Propaganda Pictures About Women

I must state at the beginning of this post that I am writing as a Christian, who actually believes the Bible to be God's Word while also standing well inside the Libertarian political camp.

I don't want to merely defend the Republicans in this post. Lord knows how the police state is growing just as much under them as it is under the Democrats, but a friend of mine posted on his Facebook page typical stereo-type stuff with shallow arguments. But what I find interesting is how people think and the assumptions they make without ever feeling they have to prove them. In fact, one commenter states that Religious wackos are waging war against the Democrats. Yet the material shows that non-religious people hold on to their Traditions just as religiously as any so-called Religious/Conservative Right-winger.

Here are the claims through pictures.

Now here are the arguments or shallow propaganda for the Left.

Notice the equivocation. Based upon the recent news stories I assume the context is that government owes women as a fundamental right, free access to birth control. Apparently, to say government shouldn't pay for or supply women birth control is to say we "are not going to let women use birth control." It is very subtle but very effective for the closed minded state worshipers.

Now I am not a Newt fan by any means. In fact, I think I'd rather have Obama...okay, that's not true. But I say that to express my total disdain for Newt. But I think Newt's point ought to be obvious. Even black men within the black community have expressed the same thing. But to put a picture of the golfing/party throwing/Nobel Peace Prize winning while waging war overseas President as the chief counter-argument is not convincing to those who would disagree with you.

Notice again the assumption. The Prolife movement has successfully argued and demonstrated over and over that there is not "the possibility of one" child in the womb. It is a child in the womb. This is so obvious that Prochoice philosophers have had to go to the greatest lengths and contortions to come up with ways of getting out of this. This is probably why my Prolife scholar friend can't find anyone to debate the subject anymore. The only side that is waging war is the one doing the murdering of babies and defying God's created order of the family. And they do this while claiming Jesus is on their side to boot.

Now I also realize that there is a picture about rape. That is another debate in itself and only about 3% of babies killed would come under that rubric. Therefore this is another straw-man argument.

Now this one is perhaps my favorite. It is true that Jesus may have been considered a Liberal in the classical sense. But Jesus was no more a Liberal in the Modern sense that He would be a Conservative. Let me offer an example.

In the fourth point, it says he hung out with criminals, whores and other unsundry characters. True enough. However, Jesus always explained to them they must repent of their sin. He didn't go to the so-called righteous because the righteous don't think they need to repent. Hence Jesus' teaching to them, "It is the sick that need a doctor, not the well." [my paraphrase]

In other words, Jesus would just as much be kicked out of a Liberal church as a Conservative one for being too judgmental.

The other one that reads anachronistically into Jesus' words is that Jesus "advocated giving away your personal belongings, and paying your taxes." Now what is funny is that Modern Liberals don't give away their personal belongings. Studies have shown that Conservatives and Republicans in general are far more likely to donate money to charity than Liberals and Democrats. But the anachronistic part is that Jesus never advocated the State to have the power to steal your money to give to another person in the form of welfare. Instead Jesus loved "cheerful givers" who give from the heart in order to fulfill the Law of God.

In fact, when it comes to Social Justice, Jesus was ignoring the role of government altogether. Everything he did was outside of government while submitting to their earthly authority when necessary.

One last picture.

There is much that could be said here but as one who is on the Libertarian side I say woo hoo! Set me free baby!

In conclusion, the idea that women need to be free from the role God has given to women is to accept the false premises of the Left, but ironically, those false premises are the same as those that the Left considers Conservatives who wish to make women second class citizens.

Women are not second class citizens simply because the Creator has made them differently from men and to have a different role from men. As a Christian, I see God's purpose for women as something to be cherished, not denigrated as the Left does. But also as a Christian and one in the Libertarian camp, I see another way to challenge the role women play.  Allow me to offer an example.

What if instead of being a "mere house-wife" [as if that is a bad thing, which it is not] a women is a helpmate to her husband in other non-conventional ways. An illustration may help here. What if a woman were to be a helpmate to her husband, who is a doctor, by becoming a nurse. My wife's cousin, who is a doctor, was greatly assisted by his nurse wife in the birth of my second child. Perhaps she should be encouraged to press on in her education and become a doctor herself and being an even greater assistant to her husband! What a team that would be.

In other words, we all make assumptions that could be wrong or inconsistent with what we say. We all need to be challenged in that area. It is the Left, however, that needs to stop accepting the false premise that women are second class citizens simply because there is a created order that God has given to women.

Elizabeth Wurtzel: NPR & Intellectual Property

Yesterday, on the way home from my daughter's swim meet, I heard Elizabeth Wurtzel being interviewed on NPR about her new book, Creatocracy. I am not certain if the brief interview was really about promoting her book. It was a typical 5-minute interview where almost nothing about the book was discussed. Mostly her background was noted in the interview.

However, the interviewer did ask her about her book very briefly. Basically, from what I gathered, the book is about Intellectual Property Rights [IP] or at least deals with that concept in the book. When asked about where IP comes from, she offered two reasons. The first was how the Framers of our Constitution had enshrined Intellectual Property Rights. Now I haven't the foggiest idea where they did that, and she didn't offer a single argument. So I suppose you'll have to go buy the book.

Her second and final argument as to why IP is to be accepted was because, "It works." That's right. It works. Of course when those on the other side say it works, it is because it fits their definition of what works. Now what was the framework and definition of what works? I guess you'll have to read her book. How Utilitarian of her because selling books works too.

Now to the interviewer's credit, he raised the question about music artists, who put their music on the internet for free. Her response was simple. That's just crazy and silly. Now you may wonder why that's an argument. Perhaps she knew she had almost no time in her interview so "why bother" offering intellectual thought. But this was NPR. You know. The radio program that claims that we need it to stimulate our intellect. Yet this woman was almost as flighty and goofy as Farah Faucet was on David Letterman.

The truth is, there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. It is made up out of thin air in order to create a monopoly of sorts. The history of Intellectual Property demonstrates this all too well as can be learned in this lecture by Jeffrey Tucker here. Intellectual Property creates a disadvantage and an unfair playing field. It is usually argued that it is not fair for those who copy the original because the inventor loses money in research while everyone else benefits from the invention. However, that is not how inventions come about in the first place.

For example, Tucker demonstrates the Wright Brothers' invention of the plane to be complete propaganda. How often have we watched documentaries showing the brilliance of the Wright Brothers while everyone else was trying to fly by attaching wings to their arms and jumping off of piers. Such was not the case. There were many who were on the verge of designing the wings of the plane. When the Wright Brothers discovered the mechanism to get "lift" on their wing, they had already spent much money on lawyers in order to sue everyone else out of business.

Private Property Rights are not floating in the air or in the mind for inventions. Private property rights are things that I actually own. The reason music artists that do not have big label contracts love the internet is that they are able to circumvent Big Corporations to get noticed by people who would never hear their music otherwise.

For instance, you may go and listen to a group called Sons of Korah on Youtube or other places. Using this medium, this particular group, who may otherwise remain obscure within Australian circles, may reach listeners worldwide. Due to my forwarding their Youtube videos to a friend of mine, he decided to go to their website and purchase their music.

However, this doesn't work in the old way of doing things. Big Record Companies are now practicing what the Wright Brothers did. They got the Mob...I mean the government to hire men with guns to enter homes and steal computers with "stolen" music.

The truth is, my MP3/computer player is mine. The music on it is mine. It is my private property. This is what the Founders argued for, private property rights. If the Founders really believed that ideas and inventions could be monopolized by certain companies, then they should be charging other countries for the idea of democracy or at least paying those from whom they stole the idea.

By the way, if you really believe in IP, you better quit wearing the clothes you have on your body, the ideas for them are stolen. Maybe the government wants them too. But as we have seen, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and the idea of Intellectual Property is as inconsistent as they get.

Rush Gets IT...Well Sort Of

Once again Rush Limbaugh nailed it when he went after the false premise that Insurance companies are in business to make certain you have health care.

Since when...? I'm gonna ask this again: Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue?  This is how, folks, we lose our liberty.  This is how we lose the Constitution.  The suggestion that Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place, is simply unacceptable.  The first thing he does he doesn't have the power to do.  He doesn't have, constitutionally, the power to mandate that religious organizations provide -- free of charge or otherwise -- any abortion-related service with which they disagree.  He doesn't have the authority.  Then to supposedly correct it, he then engages in more authority that he doesn't have!

"Okay, tell you what: I'll tell the churches they don't have to do it."  It's none of his business what the churches do!  He doesn't have the authority to do any of this.  The very idea that Barack Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place? This is two exercises of power he doesn't have.  The first exercise is telling the churches what they have to do.  The second exercise of power is then changing what he told the churches they have to do.  There's no compromise, no negotiation.  There's no phony balance here.  Obama is simply not empowered to interfere with religious liberty.  No president is!

But then he says this about the women who was forced to not be able to fly home because of the TSA:

I'm not complaining at her by any means.  I'm hoping that people dig a little deeper and figure out what is happening to everyday liberty and freedom and realize who's responsible for taking it away from you -- it's the Democrat Party and Barack Obama -- and vote against them.  I've always said this program takes place in the reason of ideas.  What we want, the way we effect -- in my mind -- meaningful, lasting, substantive change is an informed electorate voting and changing the course of history.

Up until this point Rush was batting a thousand, but then he overlooked a couple of facts. Homeland Security came about in 2003 under the Republican Conservative President, George Bush. He also seemed to overlook the fact that TSA didn't arrive in President Obama's watch, but yet again, under George Bush in November of 2001.

So in conclusion, voting for Republicans because you think they will somehow shrink government is to simply lie to yourself. There is only one candidate that will fight tyranny and his name is Ron Paul.

Quote of the Day

Saw this quote today, and it was too good not to put here. And then by accident I found another one.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and p...lough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -Samuel Adams (Speech in the State House of PA, 01Aug1776)

Socialism, Communism and Fascism

This morning I had a conversation with a friend about the Centralization of our government as it takes its form via the health care law. Of course when I warned about the power government would now have over your life, I was told I was fearing the "boogie man". So I would like to cite Frederick Hayek's 1940s work, The Road To Serfdom. Under Planning and Power Hayek warns about power.

Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be "no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors." There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?

Now where is the boogie man in Hayek's day? Let me cite Hayek once again concerning Nazism's true foundation...Socialism:

Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by their organization of "cells" and devices for the permanent supervision of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party. By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable but that to strive for it produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.

Hayek notes in other places that Americans, who went to schools in Europe to learn about these different views came back not certain what the real and substantive difference was between them.The reason is simple. They are all the same thing in different forms.

So in conclusion, I was told that if I don't like it here in America, that I should leave to find another country. Isn't that amazing! It used to be said that of those who are Socialists! In fact, I was told that Germany is a great success. Well, if that is so, why doesn't he move there? The truth is, Socialists never want to move to socialist/communistic/fascist countries. Yet they always think the grass is greener on the other side.

I just have to say to Socialists that believe it is so wonderful in Europe. Let me help you pack your bags.

Okay, what the heck! According to Yahoo News in this story, the economy looks great.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States created jobs at the fastest pace in nine months in January and the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to a near three-year low, giving a boost to President Barack Obama.

But the same Yahoo News also has another story with the Headline that says, "Goodbye, Middle Class", which states,

Fifty percent of the unemployed in New Jersey have been out of work for more than six months, and it's a similar story in Florida, Illinois and Nevada, according to the Brookings Institute.

And another website, Zerohedge, explains that,

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

Isn't this just rich! A pathetic media can't even keep straight what they want us to believe. Things are great and suck at the same time. You see, as my friend tells me, the economy is doing great. Wall Street is doing great. Of course in the same story we are told,

However, economists at most leading Wall Street firms still believe the Fed will undertake another bond-buying program, according to a Reuters poll.

Ta da. So the Fed bails out bankers and people on Wall Street, and who pays for this? If you haven't figured this out yet, it isn't the poor since they don't have money and the Rich are getting this money. So who's left? Just read the story carefully, and you'll figure it out.

And God Saw Obama Care, and It Was Very Good

So God made President Obama pass Obama Care. As this story from Buzzfeed reports,

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

So there you have it. Love Thy Neighbor is now equivocated to forcing your neighbor by the barrel of a gun to pay for your health care. This same man, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize, has also loved his neighbors with bombs. Neighbors that we are not even at war!

Now to be fair, we are all moved by our religious beliefs, and those beliefs animate us in the public sphere. Fair enough. However, keep in mind, it is the Left that constantly makes fun of this kind of reasoning. Think of abortion. I am moved by a simple belief that abortion is murder. It also happens to be fundamental in my religious beliefs that the unborn are fully human persons. Yet isn't it the Political Left that argues I should keep my religious beliefs out of the public sphere?

The hypocrisy shines ever so brightly with this man.