Morality101.net

The adversity we face today is NOT like other adversities we have overcome. This adversity is one that has the potential of nastiness the likes of which no native American has experienced before. Freedoms are under dire threat with this man in office - and no one with authority seems to have a clue what to do about it. Our founders KNEW and stated that our form of government could only work as long as we elected honest people of integrity. How many of our elected officials have fit that description in the past 30 years? Precious few, if any.

America at one time WAS a strong nation but over the years has soiled itself irreparably with political correctness, sissification, open self degradation, court rulings that have no basis in the constitution, degradation of the language, degradation of morals, and the socialism that has been edging its way into our government, quietly, quietly until they felt they had sufficient numbers to do what they wanted regardless what the voting public wanted.

And suddenly out of nowhere, an empty suit with no resume, no experience, no friends except thugs and terrorists, this person, Obama, showed up as a Presidential candidate. That in itself should have alerted all Americans, but it didn't. He was elected despite refusing to adhere to the customs all previous Presidents had done, who refuses to release any records that may support his bio. He has spent millions to keep them secret. Now, why would anyone do that? Any normal American? He says he attended Harvard - could be. I've seen no proof. He says he studied Constitutional law. Do we have any proof of that - and if we do, how do we explain his disdain for the Constitution? I maintain that IF he has studied it at all, his purpose was to learn how to dismantle it. And why was the MSM so supportive of his gross disdain for openness re his personal life?

Does it seem at all plausable that Obama is a usurper, placed into the Presidency - not because he is so wonderful, but because there are very powerful people who want to see the US overthrown and brought to her knees? Sound like a mystery novel? Not all mysteries are novel - some are factual. To break this once strong nation, one must;

1. Gain as much support as possible by any means you can think of

2. Rely on a populace that is uninformed, disinterested in national and world affairs, and one that relies primarily on its central government.
3. Obtain that legitimate office, and rule as you believe a President would appear to rule, while in secret you are planning your next move to debilitate the nation

4. To overthrow a country is easier if the economy is in the tank, and one must slowly, slowly start taking over private enterprise, making it now centralized enterprise. It is much easier if you have a propaganda machine. Barry had the MSM to help him gain power.
5. I'd hazard a guess that people wanting to overthrow a nation are by definition sociopaths, if not phychopths. Have we seen any strange behavior or comments from Barry that make you wonder about his mental condition?
6. To overthrow a country one must not be firmly connected to that country else sentiment MAY be a stumbling block. Remember Barry won't salute the flag, doesn't know how many states are in the union, doesn't know how to pronounce corps, as in Marine Corps. I don't believe he has any interest in this country except what he can get for himself. I've seen no proof he is an American.
7. Eventually a usurper must come out of the closet. In this case, that would be before an upcoming Presidential election. Obama has been thumbing his nose at his family, his minister, the MSM who were largely responsible for putting him into office, private enterprise, the American people,and even the people whose votes he needs........of course, maybe he knows something we don't know. Could be he KNOWS he doesn't need those voters. Could be he will declare "No more elections". Who or what agency would stop him from suddenly becoming king? Please name one. Has anyone seen an excess of valor in the Congress or the Supreme Court? And why don't we have people in DC who know how to get at the meat of this mytery. Oh, we do, but they must be on the side of the usurper.

8. It seems logical that any person who overthrows a nation would eliminate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people say Obama should be impeached. I disagree. The Senate would NOT convict - and if it did, I have a strong suspicion Obama would tell them to cram it and continue right along doing as he pleases.
Some have said we can take back the Congress. If the above happens, there will be no Congress.
Some have said how we must pay off the debts, raise taxes, lower taxes, etc. If by any chance the above scenario turns out to be the case, what we think or want will be totally irrelevant. We've been living in a democratic republic (mre or less) under ELECTED officials - one cannot expect better with a dictator in the capital. We have become fat and lazy and reliant on government, and this may very well be the time we pay the piper.

I hope our nation can be saved, even if it is hopelessly divided.

 

 

Who Is Compassionate? Like everyone else I have been thinking a lot about the health insurance problem in America - how so many apparently don't have coverage, how so many are dropped from insurance roles, how the government should step in and with tax dollars cover 'everybody', how our economy is in the tank, how so many are unemployed, how unfair people are, how cruel some are, how compassionate some are, how government takeover of healthcare is a either a terrible idea or the only solution. I may have a non-governmental solution.  One person commenting on Propeller told me the issue is too big for individuals to solve and that it should be given to government to solve.   Another told me how heartless I was to have NO compassion for the poor, the needy, the insured, etc.  I will credit these people with giving me the inspiration for this article. All of us know that virtually none of us is heartless, without compassion.  So what would be the answer for: 1) the needy,  2) the liberals, and 3) the conservatives? Answer:  Private coverage.  Private assistance. Insurance is expensive.  Let's work on lowering it.  In the meanwhile, each of us who can afford to might like to "adopt" a family who simply cannot afford health insurance.  Those of us who cannot afford it alone could go into the "adoption" with other people helping with the expense. I have great faith in the American people, much more so than in the federal government. This could also be done with the truly poor, with poor starving children which I am told exist in America - though I don't really believe it, with the unemployed, etc.  It would be completely voluntary.  If we can adopt a mile of highway for maintenance, why can't we adopt a family?  No government involvement whatsoever.  Hence, no tax dollars going to these social programs that we cannot afford any longer. People helping people.  Not a new concept.  But for all the talk about compassion, how compassionate are we really?  We can solve all of the aforementioned problem in this manner to everyone's satisfaction.  Are we truly compassionate? Or do we prefer a socialist government?  If we must argue, let's argue about the actual arguing point, not "compassion". If you disagree, that's O.K., but please do not do it on the basis of "it can't be done" because I do not understand those words - they are not in my vocabulary and I will not argue them.  Nor will I give them any credence.

I have been posting articles and comments on Propeller.  It is a great site for communicating, but it does have some flaws that I really wish they would work out.  As I see it, it is partly Propeller regs and partly its members. Recently there have been several articles grounded, which I am told is automatic, within the software, and set to algorithms, and if so, that's understandable.  However, in one way this is a disincentive to debates.  I, or some other conservative will post a comment or submit an article.  Immediately that article is swarmed with people who proceed to immediately bury it.  So far, so good.  No particular complaints so far.  However, this is not right.  Things need to be changed to ENCOURAGE debate, not cut it off. I recommend Propeller do this: 1.  Re-set algorithms to NOT ground before 12 hours are up to enable more people to read and comment on articles - some people work at jobs to pay taxes and have ideas about various topics, yet are disallowed to comment on an article if it is grounded within an hour or so of posting. 2.  Do not allow any drops from individuals who have not read the article.  This is becoming more a popularity contest than a discussion and news resource.  Who can get the most votes?  Who can say the most outrageous thing?  But primarily who can ground a story before it is read is particularly insidious and distasteful.  This is a juvenile display of ....... I don't know what to call it.  I've never known this type of behavior before. This is would allow no one any special rights, and no one's rights would be infringed upon.  But some of us don't care for the game of "ground the other guy" and don't have the amount of time to "neg" as do some others.  I would like to see Propeller make these two changes, please.  What do others think?

by Russell Longcore at DumpDC.com I’m sure by now you’ve noticed that the various governmental bodies with whom you come into contact on a daily basis are not serving you. You could say that they are leeches and you are the host. But the rapacious behavior of many forms of government is more than you see in a leech. You usually have to go into the leech’s environment to come into contact with them. Leeches don’t hunt you. They don’t lie in wait to try to catch you. They don’t set traps for you. But government does. Our government is government of wolves. A single wolf will hunt you alone, and wolves will also hunt you in packs. That sounds just like some of the government agencies that roam American streets looking for prey. Allow me to illustrate with some examples: Federal Government – in general, they can arrest you without cause, perform an extraordinary rendition of your person to an unknown location and hold you indefinitely…don’t forget torture. They can do warrantless searches of your person, property, your computer and your emails. They can follow you using your cell phone signal, and can turn on the cell phone remotely and listen to your conversations. IRS – With these guys, you are guilty until you prove your innocence. They seem to revel in audits, fines, penalties and intimidation. They will send one IRS agent, multiple agents, auditors, tax attorneys and even sent in heavily armed IRS SWAT teams to storm into your home or office to arrest you. FBI – same modus operandi as the IRS. They might start with one agent, but they are very willing to escalate the aggression. Local, city, county, and state police – radar speed traps and DUI checkpoints are otherwise known as “taxation by citation.” Cops hiding behind signs and bushes, around corners and at the bottom of hills and driving unmarked police cars are looking to catch you in the act of…whatever it is you’re doing. And if you resist…even verbally…you can end up tasered, in jail or dead. Don’t forget SWAT teams that regularly invade the wrong addresses. Municipalities – red light cameras at busy intersections are primarily a method of easy revenue. Red light cameras can each generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in traffic fines annually. The fact that their legality is questionable is not considered. Then consider all of the traffic cameras that watch you all over the highways. Property tax assessors – The local assessors will jack up your assessed evaluation and charge you more taxes. If you don’t pay your taxes, they will eventually own your property. Inspectors – health inspectors, EPA inspectors, OSHA inspectors, USDA inspectors and building code inspectors will come to your home or business and look for “violations” for which they can cite you and fine you. Social services/child protective services – these paragons of virtue will swoop in and snatch your children into foster care upon an unsubstantiated, anonymous tip. Then you will have to prove your innocence, just like with the IRS. Judges – improper rulings based upon precedents pile one on top of another, violating the spirit and intent of many laws. In addition, you risk imprisonment if you even mention the concept of jury nullification to a seated jury. I’m sure there are many more examples, but I think I’ve made my point about the predatory behavior of the governmental bodies in our neighborhoods. In a scenario of state secession, most of these issues would vanish. A state forming itself into a new nation would have the chance to start with a clean sheet of paper onto which it could craft new laws. A state that began its new life without property taxes, and only collected a national sales tax, would bring welcome relief to all its citizens. The criminal and civil legal systems would start over. There would be no American overarching Federal government…gone overnight. Just imagine what it will be like when some state secedes. It will be much like waking from a bad dream, covered in perspiration, and breathing the oxygen of liberty again…for the first time. Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first? DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History. © Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. Visit http://dumpdc.com

It's wonderful to be able to address a group of people who are conservative thinkers! This group can accomplish a lot if we don't hang ourselves. One thing I love about conservatives is that they know what they think and aren't wishy-washy. That said, if we want to succeed in pursuing the agenda of taking back America, we must take tender care of each other. With conservatives that shouldn't be difficult. Not all conservatives agree on everything, and it is those areas that can, if we allow it to, stand in the way of unity.

RELIGION I would suggest we keep it toned down a bit. Those of us who believe cannot be harmed by those who do not, and we are not about to harm others. Religion is NOT an issue we must all agree on, even in a candidate. ABORTION Related to religion. Some see it as evil. Some see it as a privacy issue. Some see it as amoral and/or murder. Some see no harm in it. If you are like me, your feelings are strong and you won't give up those feelings. BUT we must not allow our differences in this issue to separate us from our goal. We each retain our beliefs, but we don't really need to attack each other, right? WAR Another area of disagreement. Not every candidate is going to satisfy all of us - can we not agree that if we see the candidate as a decent, honest person with integrity, we can tolerate him as an official? Vote the way you wish, but maybe we can refrain from bashing each other in the head as we go along? ;-) MIDDLE EAST Ditto the above FREEDOM, LIBERTY Do we all agree on the definitions? Do we not all want total freedom? We have to be careful on this one if one looks at abortion. The "my body is mine" thing? Some feel the unborn baby's body is his, not his mother's. For me personally this one is a really sticky one as I understand where the other side comes from, but disagree. We must think about HOW we disagree publicly and still maintain unity. I am sure there are other hot button issues you can, and hopefully will provide. My suggestions are just that - suggestions. I am open to everyone's suggestions. I write this because I am pretty sure that's how we lose honest elections: we allow single issues to rule our senses, whereas we possibly would all be better off if we CONSERVATIVES could coalesce instead of divide ourselves. Please let me know what you think?

This began as a response to a fellow commenter on Propeller, but it got longer than I had anticipated, so decided to do it this way.  The question he had posed to me was "What would you do to make America better and stronger?" Below is my answer, but always open to improvement and additions. I am a citizen of America, one who staunchly defends it (not its government always).  I admire the independence on which our country was founded.  It disturbs me we (individuals and government) no longer depict that independence.  Our forefathers' big concern was "freedom", and they warned against a government that became too strong, too large, too threatening.  They knew the nature of man and vice. That said, what would I do to make America better and stronger? I would start with removing bunches of the laws we now exist under.  Many are in fact unconstitutional, or so I believe.  Many are impossible to adhere to in any meaningful way.  Most are a waste of the trees cut down to provide the paper they are written on.  Our Congress is totally and completely incompetent. I would push for term limits.  I would push for actual vetting of all candidates and that vetting would be displayed in advance of elections for all to see before they have to vote on a person.  I am not just talking about Obama.  I am talking about everyone who wants to hold public office and write our laws.  They should be squeaky clean, and we know for a fact they are not.  I would weed out duplicate programs.  We don't need multiple agencies fiddling with everything.  I would eliminate all agencies that are not constitutional.  I would eliminate the word and effect of "czars", a term begun years ago and which gets more bizarre as time goes on.  I would push for community unity, NOT party unity. I would eliminate income taxes.  I would put out a lean and mean annual budget and advise the people that that which  isn't paid for will not be done - asking for donations.  Make your donations however and whenever you choose, in any amount you choose and signify where you want each dollar to go.  If it is for environment, say so.  If it is for welfare, say so.  If it is for military, say so.  And I would audit that agency collecting the money monthly - and every infraction would land someone on an unemployment line.  All vat's would be eliminated.  All sales taxes would be eliminated. Support of the "national need" would be totally and completely voluntary.  Elected officials and the bureaucracy would be paid along the same lines as private industry = and the people would expect the same level of competence. I would expel the UN from American soil and I would discontinue supporting them with tax dollars.  People who want their tax dollars to go there, could send it directly there. There would be a totally free and open market and anyone could trade with anyone.  I would call off the drug war which everyone should have known could not be won before it was even passed.  Let any adult buy any drug he chooses whenever he wants it.  It would get drug dealers off the street, it would eliminate a lot of violent crime, and probably would be no more harmful than alcohol.  I would fire the first federal employee approaching people and telling them how to live.  It is NONE of government's business. I would bring home all military people and (I owe this statement to poster, slate) task them with routing out terrorists who are currently in the United States.  I would want a fine missile system in lieu of spies and/or military in foreign countries. I would quit advising other countries what to do, what not to do.  I'd let them do as they pleased, but it would be without our dollars, and if America became threatened, we would deal with it in a fashion costly to them. There would be no Medicaid or Medicare programs.  People could buy health insurance or not, and if needing help to offset catastrophic illness or injury costs, provide it - case by case.  And I would have to see if the claim was truly legitimate. There would be no "welfare" programs.  Many new businesses could be formed to keep tabs on jobs available and notify those needing jobs.  Turn a job related to your field down 3 times and you receive no welfare.  Until a job is found, person would be entitled to a monthly stipend that would be sufficient to live on, and in exchange for that, he would perform meaningful public service. There's a lot more that I could find to do,  but time and space prevent my putting all of it down.  I, too, contact my representative and senators on a fairly regular basis.  Mostly that seems to be a waste of time, but who knows?  One of them may one day listen. I am sure you will find some of my thinking too draconian for today's world, and given so many have gotten so soft and weak, it probably is, but it's fiscally sound, it gets the job done, and it makes people independent, NOT dependent on government.

from the Dharma Press:  http://thedharmapress.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/objectivist-morality/ [This fits in nicely with our 3 pages: Morality, Force, Sacrifice.]

November 25, 2009 by alively87 at Dharma Press

Many people disagree with Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, especially when it comes to the issue of morality. How can there be only one true moral code, when people have such different values? The answer is through reason. As rational human beings, we can all agree that it is immoral to kill and to steal. Why? Not because our parents told us it was wrong, or because religion threatens us with punishment for these acts. It is immoral because we are depriving someone else of their natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” Through reason, we strive to achieve our own happiness (a selfish act which Ayn Rand labeled as a virtue) without hindering that of others. Killing and stealing clearly violate this principle, and can therefore be regarded as immoral. It may not be so black and white when it comes to other situations: making the right moral choice falls between a few shades of gray, and the decision becomes harder. Ayn Rand argued that through reason, and by staying true to reality, we can follow the universal moral code and clearly distinguish between right and wrong (or black and white). Happiness is attainable through honesty and truth. Let’s take the example of drinking excessively and/or using drugs. According to objectivists, drug abuse is immoral because: 1) it is an artificial “happiness” 2) it hinders one’s sense of reason. Some people don’t think twice about it and just go along with the crowd. These “irrationals” have not given any thought as to whether or not using drugs is moral. The rest of those who consciously choose to abuse drugs are looking for a quick fix for their happiness. They are aware of the long-term consequences and deliberately ignore them. They have made a rational decision to act “immorally.” The moral code is supposed to be a path to true inner happiness. Sacrifices are essential in the short term (studying, working, etc.), but the path is a successful one. Although drugs merely offer an “escape” from reality, the reality continues. The escape is only temporary, and the instant gratification from these external substances elicits diminishing marginal returns. As time goes on, one must increase the doses to get less and less of the original effect, making it harder to embrace reality and become truly happy.  Integrity has been compromised for a few instances of artificial happiness. Now that we have established the immorality of substance abuse through reason, it is important to note that Ayn Rand was a fervent individualist. It is not anyone’s duty to monitor adherence of the universal code. This is up to the individual, as it should only be followed willingly. Unless it is endangering the lives of others (i.e. while driving), it is no one’s job but your own to decide whether or not you live a moral life. Ayn Rand, contrary to popular belief, was not telling the world to live a certain way of life. She merely stated that there is right and wrong, which can be explained through reason. Sometimes when faced with making a decision, we fail to see all that is around us, making us “irrational.” In order to achieve happiness, the objectivist principle advocates staying true to ourselves and aware of the reality around us. Happiness is the ultimate goal of humankind which can be attained by following moral values. We are only human, but we can strive to become, what Ayn Rand calls, the “ideal” person.

by Gary North at LewRockwell.com The governments of every major nation are going to default on their debts. There are two relevant questions: (1) How? (2) When? Establishments around the world all deny this. They have gained power and wealth by means of the expansion of government. They have justified their success by insisting that the government-business alliance is the only way to establish economic growth and economic security for the masses. This claim rests on a more fundamental claim, namely, that an unhampered free market is destructive of economic stability and will inevitably lead to economic depression. The Establishments are universally Keynesian. John Maynard Keynes' book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, was published in 1936. It defended in theory what all Western governments had been doing in practice for at least five years, namely, running huge deficits. Keynes became as close to an academic high priest as any modern scholar ever has. He was the apostle of national government debt. His ideas today are more influential than they were at his death in 1946. We live in the age of Keynes.

Don't miss the rest of this!