A Promising Start for Individual State Sovereignty

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover http://shar.es/TJrX1

"...federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts."

This movement was started before the Clive Bundy ranch's fight with the Feds; however, ever since Bundy's ordeal the issue of State sovereignty over their lands has sped up and is gaining more traction. It makes it all the more pressing for a true stance to be made against this ever growing and ever reaching, incompetent Federal Government.

Sheila Jackson and Progressive Liberal Logic

Sheila Jackson, an amazingly stupid progressive Representative, really thinks our Constitution is 400 years old. There are no words and I can't even....just enjoy the meme created about her.

From Russia with Love

I think it would be more correct if I said, "To Russia with Love." However, I love James Bond and it's staying.

Alright, Snowden update is here. Russia has granted the infamous NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, a year of asylum.  He was in the Moscow airport for six weeks until being allowed to tiptoe into the foreign country ever so tacitly.

This is a blog and not a newspaper. So, I will give you my opinion. I am so excited and relieved he got asylum. Unlike our current liar-in-chief, I support whistleblowers. Obama ran on protecting whistleblowers back in 2008 but has flopped on the issue. Obama and his administration are "very disappointed" according to news reports over Russia's decision. I am very disappointed in the political leadership in Washington that are vehemently slandering Mr. Snowden as some malevolent traitor. He's not. The traitors are those in power in our Government. They betrayed the American people and violated their 4th Amendment rights. This was revealed to us by a true patriot.

Snowden's lawyer assures the media that he "is in a safe place." Whatever place that Edward Snowden is, we must remember that he has a place in our hearts and mind. He exposed corruption and reckless disregard of our Constitutional rights.

A Point of Contention

Being a Christian Classical Liberal or what many would nowadays call, Libertarian, is a difficult road to travel on. I guess Robert Frost predicted my direction when he poetically stated, "I choose the road less traveled." It is quite the road.

Anyone who took a History class should be familiar with Patrick Henry's famous and timeless quote, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" This is a personal vow I have made. I would rather die than to have my essential liberties rescinded by the stroke of a cold, calculated bureaucrat's pen. Fortunately, I was born in the greatest country in the world for liberty. However, in this country liberty and the role of government is at a point of contention over certain issues-issues such as gay marriage.

Here is where my proverbial "fork-in-the-road" appears. One of the sad

Professor Snooty Knickerbockers

truths in life that I have realized is that people tend not to be original in thought. Now, what I mean with "original thought" is thinking independently from what you have learned. Hearing both sides of an issue and then developing your own view point. This could mean that after sincere thought and research, you agree with what you have been taught or what the group you associate with believe. More specifically, people tend to just regurgitate what is spoon fed to them from their ideological instruction. This could be the education from a biased establishment or from the guild that the person surrounds themselves with. Instruction is not just from Professor Snooty Knickerbockers in his inveterate style of sweater and disheveled white hair. Instruction or teaching come from whom you associate with and whom also you open your ears and heart to. This could be an author, a radio host, tv personality, celebrity, politician, and etc. From a range of issues, you listen to someone for opinion, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Here is where it tends to get tricky. We are in the year 2012. I am currently typing this blog with my blogger app on the New Ipad. Information systems can now be applied to this country as a whole. America is an information system with people's opinions, beliefs, and theories available to our ears and eyes constantly. This is where points of contention become even more contentious. People all have opinions, beliefs, and theories. Furthermore, they have had someone else in life influence them. The tricky part is where your original thought comes in. Where does my original thought come in?

I am a Christian but I am also a Classical Liberal. I could just regurgitate what I was taught about marriage and homosexuality. I could just say, "Marriage is between a man and woman." Now, that is fine to say and you have all the freedom to say this. On the other hand, you can just regurgitate the recurring statement, "Marriage is only about love and should be applied to who ever wants to get married to whoever they love."

I left out the word should in both of those statements because that is the next step towards the point of contention. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Marriage should be applied to all outside the traditional view. The word should has lead to "I want the government to." This is where I take the road less traveled. This is where conservatives label me a "morals-less liberal" and where modern liberals attack me as
"right-wing bigot." At this point of contention, I side with liberty. I don't believe the government has the right or authority to define marriage. There should not be a law created by our federal government to either protect marriage or to redefine marriage. Marriage is not in the hands of the bureaucrat. As a Christian, I have a more traditionalist view on marriage. However, as a Classical Liberal, I believe that government has a very limited role and has NO role when it comes to marriage. I believe States through a referendum by the votes of the people can institute their own marriage laws. I believe that the Constitution supports this and it was the intent of Founding Fathers to allow such personal and even religious events to be decided between individuals and their religious leaders. The Framer's intention can be seen from the Tenth Amendment which states,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This involves marriage.

Sorry, conservatives and liberals that want the government to do something about it. Government laws do not make things better. In fact, they make things worse most of the time. What is more, the Supreme Court is not this perfect problem solver to enforce your "shoulds or should nots." They once got into the "defining" game and defined who was property. Ya, you guessed it, slaves. Research the Dred Scott decision.

Most would agree that gay Americans that love each other and want to be in a long term relationship have the right to be, whether a civil union or domestic partnership. However, the issue of marriage is up to the individual and their State respectively. Instead of the government defining marriage, there can be contract laws improved with regards to civil unions. President Obama actually believed this for a while until he "evolved" from it and said he "personally" now believes that gays should have "marriage." However, any person with a mind can see that this admission means nothing legally for the gay marriage movement. It was just a  political ploy to gain more fundraising money.

North Carolina, my home state, is a perfect example of how the marriage issue is properly approached. A referendum of the people determined that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman. The people of North Carolina whether traditionalists or progressives had a chance to exercise their right to vote in order effect their livelihoods. Government is not needed to liberate any slaves. It is a great fallacy of logic to try to compare gay marriage to slavery. Frankly, I am sick of seeing it.

North Carolina in the midst of the referendum on gay marriage.

On the road of life you come to points of contention. We will all disagree on what is right or wrong. Yet, we should all agree that things such as natural rights that include individual liberty, right to life, and property must be first protected. Next, anything that is not authorized to the federal government should left to the people and their States respectively. Marriage is included. America is the greatest country to live and be happy. There are parts of the law that help preserve it. Moreover, our livelihood does not solely depend on the work of some bureaucrat. Gay and straight relationships here in America both depend on a strong economy, security, and liberty. Points of contention like marriage are best left to the individual, not the government.

Money, Sex, and Politics

No. I know what you are thinking. It's not an article on the rakish and sordid Kennedys. Who wants to read about good ole Teddy K. driving into a lake, drunk after a night of partying, killing a young woman? Although I would love to further discuss this, I must continue on a different topic.

An article by the Heritage Foundation entitled "Ten Questions Obama Should be Asked at Tuesday's Press Conference" list 10 pointed but veracious questions that Obama should be faced with.

Question number 5 deals with the Constitution and contraception coverage. This is the question that I am going to address. I read this article after being very irritated throughout the day. I'm sure you have heard about Rush Limbaugh and the controversial "slut" statement. Even if you don't watch too much news, the media and Obama will make sure everyone hears about it.

I believe that Obama wanted our focus to shift from his unpopular and unconstitutional Obamacare and other failing policies. Rather, he wants us to think about condoms, sex, woman's health, and it should all be free. And the main stream media agree and are having a blast reporting on this every minute.

I will not deeply expound on contraceptives and women's health. Nor am I going to write about the rights or wrongs with using contraceptives. That is up to you. If you are like Santorum, then it is up to your local government if they want to ban them. I will address Rush Limbaugh's comments; contraceptives and their constitutionality and importance; and Obama's pitiful meddling in this matter.

Limbaugh was wrong for calling Ms. Fluke, who testified before a congressional hearing on contraceptive coverage, a "slut." He knows it and he apologized. You ought not call women that, especially on live air. Misogyny, intolerance, sexism, and superiority by men can be found on both sides of the ideological fence. There are countless examples of Liberal men in the media who have viciously attacked Conservative woman and called them reprehensible, misogynist terms. Bill Maher, a major Liberal comedian/political commentator called Sarah Palin the four letter "c" word and has a history of vile, sexist comments. There are more examples; research and see for yourself . Rush is treated as the most evil man in America but he is one in many political commentators who have said sexist terms regarding woman. And in regards to the loathsome, iniquitous microcephalic, Bill Maher, he donated 1 million to an Obama super PAC. Maybe Obama will rethink and give back the donation since he is now the "guardian of woman." Sarah Palin is asking Obama too give the money back.

Back to the lovely topic of contraceptives. Ms. Fluke, a Georgetown law student, now turned activist, testified in front of a Democratic congressional committee. She spoke without any qualms about how she and other woman are entitled to free contraceptives. Because a woman's sex life especially in school can be too costly. This is so absurd, unconstitutional, illogical, and immoral. No one should be forced to pay for woman to have sex. This is not a woman's health issue, it is a liberty issue. We here at Son of Liberty passionately defend liberty and will warn others when liberty is in danger. The sacred document that protects our liberties is the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for this to happen. Furthermore, a key element of liberty, is individual choice and responsibility. Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Doug Bandow said in regards to Obamacare and contraceptive coverage, "it took over medical decisions best left to individuals." Doug Bandow altruistically continued to postulate:

Contraception is not an essential medical service more important than treatment for breast cancer, leukemia, colon cancer, and Alzheimer's. Or my knee replacement. If contraception should be "free," why not these other far more vital treatments? Why allow deductibles and co-pays to discourage anyone from getting any medical treatment?Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend blamed opponents for wanting "to fight about contraception being available for women." Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State similarly charged that "the Bishops" want "to personally cut off access" to contraceptives. 

In fact, contraceptives are available to all and no one is campaigning to ban the pill, IUD, or condoms. Saying that insurance coverage is necessary for access to contraceptives is like saying insurance coverage is necessary for access to aspirin. Anyone can buy contraceptives today.

But someone has to pay. The only question is who. 

Insurance coverage is not "free." Premiums must rise to cover expanded benefits. Female employees will pay more if their insurance is paying more.Of course, the mandate also requires the impotent, infertile, gays, sexually inactive, sexually less active, and those opposed to contraception to pay for those who use contraception, especially in abundance. Why should the former be forced to subsidize the latter? Why is this wealth transfer a new national imperative and "right"? 

The president declared: "Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her health. Period." Quite true. But the way to do that is for women to pay for their own health care and decide what they want their health insurance to cover. 

The First Amendment protects religious liberty. Furthermore, I believe that means "moral conscience" objection. Because you don't have to be "religious" or go to a certain denominational church or align oneself with a particular faith to have a "moral objection." Doug Bandow says it is "freedom of conscience." He says, "Freedom of conscience is the foundation for all human liberty, something that reflects the very nature of the human person. It is not a privilege granted by the state. A limited, constitutional government created to protect individual liberty has an obligation to respect religious beliefs, even — indeed, especially — unpopular ones." 

Contraceptive coverage is negated by individual and religious liberty assured by the Constitution. This is coupled with the obvious fact that contraceptives are readily available and not an important health issue like cancer, diabetes, and so forth. If you have a lifestyle as Ms. Fluke or other people, you should continue to have individual responsibility of paying for own contraceptives or choose a private insurance policy. 


If you have time, please read that entire article by Doug Bandow, it is a work of sheer brilliance. 


Now I will briefly rant on Obama calling Ms. Fluke. Obama said he called Fluke because he thought of his daughters. Super Obama wore his tights and cape at the press conference today. He was "defending" woman everywhere, not just Fluke. He called an encouraged Fluke and thanked her. One word: appalling! 


Our president has an economic crisis, dilemma with potential war, and European economic instability. Not to mention, jobs are scarce and gas prices are out-of-control. He calls this Fluke girl who wants free contraceptives in order to not pay for her sexual lifestyle to encourage her. Is this a role model for every American girl, Mr. President? Is she courageous? Is he worth your time? Are you not just playing politics? Put up your superhero outfit back in your closet and put on your "presidential" clothes and get to work dealing with more pressing issues at hand. 


May I make a suggestion for a courageous woman for Obama to call?  How about the Indiana mother who shielded her own body over her children to protect them from the tornado and lost both her legs? Oh, have you called Agent Terry's family yet, Mr. President? You know, the American border agent who was killed by guns that were given to the cartels under your administration? Did you call his family to encourage them and to tell them thank you for raising such a brave American hero? 


The Utopian Statists want you to believe that there is a "war on woman" launched by the "sexist" conservatives. Obama, like a true failed leader, panders to that. This isn't about war or woman's health. Contraceptives is for both sexes. Why isn't Obama and his liberal cronies talking about free coverage for males? Isn't that sexist? Obama and company want you the American to focus on sex, woman's health, and condoms instead of his failed policies that have greatly harmed this country. 


I wrote this to inform you the absurdity of it all and the illegality that poses a threat to our liberty. Now, move on from this and do not accept this as ground to debate on with the Libs. Stay strong and continue to fight to get this guy out of office. Keep the debate on his failed policies and failed leadership. Don't get sucked into a "woman's health" dialogue on contraceptives because it is rubbish. 


**************************************************************************
Great article on this subject written by two woman of different faiths.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/altmuslimah/post/beyond-the-war-on-women-its-about-religious-liberty-not-birth-control/2012/03/06/gIQAK5ArwR_blog.html