more powerful and more in control with more aspects of your lives this impersonal and vast institution has dehumanized us and treated us as numbers and taken away from our life, liberty, and property.

President Barack Obama supports this dehumanizing and confiscating and controlling philosophy because he does not think that you are all great Americans.

Jay Cost on Saturday touched on these ideas in his blog post, where he spoke about just exactly what sort of person Obama was, what his vision of the world was, and why opposing him rises beyond simply a partisan or jobs or improving economy thing- it is a real battle of vision for the future for America- one in which the individual is great and free and prosperous, or another one in which the individual is a slave to the state and controlled by the state and prosperous only as much as the state lets them be.

Here is part of Jay Cost's blog post, from the Weekly Standard, called What's So Bad About Obama?

...Obama is not “radical,” at least not in the way we usually define the concept. But that actually points to the big the problem with this president and his worldview. The progressive ideology dating back to the turn of the last century, and in which Obama is comfortably situated, was never really about overturning the established order, but rather in co-opting it...

... the hallmarks of the First New Deal – were all about grand bargains between government, labor, farmers, and capital owners. The point was to draw all classes to the bargaining table, with the meeting chaired by the progressives, naturally. So it goes for modern-day progressivism. Both Clintoncare and Obamacare did not try to implement “socialized medicine,” but rather strike a grand bargain that would encompass all of the “stakeholders” to manage the nation’s health care...

...Obama has not set out to destroy capitalism. He is no socialist in the traditional sense of the word. He is not interested in controlling the means of production, as Marx put it. He’s happy to let commerce and industry remain in private hands, but that does not mean he's a free market advocate in any politically relevant sense of the phrase. He wants the free market to do its thing, so long as the government can socialize an ever-greater amount of the profit, and also take an intimate role in managing the private sector to “socially beneficial” ends....

...The principal reason for this opposition is that there has always been more than a whiff of anti-republicanism to the progressive agenda. Just consider the name "progressive," which implies a social, epistemological, or moral vanguard -- hardly the hallmark of true republicanism. And what one person views as “socially beneficial," another may rightfully call political patronage. For instance, the New Deal was full of payoffs – small and large – to Democratic constituencies....

...And so, the Democrats’ grand dreams of a “Fair Deal” always stink of unfairness to conservatives in the republican tradition... And Barack Obama, the president who promised to bring change to Washington, has been a very diligent patron to his party's extensive list of clients. On item after item, the topline claim to benefit the national interest is regularly belied by the particularism of the fine print. Klein mentions three items in particular in his column – the auto bailout, the financial reform bill, and the health care bill – that were all justified on purely nationalistic grounds, but peel off the top layer and the stench of clientelism will overwhelm you. To this list I would add the stimulus bill, the jobs bill that Obama proposed in the fall, and the cap-and-trade bill. Liberals look upon them all as fulfilling a great national purpose, but republicans (small "r") see massive payoffs to core Democratic groups.

If you want to understand the seething anger on the conservative side of the aisle, this is what you need to appreciate: It’s not just that Obama is a big government guy in the progressive tradition, which conservatives have opposed for more than a century. It’s also that he’s a client guy, meaning that his idea of big government inevitably has special payoffs hidden in it somewhere. And more than even this, he's a boundless client guy in what should be an age of restraint. Payoffs to party clients are one thing when the economy is growing at a four percent rate per year; that is a situation where the times are so prosperous that government patrons are really just drawing upon the national surplus to satisfy their partisans. But when the economy is growing at less than two percent per year, barely enough to keep up with population growth, paying off party clients is actually like robbing from Peter to pay Paul. And while Obama and congressional Democrats have put off that bill -- in the form of our trillion-plus deficit -- conservatives are not fools. They know they'll be asked to pay up sooner or later, and with a stagnant economy that means less money in their pockets, in part because the president wants to hold together his voting coalition.

That's what's so bad about Obama.

Let's get past all of our past labels- Republicans and Democrats, Romney vs Newt, establishment vs anti-establishment, Tea Party vs Occupier, right vs left, conservative vs liberal- and realize just exactly what the battle is about today: republicanism vs dictatorship. This 2012 is about returning power back to the people of our nation by empowering them as individuals to make lives, be free, and earn property. Obama opposes that desire, and that is what is so bad about him and why he must be defeated in 2012 and his vision of government rejected with extreme manliness.

Jay Cost is the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic.