http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=41084

 <<A case challenging the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is being weighed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts where state law requires schoolchildren to recite the pledge daily as a patriotic exercise.>>

The problem I have with this whole debate is that both sides force the issue as if there were never any other views on the subject either in recent history nor historically from our Founding. Since the article is posted on a Baptist News Website, I have to wonder just how far Baptists have come from their roots historically.

Could you imagine the same Baptists that wrote to Jefferson about the First Amendment as being people that would ever have recited anything remotely close to the Pledge of Allegiance, much less going to a State school by force and being forced by the State to swear allegiance to it? Especially since governments were their biggest fear in the world precisely because more Baptists died at the hands of State officials during the Reformation than all other denominations combined!

Stop thinking Left. Stop thinking Right.

Liberty. Friends, Think Liberty! It is an alternative way to think about the entire debate.

How Intelligent People Can Be Useful Idiots Too

President of HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association, Michael Farris, has posted an article explaining his interaction with a defender of Common Core, David Coleman, president of the College Board. You may read the article here.

The article demonstrates how men of opposing views may have a serious discussion without name calling. But I want to point out some of the obvious problems of those of the political Left & Right who are being used as "useful idiots".

Now I must be clear. I do not mean by the phrase "useful idiots" that someone such as David Coleman is an idiot. He is obviously not an idiot. I also believe that David Coleman has "good intentions" in his desire to improve the education of American children. Even Michael Farris had to admit from listening to Coleman's presentation of Common Core,

"From a pedagogical perspective, there are clearly some good ideas contained in it."

But as Farris points out, the problem isn't about some of the so-called good ideas that are a part of Common Core, but the real fundamental problem that leads to other major problems. It is being run by the Federal Government, a centralized bureaucracy intended to grow in monopolistic power.

In other words, it is not about education, but about power dressed in education. Notice Coleman's interaction as recorded by Farris,

"To his credit, Mr. Coleman noted that he was not acting in a vacuum. There are centralized mandates for education in play virtually everywhere. And many of them have very marginal educational utility. I agreed with his assessment of many current centralized standards."

Even Coleman recognized the problems of centralized power in this section of the article:

When he asked me why I thought that the Common Core was worse than other standards, I indicated that one of my chief concerns was the creation of the database that would track students throughout their educational career.

His answer surprised me. He didn’t like the database all that well. It was not originally part of the Common Core, but other people have seized the opportunity to make a centralized data collection effort through the implementation of the Common Core.

Do you see the problem that Coleman refuses to really address. He may not like a centralized database, but he is willing to chuck liberty under the bus in order to gain what he perceives as a better American education system. But in the end, the people who desire power will gain more power and nothing will change because the foundation to the problem is not being challenged.

It is not about education. It is all about centralized power.

No Longer Fooled By the Not So Serious

Some time ago I noted how Rush was upset that 3 million or so conservative voters didn't vote this last time around. Then when the IRS scandal broke, it became Rush's scape goat for why these people didn't vote. Yes, Rush has actually been arguing on his radio show that conservative voters didn't vote because the Tea Party and others were harassed by the IRS.

Now I know we think that is completely silly, but today Rush made an observation about the Republicans that we all knew and know to be true. They were never serious. The only problem is that he refuses to speak about the obvious disconnect between the Republicans and the missing voters. He said on today's show,

RUSH: I don't think they were ever serious about repealing health care, the Republicans.  I don't think they ever were.  I think that it has been lip service from the get-go.  The votes to stop -- I mean, the leadership, House and Senate, I don't think they've ever really been serious about repealing Obamacare, especially since the Supreme Court decision.  I don't think so.

So there you have it. I have argued before and I will continue to argue as such, that many modern conservatives are in many ways more akin to Classical Liberals. They are just now hearing men like Ron Paul argue for a more consistent and real case for liberty and living it out.

Since we [I consider myself one of them] are tired of the lies from the Republican Party, and since we know they will do nothing to advance liberty, and since we know the Modern Left is just pro-Statist State, then there is no place to go but to refuse to give our consent to the ruling class by participating in their voting scheme to endorse them or to grant them justification for their existence.

Now does Rush see this connection? I think he must unless of course he is so blinded by his own failed Neo-Conservative position that he fails to make the connection. Rush is no dummy. Anyone who makes up the idea of the IRS scandal as to blame for the missing voters is purposely looking in the wrong place to fool an audience. However, at least 3 million of us are no longer fooled.

It is time to change.

Yeah, That Walmart

James Fisher

I was recently debating public schools vs privatizing the education system. (Of course I'm for a free market education and not public)

When the other person said to me-

"Yeah, that's exactly what we need, a Walmart owning and operating all the schools"

He said this as if it should be self evident that Walmart is a bad thing for society?

 

So I said- you mean the Walmart that has made almost everything we buy less expensive? Making it possible for the poorest among us to own 60" LCD HD TV's and $20 phones with calling plans almost free and all sorts of wonderful things?

That Walmart?

The one that took minimum wage jobs with no benefits away from Bradlees and K Mart and turned them into $11.00 per hour jobs with health insurance and 401 K programs?

The Walmart that personally made me richer by saving me tons of money as well as time because I can do my food shopping and everything else at the same time?

That Walmart?

How awful!

Then he responded with the usual line about buying from the Chinese etc etc...

Because apparently its Walmarts fault that the Chinese produce products less expensive than Americans and regardless of this economic fact Walmart should buy more expensive products and let another business kick its ass.

Perhaps the answer to that problem is for the state to stop murdering its businesses to death through regulation and taxes and we could once again outcompete the Chinese.

I'm all for Walmart education. Truth is that would be very unlikely, unless of course a business figured out how to give us far better education so we all decided to send our kids there.

The free market works.

Join the revolution!

How Much For Your Security

James Fisher

What if the good citizens of Massachusetts hire a security firm to prevent terrorist attacks in Boston?

We all got together and chipped in equal money and paid the best private security firm we could find?

Then the bombing in Boston happens!

What would we good citizens do?

We would likely fire them, or at least judge their performance accordingly and take the best plan going forward.

Maybe that means hire a different firm? Maybe we demand a refund due to failure?
Maybe we review their techniques and find out why the failure happened?

What we would not do is instantly give them a raise and more power to interrupt our lives.

Yet this is exactly how government services work.

When they fail, unlike a private market business, their failure means they didn't have enough of our money. They didn't have enough power and right to invade our privacy and civil rights.

So they must now get more powerful, invade more civil rights, take more of our money.

This is the difference between getting your services from the state or the market.

Where the market service must serve you to your exact desire or you shit can them, the state reserved the right to fail in serving you and tell you it's your fault for not giving them enough power and money!

Rush: Where'd They Go?

Last Tuesday I managed to catch a moment of Rush's show while he was lamenting the inner problems of the Republican Party as it related to the missing 4 million voters. He stated,

RUSH: That's it. Four million Republicans that did vote against Obama in '08 sat home in 2012. Do you realize that if those four million had shown up, Romney would have won? Question: Why didn't those four million show up? Is it because of amnesty? Is it because of abortion, immigration, contraception? No way! Well, it might be. It might be the fear that the Republican Party was gonna go in that direction. Those four million said, "The hell with it!" More likely it's that. The party wasn't conservative enough in its messaging.

I personally think Rush is missing something obvious, and that is consistency. After voting for over 20 years for what I thought would be conservatives, I have discovered my own blindness, and I think many others have too.

Rush wonders about amnesty and abortion and a conservative message, but what about the police state growing up all around us? What about the never ending war on terrorism, and the fact that anyone may literally be considered a terrorist?

It is deeper than that though. I think Libertarianism is becoming more popular as an explanation of the world while offering real answers to the issues before us. I personally think many conservatives are beginning to see that the State grows in power no matter who is in charge, Left or Right. Even Rush has said as much many times.

So when a real candidate enters the Republican nomination process with real answers about how to deal with the real fundamental causes of our nation's problems, Rush calls him a dunce and refuses to deal with his ideas, doing the very thing he claims liberals do to Conservatives.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and Rush is as inconsistent as they come.

Americans...A Free People

The War of Secession from Great Britain (you may call this the Revolutionary War, but it was indeed secession) was based on the idea that our rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) comes from our humanity NOT from the government.

This was the American idea.

That we are all created equal in RIGHTS (not equal in material).

For the first time the idea of Nobility was struck down. Nobility was the previous system where men were born with rights over other men.

This appeal to man's logic of the nature of our rights is the Jeffersonian system of a free people that we have come to know as American.

That our populace has this engrained in its history must be carried forward, not dissolved.

This is who we are!

A free people!

Free from the tyranny of the state.

By Jim Fisher