New Iranian President's Hollow Promises

A new president but the same old tyrannical lunacy. 

I was reading articles on the Guardian today and came across this. The new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was sworn in. He offered surprising promises of "moderation and respect." He even promised to "protect individual rights." Here is an excerpt below from the article discussing his speech:

"People want change," said the new president, who described himself as the representative of all Iranian people and not only those who voted for him in the election. "People want to live better, to have dignity as well as a stable life. They also want to recapture their deserving position among nations," he said.
He also pledged to promote women's rights and advance equality for women in society, despite proposing a cabinet of all men. 

Now, I left out the part when he talked about foreign policy, peace talks, and interventionism. I want to focus on his sketchy promises regarding individual rights and women's rights. I literally started laughing when I read this. Here are actual word for word excerpts from the Iranian Constitution.

Article 20
All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law
and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, in conformity with
Islamic criteria. 

Article 24
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is where there is
infringement of the basic tenets of Islam

Oh that's not all. I just don't want to continue to read this piece of trash constitution. Here's the thing about a theocratic tyrannical government, it's theocratic and tyrannical. The Iranians "rights" are subservient to the Quran and the tenants of Islam enforced by the government. You can forget about freedom of religion as Islam is the national religion set forth by the constitution.

The whole women's rights thing is also a sham. They still stone women and public lashings are used to punish women for immodesty. Women are limited in what to major in and what classes can be taken. They can't even travel outside the country or get a passport without their male guardian to approve it. The Guardian smartly points to Iran's "all men cabinet" in the article to critique the promise of women's rights. Here is a human rights report for 2012. Homosexuals are also put to death.

How people, especially women are stoned in Iran.

A new president spewing hollow promises for protection of individual rights is just pathetic. It's a like a new boss of a mafia organization promising more "moderation and respect." They have their well entrenched Islamic laws and a government that puts itself first before its people. This new president is no Nelson Mandela. He is no Pope Francis. He is another tyrant to impose the anti-liberty, anti-woman, and anti-gay laws of Iran.

The human rights situation in Iran continues to arouse concern from the world's leading watchdog groups, with reports of ongoing abuses since the disputed 2009 presidential election provoked mass protests. A March 2013 report by a UN Special Rapporteur cites "widespread and systemic" torture, harassment, arrest, and attacks against human rights defenders, lawyers, and journalists. 

Under an increasingly repressive regime focused on survival amid internal strife and external pressures, experts say prospects for reform are bleak, and urge the international community to keep the spotlight on Iran's human rights violations. Jayshree Bajoria, and Robert McMahon, Editor, Human Rights in Iran, http://www.cfr.org/iran/human-rights-iran/p26380 (accessed 8/5/2013)

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.

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.