Why I Stand with Rand

Rand Paul CPAC 2015 Full Speech: http://youtu.be/AXJOcBfcH3s

"There is an undercurrent of unease in our society. Liberal policies have failed our inner cities, poor communities, and our schools are not equal. The poverty gap continues to widen.

Time for a New Way predicated on opportunity and freedom."

He mentions a plan that cuts taxes across the board along with cutting spending. He's smart of enough to know that we must do both. His plan balances the budget in 5 years.

He also proposed something so radical. He said every member of Congress should read the bills and not just pass legislation without reading the fine print. So radical, huh? He also has a radical notion that Congress should submit themselves under the laws they pass. He proposes an Amendment to the Constitution that says Congress should pass no law that exempts themselves. If they don't listen, then limit their terms and send the career politicians back home.

Rand also says that our security needs to be balanced with our rights. Our Bill of Rights must be held up completely. He says that too often Conservatives who believe the Government is incompetent to run things domestically can however do things so competent overseas. Our international presence must be reassessed. Common sense both domestically and internationally needs to be reinstated. This is why I Stand with Rand.

Also, he's against the War on Drugs, pro legalization of marijuana/hemp, voting rights for felons, stopping the constant rush into wars and other entanglements overseas. He's got a great mix of Libertarian and Constitutional Conservatism. He can bridge different ideologies and has shown this by working with Liberals on a variety of issues.

I started yelling President Paul in my living room watching this. I'm very excited for 2016 and I'm gonna Stand with Rand!

The Good Doctor

Rand Paul Heads To Guatemala To Conduct Charity Eye Surgeries. http://tiny.iavian.net/2qgu

Dr. Rand is a great humanitarian who yearly conducts pro Bono eye surgeries. His heart is bigger than his politics which makes his political clout all the more formidable.

Politicians who push pro Liberty policies and who voice a limited government and an aggrandizement of individual liberty message tend to he attacked for lacking "heart." I'm sure you've heard those old and pathetic arguments that Liberty supporters don't "care" for say, the poor and others. If Dr. Rand Paul's and other Liberty advocate's words and logically sound arguments with facts don't silence the false attacks; then let our actions, especially the potential Republican presidential nomination's actions, dismiss them.

Jefferson Got it Right from the Beginning

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson, http://www.bq4android.com/android/quotes/getQuote.php?id=898

You see? This is a simple fact about government and it's relationship to the individual under government. It's like an economic fact of supply and demand. Oh, how far we have drifted from this truth.

Libertarian Surge-The Rand Paul Surge

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446_full.html#.U0PuiHPD_qA

This time it wasn’t “Atlas Shrugged” or “The Road to Serfdom” that shot up on the best-seller lists, it was another libertarian classic: George Orwell’s “1984,” known for its warning that “Big Brother is watching.”

As it says in my favorite novel and on this blog, "If there is hope, it lies with the proles." The surge is real and is dependent on the American people to rise up and revolutionize this country not in brand new ideas but old rejected ideas-ideas of liberty, limited government, Constitutional governance, and peace. Rand Paul is the bridge for Libertarians, Conservatives, and Moderates to connect us all together and join in this surge to take back our out-of-control government. It lies with you and me. Just like in 1984, the proles made up 80% of the country of Oceania while the rest either worked for the Inner Party, called the Outer Party; or those fortunate few that were rich and ultra powerful made up the Inner Party. We the people have untold power to stop the abuses of power, the anti constitutional behavior, the spying on American citizens, stop the constant spending, and stop all these militaristic interventions over seas. Now we have a leader and a true strong advocate for liberty and limited government in Rand Paul. The surge is behind him.

“Your right to privacy is under assault.”

Rand Paul gets standing ovation at Berkeley: ‘Your right to privacy is under assault’ http://tiny.iavian.net/235q @drudgereportapp

Rand Paul is something special and is turning the political spectrum upside down. He's no ordinary Republican. This Libertarian leaning Constitutional Conservative has fans not only on the Right but also those on the Left. Things like privacy and government spying is something that touches the nerves of all Americans no matter their politics. Rand Paul is making this known. He's a very formidable foe for the Democrats in 2016 and a great voice for the Liberty Movement. The threat is real and Rand Paul is the answer.

Are we still as a people still independent?

As Benjamin Franklin said and our Founders knew, those who trade liberty for safety get neither.
 by John Heckel.

Our Founders did not fight a revolution against tyranny simply to institute a similar government on their own soil. It’s been 237 years since they declared not only their independence but their rejection of a long train of abuses and tyrannies. Reading the Declaration of Independence today I find that their concerns still resonate as government insists that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, and pat down any individual at any time.

As Benjamin Franklin said and our Founders knew, those who trade liberty for safety get neither. This is not simply a Republican versus Democrat issue. It is about people who believe in the Constitution and individual rights versus politicians in both parties who don’t. This isn't about party, but about people who believe in limited government against those who think it is unlimited.

We should heed the Founders’ warning: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Today’s government is one that our Founders warned us about.

[I had this published in the Pensacola News Journal on Independence Day 2013]

Jumping Blindfold: A Disastrous Decision in December '41

My memories of the last war haunted my dreams for years. Military service, to be plain, includes the threat of every temporal evil; pain and death, which is what we fear from sickness; isolation from those we love, which is what we fear from exile; toil under arbitrary masters, which is what we fear from slavery: hunger, thirst, and exposure which is what we fear from poverty. I'm not a pacifist. If it's got to be it's got to be. But the flesh is weak and selfish, and I think death would be much better than to live through another war. C.S. Lewis

The ever witty and wise, Paul Johnson once exclaimed, "Jumping blindfold off a temple is, in fact, an accurate image of the Japanese decision to go to war." (Modern Times, pg 391) 

The infamous Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto has been  erroneously quoted by Hollywood as saying, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." He didn't say this but I am very sure he would agree to that misquote. He was very troubled after attacking the US and knew that Japan couldn't win a war against the US. In his striking book, The Reluctant Admiral, Hiroyuki Agawa revealed that "Yamamoto was alone" and was "sunk in depression" after the December 7th bombing of Pearl Harbor. 

Most of Japan, especially her military, were partying with barrels of Sake and Noh Mai'ing on tables. However, Yamamoto was alone and melancholy. Why was little Isoroku so sad? Well, he is noted by many historians and by works of history that he knew they couldn't win against America and her allies. Can you imagine serving your country and going to war knowing you are going to lose? Yamamoto was working for some ignoramus power hungry zealots who lacked reason. Yamamoto was not of that ilk. He was rationale, pragmatic, and intuitive; but he was a soldier who had his "honor" to his country. Tragically, bloodied-hand tyrants required his "honor." Also, you were threatened by assassination or worst, removal. Wait, that's backwards or is it?

 In Modern Times, Paul Johnson wrote that the Emperor himself was threatened with assassination if he opposed the war strategy (pg 389.) So, if your "god on earth" emperor (Divinity of the Emperor) is being told what to do and that war against the US was going to happen, then Yamamoto had to bury those worries deep with a bunch of Sake. This next quote will make you go for more rice wine. Another admiral, Nagano, said, "If I am told to fight regardless of consequences, I shall run wild considerable for the six months or a year. But I have utterly no confidence in the second or third years " (Modern Times, pg 389.) 

Sounds like a good start to begin a war, right? Why should this surprise us? Japan is not the only nation who "jumped blindfolded" with starting wars. They had a grand and glorious plan of controlling the ocean and all the islands in the pacific. They were going to use all those resources to make their country mighty and sustain power for centuries. They would be safer with a whole hemisphere in their grasp. No more oil embargoes would hurt them. Their plans were trumped up and legitimized through political rhetoric and flawed traditions that tasted sweet at first but once you really digested the noble plans or ideas, it became very bitter. It was bitter from the beginning with Yamamoto. 

 America, although, not an aggressor like the Empire of Japan was, has jumped blindfolded in our pursuits in noble wars that were not only foolish but illegal and morally wrong. Wars that were legitimized through rhetoric and fear mongering.  

I know what you are thinking? No! WWII was a necessary war.

Those bombs that dropped on Pearl Harbor were our invitation to join. America was attacked and the conquest of Europe threatened Americans and America's sovereignty. America and the rest of the free world was in danger and we rightfully awoke from slumber after December 7th, 1941. The greatest fighting force in the world took on tyranny and defended liberty. America fought and persevered from that "date that would live in infamy" and the small remnant of liberty that remains today is because of the sacrifices and unbelievable courage of Americans in those dark days. This great achievement must not, along with other necessary wars, be used to justify those unnecessary wars. We must not jump blindfolded for "spreading democracy" or some other rhetoric phrase. Conquest, aggression, and tyrannical occupation of other countries are not the only wrong reasons for war. 

Yamamoto was an officer for his Emperor's army who did his job as a soldier. Yet, he was blinded against his will by the decision of the leadership and they made one very disastrous decision in December of '41 that left their country decimated from two atomic bombs. Devastation and death was also suffered by our men and women of the military and civilians at Pearl Harbor. Over 1200 lives were lost. They are nothing less than heroes who's deaths should never be forgotten. Let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed because of their leaders jumping blindfolded. I am not asking for your sympathy towards the Japanese over the American's lives. War is the focal point here. War seems proven time and time again, over history and all the accounts recorded, to be a blindfolded jump with very few instances of clear justification. America was of course justified in engaging and war was legally declared and it was managed properly with liberty as the goal and nothing else. This disastrous decision in December '41 must never be forgotten nor should the impact and decisions to go to war. 

WW2 Pics (Pacific) 

P.S. The Japanese soldiers were vicious, cruel, soulless, torturous, heartless, rapists, murderers, and just animals. They needed to be dealt with brutal force and we gave it to them but not after much carnage, especially the women that were brutalized. 

Lady Liberty is Crying

The gift was ten years late. 

The Pedestal of Lady of Liberty

It was 1876, and the centennial celebration was underway for that glorious day back in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. America and France were in negotiations and plans to construct the famous gift of "Lady Liberty," aka, Statue of Liberty. Construction started in the 1860's and was planned to be completed by the Centennial Celebration of 1876. America agreed to construct the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty to rest on. France constructed the rest of Lady Liberty. Fundraising was actually hard to attain for this statue on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the time, the men, and the materials arranged also added to the delay. So, ten years off the due date, the Statue of Liberty was delivered to New York Harbor. President Grover Cleveland gave the dedication speech. These words are not widely known nor are they reproduced like other presidential speech lines (ie. JFK's "what you can do for your country"). However, the passage was profound and a promise. A promise that has not been kept. 


What were President Cleveland's powerful words that have been predominately left on the dust heap of history? 

We will not forget that liberty here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected.

America is the home for liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835 and had some of the most awe-inspiring statements about America that modern day American politicians can't even come close to saying. What is more sad is that Tocqueville was a French citizen and his words can't be matched now-a-days. If so, it is with a small group of virtuous politicians. In reference to America being the home for liberty, Tocqueville said the following:

Americans believe their freedom to be the best instrument and surest safeguard of their welfare . . .that their chief business is to secure for themselves a government which will allow them to acquire the things they covet and which will not debar them from the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions which they have already acquired.

Tocqueville further said, "At the present time, the liberty of association has become the necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority." What Tocqueville was proclaiming in his great work was that America was a home for liberty where the individual had soverigenty and rights as opposed to a tyrannical democratic majority. His book had the title of democracy but Tocqueville was excited that this young country had a type of Democracy that extolled individual liberty and protected it. In fact, the US was not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic. What is more, Tocqueville said, "...the Federal Constitution...disavowed beforehand the habitual use of compulsion in enforcing the decision of the majority." He continues, "The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for that of violence and to place a legal barrier between the government and the use of physical force." Some of our Founding Fathers agreed with Tocqueville. Benjamin Franklin said, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." You guessed it, it was America that Franklin abode. He also said, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." 

Lady Liberty was a gift bestowed by other men but her meaning is rooted deep into the intertwining of America's fabric. Benjamin Franklin said in reference to America's purpose: 

"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country." 

The love of liberty was the purpose. America was the home of liberty. 

Now, what about the altar? What was President Cleveland talking about when he said, "nor shall her chosen altar be neglected." That sounds religious. I know you Progressives are just mad has heck seeing that word. There is something sacred about the word altar. I think Thomas Jefferson described it best when he wrote to Benjamin Rush, another Founding Father. He said, "...for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." So, there is a link between God and the altar that President Cleveland was talking about. America was and supposedly still is a Christian nation. I am a Libertarian and I do agree upon historical fact of our founding that America is a Christian nation. On the contrary, I am not obligated to believe that morality and personal choice needs to be legislated by the Government. However, this means that there is something sacred to America's love of liberty. There is something sacred to America's original intent to fighting the War for Independence, to writing the Constitution, and to form a Government independent of foreign rule. Liberty is sacred and tyranny is evil. 

The question is now posed to our current generation. Have we neglected Lady Liberty's chosen altar? I can go down the line of the tyrannical moves by our government over the last 20 years. Yet, we are currently under the Obama administration and I will focus on that. Apart from his various unconstitutional moves, (ie. using Executive Powers improperly) under Obama, two bills have passed with his signature that have neglected the altar. 


First, the NDAA bill sadly passed, which declares the American homeland as another "front" to the "War on Terror." Furthermore, it allows Americans to be indefinitely detained. All Americans are now "terror suspects." We even now have drones flying around in the sky to spy on Americans. I discussed the NDAA more in a previous entry regarding liberty and security here.

Second, the already infamous, Obamacare or what I liked to call, Marxistcare was passed. It was then solidified by faulty reasoning by the Supreme Court. I'm sure our good comrades from past to present, like Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and our Red buddy, Hugo Chavez are honored by this achievement. Oh, and let's not forget the greedy Progressives that are making millions off this new Communist system of healthcare, like Obama's campaign strategist and crony, David Axelrod. Check out this article that lays it all out. 


Lady Liberty was not only assaulted, she was beaten to a bloody pulp with Obamacare. Liberty was supposed to be protected by the sacred Constitution. Obamacare is unconstitutional. The government can't force an individual to enter into private contract or to purchase anything for just existing. The government can't force the individual to enter commerce. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did strike down the argument for the Commerce Clause. But this is where the whole bill needed to be struck down. The mandate was rendered unconstitutional but Roberts, the surprise swing vote, erroneously reasoned that it was a tax. He and some of the other Progressive justices rewrote the Bill. Obama and his cronies argued that it was not a tax. The government's attorneys argued that it wasn't a tax. Even more outrageously, the lawyers argued alongside the non-tax argument that it was a tax at some instances. This was because the IRS was going to enforce it. 


Now, I know the political maneuvering by the Republicans is to say that it is a tax. This is fine because it technically is now and this is a massive tax on Americans. Hence, it is a wrong move by a incumbent president nearing the end of his first term and up for re-election. But, putting politics aside, this was a loss for liberty not a gain. 


Lady Liberty is crying. Our country has moved from being the home of liberty to the facilitator of tyranny. The individual can now be compelled, coerced, and forced by the violent arm of the government to do whatever said Government wants. Any unconstitutional acts of Congress that assess penalties accompanied along with a mandate can now be rationalized as a "tax." It can be rationalized because the IRS will enforce and that there is ignorant Supreme Court precedence to support it. Our healthcare system is now on the road to other failed systems throughout Europe and even our above neighbor, Canada. Canada's supreme court declared in Chaoulli v. Quebec that their government mandated and centralized control over the healthcare system was violating human rights. Source

Below is a video of the political progressive hack economist, Kruegman, asking some Canadian students whether their healthcare system was terrible. He first asked them to raise their hands if they are Canadian. He then asked how many of them believed their system was terrible. All hands remained. Please watch.

Individual liberty and its protection by the Constitution has become irrelevant. The Constitution is perceived by many and sadly, many in our Government as nothing more than a paper document. Our liberty is then nothing more than a word written on paper. Lady Liberty is nothing more than a statue. The sacred altar that she rests on is just kooky old, American religious talk. Liberty is something that just crazy Right-wing racists talk about. What is more, the FBI now considers you a terrorist  if you have a love or strong desire for individual liberty. Government tyranny is the most reasonable and compassionate. Individual liberty and creating success and wealth is selfish and greedy.

Will you be a son and daughter of liberty to continue carrying on that torch in Lady Liberty's hand? We must fight to preserve individual liberty. We must debate, warn, write, vote, and just get involved to effect our political system for good. To bring back leaders like Grover Cleveland and our Founding Fathers who spoke and believed that America was the home for liberty and that we must not neglect the sacred altar. Lady Liberty is crying as were many liberty-minded Americans when Marxistcare was upheld. However, girls don't cry, they get even. Lady Liberty still carries the torch and so can you. I know I will.

AUGUSTINE ON FREEDOM

AUGUSTINE ON FREEDOM

by Contributing Author, Jacob Enwechter

            The question of what it means to be free is at the heart of every religion and comprehensive philosophy.  The Buddhist system seeks to avoid suffering through desire and to be released from the cycle of rebirth.  When that release happens, one is fully free and until then, he must seek to avoid seeking anything with an inordinate covetousness.  The Islamic faith promotes an unyielding submission to Allah’s will.  One must serve and earn his way to paradise which will ultimately be his freedom.  Judaism waits for the Messiah who will liberate them from their constant oppressors and establish a geo-political rule on Earth.  Until then, Yahweh demands obedience to the law and the prophets.  In philosophy, freedom has been sought through various thought experiments. It seems the underlying problem with philosophy that every philosopher knows, is that a given paradigm for understanding the world is likely to be dismissed shortly after it is put to the page.  There is no everlasting truth and so freedom would mean finding the ultimate (and unshakeable) answer to life’s greatest questions.   For any seeker exploring this question of what it means to be free, Saint Augustine of Hippo offers a most profound rendition of the Christian answer.  According to Augustine, freedom is effected in man when Jesus fixes his broken and enslaved will. 

Of course, this answer to the question presupposes a particular problem.  If one is to ask what it means for man to be free, he must first ask what it means for man to be enslaved. What is it about reality that so burden’s and weakens the heart of a human being?  What is the ultimate problem that leads to the evils so prevalent in this world?  Augustine touches on the root of the matter in his Confessions.  As Peter Brown examines this text, he extracts Augustine’s answer to the question of man’s ultimate problem:  “In the Confessions we are faced with the full force of Augustine’s new awareness of the limitations of human freedom…For when a man came to wish to choose the good, he found himself unable to follow his conscious choice wholeheartedly” (166).  All people know the feeling of regret and it is this feeling which flows from a broken will. 

            If one were to step back in a moment of reflection, Augustine would have him notice that an ineffectual will is indeed an odd and strange element of the individual’s experience.  He expresses the perplexity inherent to the issue saying, “What is the cause of this monstrous situation…The mind commands the body and is instantly obeyed.  The mind commands itself and meets resistance…The mind orders the mind to will.  The recipient of the order is itself, yet it does not perform it” (Conf. VIII, ix, 21).  Why do humans not perform what their wills desire?  This question is in need of an answer.  Did God make man broken?  Was he drunk when he created the world?  What religious or philosophical system most adequately explains this phenomenon?

            Under the influence of Neo-Platonists, Augustine comes up with a rather philosophical answer.  He sees evil as an absence of good and this plays into the general problem with man’s will.  Stanley Hopper clarifies Augustine’s point in a chapter of the book, A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, saying, “Evil is an unsubstantial negation, and sin arises solely in the weakness of human wills” (161).  From this point of view, man’s weakness is only the result of a loss of his full potential.  This coincides well with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and explains man’s imprisoned condition.  Augustine concludes, “So the will that commands is incomplete, and therefore what it commands does not happen.  If it were complete, it would not need to command the will to exist, since it would exist already” (Conf. VIII, ix, 21).  From the nature of willing, he sees that there is something inherently dysfunctional about man’s volitions.

            Further, he points out what results from a will in conflict with itself.  He infers, “The consequence of a distorted will is passion.  By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes necessity.  By these links, as it were, connected one to another (hence my term a chain), a harsh bondage held me under restraint” (Conf. VIII, v, 10).  If one desires to do good and desires to do evil, eventually only passion will decide between the unyielding wills.  And that passion leads to habits which come to enslave one against his or her original intentions.  This is Augustine’s answer to the question of what the problem with man is:  he is enslaved to the confusion of his conflicting wills. 

            Now, how does one become free of this bondage?  The Buddhist explanation would be that he ought to cease from desiring a reconciliation of these wills.  One must come to a state of Nirvana where all duality dissolves into the illusion it supposedly is.  On the other hand, Augustine says that mere thought cannot free the will.  Only an act of God’s Spirit and subsequent response from the enslaved can make one free.  Robert Cushman summarizes this saying,

Augustine perceived in the merely rational approach to God an internal contradiction:  it cannot reach God because it does not want to have God.  It withholds commitment until it has sight; but it cannot achieve sight until it yields commitment.  The rational approach to God does not perceive that it founders upon the original sinfulness of the human heart (A Companion, 301).

Augustine thought that a commitment of one’s active life was necessary to reaching a state of provisional freedom. 

            Cushman continues along this train of thought.  He says, “As Augustine will have it, men are born blind in Adam and need Christ to awaken them.  But this is the only shorthand of his real meaning.  Knowledge of God waits upon re-cognition of God” (A Companion, 305).  Freedom only comes through a spiritual encounter with God where the will is surrendered to him.  Cushman elaborates, “It is not that reason is impotent or that it is inherently corrupted, but that it is perverted by the will…Thereby real cognition of God is at the same time the dissolution of the bondage of the will to self-love.” There is an aspect of “surrendering” to God in such an interaction with him.  Augustine’s view is said plainly by Cushman “The will is the problem.  The solution was the divine Visitant and the divine Emancipator.  The Word made flesh, the Mediator, so moves the will that man is enabled to love the good of which he has been aware without acknowledgement” (A Companion, 306).  The implication here is that man is utterly unable to free himself, but must be “enabled” by the Spirit of God.  This is of great concern; for if freedom means no bondage to one’s will, then how exactly is this accomplished? 

            Augustine seems to imply that one’s twisted will makes him responsible before God, but then only allows God to fix it.  If man is incapable of achieving his own salvation, then why is he judged for the sins of his ancient ancestor, Adam?  Why is he “condemned already?”  Augustine’s own words seem to betray him because he sees the will as that which makes one responsible, while positing a supernatural being that “has a grip on” his will.  He blames the Devil for his wretched state saying, “I sighed after such freedom, but was bound not by an iron imposed by anyone else but by the iron of my own choice.  The enemy had a grip on my will and so made a chain for me to hold me a prisoner” (emphasis mine, Conf. VIII, v, 10).  He says it was the enemy and his own choice that enslaved him.  Therefore, it is not purely his own will which kept him imprisoned, but the Devil played a role as well.  Because of this, only another being which is more powerful than Augustine and the Devil could free him.  In fact, this is exactly how he views his conversion.  In book VIII (xii, 30) he says that God converted him through the sound of a child saying, “Pick up and read.”  What does this mean that “God’ converted him?  Did he not make a decision to obey?

            If he believes that every human is enslaved to his or her will, then this implies only another being could free him.  If this is so, then how is he not espousing the kind of gnostic Calvinism that leads ultimately to fatalism?  In his book, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, John M. Rist seeks to dispel the idea that this is Augustine’s view.  He writes,

He was not denying that the will is free to choose.  He was asserting that only the wrong choices are possible unless the will is properly repaired and maintained by God.  Hence, if it chooses badly, it is nothing but the will that chooses; if it chooses well, the will is ‘prepared’ by God, or, as Augustine eventually puts it, it enjoys full freedom (summa libertas), freedom being a condition in which the soul is in harmony with, and subject to, the truth and the will and love of God (187). 

In this interpretation, Augustine is proposing that the will is enabled to choose the good only by an act of God.  He is not saying that the will must choose the good when it is enabled by God (i.e. irresistible grace).  God does not force the will to choose, but only enables it. 

            If that is his understanding of how freedom is effected then there is great hope for every man.  As the Apostle John said, Jesus is the light “which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  If God’s justice be assumed, then one might guess that God enables every man to choose the good at some point.  Freedom is not found through contemplation, nor through mere submission to God, but through an act of God enabling the will to function aright. 

            This freedom must be qualified because Augustine sees liberty in this life as provisional.  His own conversion was a turning point, not a complete fix of his broken will.  Brown points this out saying, “The tastes of Augustine’s age demanded a dramatic story of conversion…No such dramatic experience should delude his readers into believing that they would so easily cast off their past identity” (171).  To be free in this life means to choose the good as much as the Spirit empowers the will to do so.  It is a foretaste of heaven where God’s presence heals every will in the bond of his love.  Concerning Augustine’s writing, Brown continues, “The amazing Book Ten of the Confessions is not the affirmation of a cured man:  it is the self-portrait of a convalescent.”  Though the convert to Christianity will only be a convalescent in this life, there remains the most profound and immediate sense of freedom in acknowledging Jesus Christ. 

            In searching through the many answers to the question of what it means for man to be free, Augustine’s revelation that it means living according to one’s God-inspired willing, is a profound Christian answer.  Not only does it identify the core problem with every man, but this answer offers a hope for every man through the sacrifice of Jesus.  How many work a daily job under the influence of other factors that confuse their first will?  How many have murdered, stolen, fornicated, hated, or failed at some task which was but a result of a conflicted will?  This is slavery as St. Paul wrote in Romans 6:16, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”  Augustine says that the unredeemed power to choose is overrated; one can only choose sin.  Christ’s Spirit is the only agent that can free the human soul from its inherent brokenness and return it to the purity it once possessed in that garden of innocence.      

Works Cited

Augustine.  Saint Augustine’s Confessions.  Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford:  Oxford       University Press, 1998.

Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography.  Berkeley and Los Angeles:  University Of         California Press. 2000.

Cushman Robert E.  “Chapter XI, Faith And Reason.” in Roy W. Battenhouse (ed.).  A    Companion to the Study of St. Augustine. Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1979.

Hopper, Stanley.  “Chapter VI:  The Anti-Manichean Writings.” in Roy W. Battenhouse (ed.).  A             Companion to the Study of St. Augustine. Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1979.

Rist, John M. Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press,     1995. 

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.

Top Three Myths about Immigration | LearnLiberty

Top Three Myths about Immigration | LearnLiberty

This video is very intriguing. Libertarians tend to not all agree on every issue, just like Conservatives and Liberals. Open borders is an issue that I disagree with that is held by both Libertarians and Liberals.

However, it doesn't mean that there are myths on the side of arguments whether for or against the affects of immigration. You have those on the extreme right below, as parodied by the creators of South Park. You also have those on the extreme Left who believe its our fault, as the white Americans who stole the land from Mexico; and we are this rich, imperial, greedy, heartless, people that have caused all this illegality chaotic affect of illegal immigration. They are those on the extreme Left that align themselves with the militant La Raza, being translated, "The Race." I am very certain that if white Americans created a group called, "The Race," they wouldn't be around for too long.

Of course, there are those who intentionally create a myth that those who want a stop to illegal immigration and to enforce current immigration laws somehow want to "prevent" all immigration through. You can't say that illegal  immigrants are "stealing" our jobs but you could say that they are not only a security risk but also help in the economic downturn with their flooding the "welfare state."

You see, it is disigenuous to not bring in the debate the entitlement society and how Welfare is increased with illegal immigration. See reports here, here, here, here.

It could be possible for open borders to work if we didn't have such a behemoth, welfare state. But I also tend to believe in secure borders and a nation of laws, even as a Classical Liberal. Because, I believe that our liberties such as individual, property, and life must be protected by a government limited in power but not limited in enforcing laws that protect Americans. A protection that includes financial burden.

Being an advocate for liberty doesn't mean complete anarchism, no laws, and no defined border that is protected. I don't put my country behind and say that our Constitutional "liberties" must stretch to those who illegally enter and take advantage of the entitlement society, further weighing down the costs on every American. The Constitution does not allow or include non-citizens that break the law to live in the country illegally. This may seem rigid, but a free society is rigid. It takes rigid individualism that requires hard work and a principled devotion to law, family, and to other individuals.

I want to know what you think. Please comment and debate. Tweet your comments or questions. Comment on Facebook under this posting. Immigration is an important topic and all people of ideology need to come together to fix the problem and help speed up the legal immigration process.

How Liberty Found Me

If you are new to this blog or a current follower, I want to share with you the meaning of the title, Son of Liberty. I am not doing this just for the sole reason of me finding a home-made video by Jim Bob in his garage with his buddies called The Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia, on YouTube. I would provide a link but then I would be promoting them.

So, first, I am not part of a militia call the Sons of Liberty. But if you are a supporter or member of a militia; I do want to clarify that I am not condemning them as they are protected by the constitution.

Second, although I do appreciate the important work of the original Sons of Liberty, the Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry; the blog is not named after them. Although it should be noted, that they secured our Bill of Rights and we wouldn't have any liberty in the Constitution without their work.

I have digressed but now I will delve into the meaning in my blog title.

At first, you may think this blog is purely about politics. Well, you would be wrong. I do cover politics. I love politics...at times. As you will see in the above title box, this blog covers a number of topics. But at the core is liberty.

To better understand my philosophy and the overall purpose of this blog, you must first cognitively grasp the idea of liberty. Liberty can be more specifically defined for this article as "individual liberty." Without individual liberty it is impossible to have a free society with a small non-intrusive government. To be free of foreign invaders is not enough. Liberty can not be thought of as being something we need constant wars for. As James Madison confessed, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” I will not go in great detail in the times in history but you can do your own research and see such examples as the Japanese-American detainment camps during WW2. It is foolish to just sit back and be at peace in your mind thinking that since we can just keep starting wars and sending our soldiers to occupy/police then we have "liberty."

Wars, patriotic rhetoric from politicians, Acts by Congress, and even those promises from your ideal Republican running for the Office do not define nor preserve individual liberty. Man does not create liberty.

My philosophy on individual liberty can be found in agreement with Frederic Bastiat's The Law. He said the following:

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Ref.

"Liberty existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" is one of the most powerful statements in the history of mankind, especially for America. Not only is this powerful but true. Liberty is a Natural right, same as life and property. Without individual liberty, you do not have your property rights or your right to life. We have seen when our lives and property can be regulated and even defined "because men have made laws." We have a property tax even on property that is owned outright. Human life in the womb is considered "not human" enough to have a "right to life."

Our daily life choices our regulated now on the part of Utopians on the Left and Utopians on the Right. On both sides of the ideological fence there are those who uphold the "community" against individual liberty. Individual liberty is viewed as dangerous to the community because it is erroneously thought of as "destructive." Those on the Left want to restrict liberty and force them to take care of the less fortunate. Furthermore, they also want liberty restricted for the sake of a unrealistic "noble" government to make our choices for us. On the other hand, you have those on the Right who view uninhibited individual liberty as a threat to the whole community on pure moral grounds. However, "morals" are created by the Left also to justify force and theft of individuals for their programs. Now, the Right tends to merely restrict individual liberty and not force afterwards. An example would be the "War on drugs." Individuals should be restricted from using "street" drugs on themselves such as marijuana because it is viewed as a "moral threat."  The Right also tends to restrict liberty for security reasons. They will publicly rail on the Left about "big government" but at the same time they use "big government" for their ideological whims.

There are many examples of Statists on the Left but I want to give a specific example of a Statist on the Right. You might know him, his name is "Slick" Rick Santorum. He thinks individual liberty is "radical individualism." He criticizes the beliefs on the "Libertarianish Right." His logic is so flawed that he even makes himself sound like a fool by adding "ish" at the end of Libertarian. Just watch this video clip of his pathetic reasoning.

The Declaration of Independence defines individual liberty as the "pursuit of happiness." Our pursuit for happiness has been under attack from the Left and the Right. It is "radical" for us to have individual liberty to pursue our happiness in life with freedom of choice. 

It's very simple. We have individual liberty which entails our right to life and to our property. However, we can not use our liberty to harm others or to take away other people's liberties. That's where the role of government comes in. It is there to protect our liberties and to bring to justice those that harm others. Our government isn't there to conduct Left-wing or Right-wing social engineering. We the people put together government to protect our liberty not to define it or restrict it. Karl Popper said it best, in his classic work, The Open Society and It's Enemies Part I:

“Such arguments in favor of utopian engineering exhibit a prejudice which is as widely held as it is untenable, namely, that social experiments must be on a ‘large scale’…The Utopian engineer we are opposing is right when he stresses that an experiment in socialism would be of little value if carried out under laboratory conditions, for instance, in an isolated village…But this very example shows where the prejudice of the Utopian engineer lies.  He is convinced that we must recast the whole structure of society, when we experiment with it…But the kind of experiment from which we can learn most is the alteration of one social institution at a time.  For only in this way can we learn how to fit institutions into the framework of other institutions, and how to adjust them so that they work according to our intentions.  And only in this way can we make mistakes, and learn from our mistakes, without risking repercussions of the gravity that must endanger the will of future reforms.  Furthermore, the Utopian method must lead to a dangerous dogmatic attachment to a blue print for which countless sacrifices have been made.  Powerful interests must become linked up with the success of the experiment.  All this does not contribute to the rationality, or to the scientific value, of the experiment…(Piecemeal engineering)—and not Utopian planning or historical prophecy—would mean the introduction of scientific method into politics, since the whole secret of scientific method is a readiness to learn from mistakes.” (Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Part I, [New Jersey:  Princeton University Press, 1962], 162-163.)

How did Liberty find me? Well, I was born like every other human baby fighting for freedom in the darkness of the womb. I was born not under any "rights" created by man but under the Natural rights afforded to us by our Creator. If you are a Christian then you understand about liberty in the spiritual sense. Liberty first found me through the grace of Jesus. I was very much bound to my own frailty as a human and the transgressions that I commit through life. Christ set me free and Liberty found me.

You see, my Christian belief is protected because of individual liberty. Under individual liberty you can worship who or what you want. You can join whatever religion. We wouldn't have religious liberty without the understanding of individual liberty. Liberty was not just in my religious beliefs, it became more real through my love of History, literature, poetry, philosophy, and economics.

I heard a radio talk-show host say, "I hated being told what to do growing up but I respected authority, especially the authority of my parents." This is exactly what my mindset was growing up. I hated being told what to do because inside my heart liberty was dear. However, I understood that I had authority over me that was supposed to be there. So, I respected it. Now, there were times I rebelled like everyone else because we are only human. Authority whether right or wrong will be resisted by people.

Without liberty, there wouldn't be such great works of literature, poetry, and overall works of history. We have those to read, enjoy, and learn from because of liberty. However, there have been those that use their liberty to evoke change in society to restrain liberty. It is those works that we must be weary of and fight their influence on others. Furthermore, we must fight to derail their paths to implantation in our society through legislation, regulation, and judicial rulings.

From my studies of the Magna Carter to the Pilgrims landing in the New World to the War for American Independence to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution; liberty was very real to me but did not mature till the year 2008. I spent the previous 8 years thinking that liberty could be defined and played with by the government under Bush. I saw nothing wrong with a "big government" and believed that Republicans had our best interests. I was dead wrong.

Like a lot of Conservatives and Liberals, I believed a lie that we need Big Brother to say what liberty is and just take care of us. Whether through war or welfare, I used to believe that our liberty is defined by our "noble" leaders in our government. I at first was liking the Democrats because of how they respected civil liberties and didn't want the destitute to go without help. Yet, I studied their failed policies and flawed logic and found my self more philosophically in line with Republican leaders in history. However, I blindly followed Republican leadership and policies. I was a drone to that party.

Liberty finally found me and shook me to my senses when I started reading John Locke, Bastiat, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Jefferson. I also read great works of literature like 1984 by George Orwell.

It all reached a climax in 2008 when I saw Ron Paul speak at a debate. I was dumbfounded to hear a Conservative speak about how liberty is under assault by the very so called "Conservative principles" that the Republican party have been evoking. War, excessive taxation, government growth, and out-of-control spending have been eroding our individual liberty and both damn parties have allowed it to happen. He would say things like, "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.' Ref. And he would say, "There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator [sic] and our liberty comes from our creator [sic]. It has nothing to do with government granting it.' Ref. He also said, "You don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected." :Ref. He also talked about the destruction of the dollar and inflation caused by our Republicans and Democrats through their "laws." 


He was the only one who truly believed in individual liberty without government intrusion. He didn't align himself with Democrat or Republican ideology. He, like myself, aligns himself with liberty, above all else. 


I am a son of Liberty and my parents are my Creator and the State of Nature where Liberty was before man. This blog is where you can be informed and enlightened on individual liberty. What is more, this blog embraces all different works, topics, and ideas where our individual liberty allows us to have discourse and debate. Join my site and follow this blog to be a son or daughter of Liberty.