Archive for February, 2012

Democrats walk out on gun debate

Posted by Troy on 29th February 2012 in Current Events, Political

Iowa has decided to follow the lead of states like Florida and Georgia which allow their citizens to defend themselves in their own home.  The Democrats were outraged that this debate was not given proper notice and walked out on the debate.  While typically I do not like it when politicians do under the table tactics, I do not believe that my prejudice applies in this case.  It is not as though anyone in that room had never heard of the gun debate in general.  Everyone knows the arguments on both sides.  I would say that the Democrats are upset that they did have a time to whip their members and run inaccurate ads on TV and demand the unions show up on the steps of the capital building.  I won’t even get into the childishness of them walking out of the debate.  They are adults, not children.  You don’t call it quits and walk off when you don’t get your way.  If you really believe in your convictions, you stand and fight.  You shout down hellfire and try your damnedest to bend others to your way of thinking.  As usual, I have no respect for them.

In Florida, they used to have the “Duty to Retreat.”  If someone broke into their home, their duty was to retreat at all costs, not to fight back.  Here is the truth: You have the duty to survive.  As my dad often told me, it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.  Why on Earth would anyone be against the Castle Doctrine?  If someone breaks into someone’s home, they are there for no good.  They are there to rob, rape, or murder the inhabitants.  Even if you are against guns on the premise that guns create crime, this is stupid.  The criminal is still going to arm themselves, be it with a gun or knife or baseball bat.  The only people defeating this law protects are people who have broken into another citizen’s home and is there for a nefarious purpose as discussed before.  This is like being anti-war to the point where you instantly surrender to a brutal dictator rather than fight for your freedom.  It goes along with the Amish belief that it is better to die than to do violence to another.  This is a very odd position for Democrats to have since most Democrats aren’t devout zealots.

We are the only country that trusts their citizens to bear arms, as Madison pointed out.

Long Live the Constitution!

Capitalism for Dummies

Posted by Troy on 28th February 2012 in Human Nature, Political

There once was a town.  In this town, people scraped by, just barely providing for themselves and their families.  Then, one of the townspeople got an idea.  He starting making a product, and everyone wanted one.  Soon, he had to build a factory and employed many of his fellow townspeople.  With so many people having gainful employment, others in the town started other businesses such as restaurants and service industries and all kinds of shops.  The town prospered and grew.  The factory owner continued to hire more and more people as his product grew in renown, and he exported his product to other towns.  However, while the number of people he hired grew and grew, their wages did not.  Eventually, his workers grew jealous.  They demanded, “Why should the factory owner grow rich off of their labor?”  A shady gentleman saw their rage and took advantage of it.  He told them that they should join together and ran the factory owner out of the town, taking the factory over for themselves.  The townspeople made this gentleman their leader and did just that.  Unfortunately, none of the other townspeople nor their new leader had the drive or skill to run the company.  In short order, the factory began to deteriorate through mismanagement.  Eventually, the factory closed.  All the jobs were lost.  The restaurants and shops shut down.  There was one silver lining, however.   The townspeople got what they wanted.  They were finally equal…they were just equally poor.

Long Live the Constitution!  Long Live Capitalism!

After Birth Abortions

Posted by Troy on 27th February 2012 in Current Events

Some writers in Australia are putting forth the idea that after birth abortions should be legal.  I find it incredible that this topic is in the news so soon after I had a post about the absurdity of suggesting that killing a three month old is okay since they are as dependent on the mother as a fetus is.  Their basic premise is that, if a baby is born with a deformity or a medical condition, the parents can opt to have the child put down because it will be a burden.  If this is the case, at what point do you draw the line exactly?  What about the mother that drove her car into a lake so that she could be rid of her kids?  How is that any different exactly?  What if your child is disobedient?  I guess some Muslims would agree, honor killings and whatnot.  What if they’re not smart or good looking enough?  Why should a parent be allowed to put down an downs syndrome baby and not an ugly baby?  Of course, I think the authors understand this double standard because they also give permission to a mother to after birth abort a pregnancy because it would hurt her feelings to know that another person was raising the child.  Wow.  How is this any different than a psycho stalker screaming “If I can’t have you, no one can!” and stabbing the object of affection to death?

This sort of thought process is to be expected in the society we are becoming.  In 2084, I discuss how humans are viewed as a product.  Defective units are removed from service.  This is the type of society that develops when people start weighing and putting value on individual lives and determining who should live or die.  This is saying that your will is right and God’s will is wrong.  This is saying that your judgement is superior to that of God.

Good luck with that.

Long Live the Constitution!


Posted by Troy on 26th February 2012 in Human Nature

This is the final installment of the Seven Deadly Sins, and I saved the best for last.  They say that the root of all evil is greed.  It is not.  It is Pride.  Pride is the most deadly of the sins, and it is the one that dragged the highest of the angels, Lucifer, down to Hell.  A greedy man will seek more and more possessions, but a proud man will not be satisfied until he is the richest man in the world.  What most people mistake for vanity is actually pride.  A vain woman will spend hours every day on her appearance because she wants everyone to think she’s pretty.  A proud woman will think herself pretty and demand others agree.

Pride is the one sin that we are all guilty of but cannot abide in somebody else.  Sadly, someone who is totally devoid of all pride is a sad person as well.  However, I would say that one can know their worth, have self-confidence in their abilities, and not be proud.  For instance, a man may know that he can dead lift 600 pounds but have no inclination to show off this ability and feel proud of his strength, but he may quickly use his strength to lift a wooden beam that has fallen on somebody, knowing that he has the ability to do so.  If he is a humble man, he would probably say something to the effect that his strength is but a portion of God’s strength, given to him so that he could best do God’s will.

There are limits for all the other deadly sins.  There are only so many sexual partners someone can have.  There’s a limit to the amount of food someone can eat.  There is no limit to Pride.  In the endgame, one can be like Satan himself, rejecting God’s law and God’s will and supplanting their own, placing themselves in greater importance than even God.

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

Protecting the Guilty

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2012 in Current Events

Recently, a man was arrested for holding a would be robber at gunpoint.  The homeowner was 61 years old.  In Georgia, if you are 65 years old, you can shoot someone dead, and it will not go to court.  Great law.  The rest of the states should take notice.  This guy was very nice.  He fired into the floor to scare the guy rather than putting three in the chest.  In hindsight, perhaps he should have put three in the chest and made sure there was only one side of the story.

The fact of the matter is that this is just another case of the government protecting the guilty at the expense of honest citizens.  In particular, they have a real gripe against gun owners.  The Left has been unable to restrict gun ownership as they would like.  The recent Heller case has put their task of shadow/piecemeal gun bans at risk.  What they can do is make people afraid to defend themselves because they will be arrested.

Humans, like all animals, have the God given right to defend themselves.  In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond discusses the formation of societies and governments.  One of the first steps taken by the ruling class is to exclusively reserve the right of force to themselves.  While there is some logic to this, it also explains why human history had been a history of tyranny until the birth of America.  Liberty, and governments centered around protecting Liberty, was unheard of until the American Revolution.  When the government is the only one with the capacity to use force, they also have unlimited coercive powers.  If anyone that claims that the Founding Fathers did not want citizens to have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves against a government run amok, please refer them to Federalist Papers 46 and 29.

If we aren’t careful, we are going to wind up like England.  In England, a farmer is facing life in prison for killing one intruder, and the surviving intruder has the right to sue him.  If you think that giving up guns wouldn’t be so bad, it gets worse.  One lady put barbed wire around her property after it had been broken into eleven times.  The cops forced her to remove the barbed wire because it might injure intruders.  Isn’t that the point?  Another person put chicken wire over his windows after his house had been broken into several times.  He too was forced to take down chicken wire from inside his own home because it might hurt intruders.

The fact of the matter is that the criminal element has somehow become a voting block.  A large portion of our population has spent time in jail.  These people, and their loved ones, have in some sick way become a voting block.  Politicians can actual promise not to enforce laws and to make self-defense more difficult for law abiding citizens and somehow be re-elected!  This has to change.  In particular, we must never give up the right to self-defense.  No other creature on God’s Earth can be denied the right to defend itself, and God gave each of them the ability to do so.  We should be no different.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama is NOT the most Christian President

Posted by Troy on 20th February 2012 in Political

A college professor has said that Obama is the most Christian President we have ever had.  Of course, this is in no way true.  The most Christian President we ever had was John Adams, who was very devoted to his faith.  I would say that George Washington was probably the second most Christian President, but this is neither here nor there.  The fact of the matter is, Obama cannot possibly be a Christian.  I can say that based on his comment that people cling to their guns and God.  That statement alone is enough to point out that he is not a Christian.  Children cling to things.  Clinging implies an irrational belief in something,  If, however, a Christian was so inclined to say that someone clings to God, they would mean it as a positive, such as, “You’ve been through so much.  I admire how you cling to God despite the ill-fortune that has befallen you.  Your faith is so strong!”  Even then, it would be an odd way to word this statement.  I believe that Obama pretends that he believes in God to get more votes and tries to evoke the Bible as a way as persuading the unwashed masses.

State-ists cannot believe in God.  God and family are the biggest competitors for authority to the State, as I point out in 2084: The Search for Love, Hope, and Faith.  This is why totalitarian governments have sought to undermine the family and religion–just like in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.  Religion is persecuted and kids are taught to be more loyal to the State than the family, asking them to turn in their own parents to the secret police.

What the professor really means is that Obama believes in taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  He is mistaking Robin Hood for Jesus in this matter.  Here is a tip: Robin Hood carries a bow, and his beard is more of a goatee.  Jesus never intended for anyone to take from anybody.  ”Thou Shall Not Steal” sounds oddly familiar here.  Instead, he wanted people to give from their own heart, not at the tip of the sword.  To equate voluntary charity with compulsorily participation in a government run entitlement system is laughable.  There is no honor or morality in being forced to help others.  Also, there are plenty in the entitlement system who do not need help (cheats who scam the system) or do not deserve the help (those who could work but are too sorry to do so).  When a person is helping someone, they are likely to cut off help if they see the person they’re helping is just sitting on their butts, not looking for work.  Government agencies do not hold people accountable for leaching off the system.  This professor has clearly forgotten that Jesus also said, “He who does not work shall not eat.”  Jesus’ cry to give to those less fortunate did not extend to those who would only take, as this is just a form of theft and would lead to ruin.  You can never produce enough to support those who would take a free ride if you offer it to them.  When the Bible says “Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and “Give unto God that which is God,” what it is saying is that everything is God’s.  Whose claim is greater than God’s on anything that exists?

Long Live the Constitution!


Posted by Troy on 19th February 2012 in Human Nature

This is a sin that a lot of people in America have a problem with.  Gluttony naturally leads to weight gain, heart disease, heart attacks, certain cancers, bad joints, and a whole host of other problems.  This is part of why it is a deadly sin.  Just like with greed, another reason why this is a deadly sin is that, when you eat more than you need, you are robbing others of the food they need.  In the Christian ideal, you should give the food that you have that you don’t need to others who are in need.


Posted by Troy on 17th February 2012 in Entertainment

The premise of this movie is that a young man in the modern age watches old television shows because he is comforted by how “perfect” everything was in the 50′s.  He and his sister are magically transported to the world represented by 1950′s television.  The sister pretty much immediately starts having casual sex with the boys.  This makes them become imperfect, but they go from black and white into color.  Of course, the townspeople freak out about the “coloreds” and start draconian measures to stifle all freedoms.  Eventually, everyone realize how silly they have been and embrace modern ideals.

It is clear that this movie attacks traditional views of the family and society.  I would question, however, how intelligent it is to do so.  First of all, I have never been a fan of the “sexual revolution.”  How has the sexual revolution made us any stronger of a people?  As best as I can tell, its thought process has left a wake of single mothers struggling to get by, a lack of male involvement from these casual affairs (why would a man stick around just because of the baby?), the leading cause of death for pregnant women is now murder (why would a man want to pay child support after all?), and it has weakened marriage by putting too much emphasis on the excitement of sex which should naturally diminish and be replaced by a stronger love and devotion to the spouse and (if God allows) the children.  The concept that having sex will make you into someone interesting or of any worth is laughable.  It will do no such thing.  It will mean you have had sex.  Dogs do it all the time, and I have yet to have an interesting conversation with a single one.  If the most interesting thing about you is that you’ve had sex, you are probably the most boring person on the planet.

Somewhere along the way, we have lost our way.  I look at how men are depicted in shows and movies form the past, and I realize that I am little more than a man child.  To hear the older generation talk, they went to work, came home, and worked on the house or the car or whatever needed fixing.  Now we expect to have fun every day and every weekend.  It’s an unreasonable expectation, and it’s pretty much responsible for why most people are in debt.

I also disapprove of how the the movie depicts the 50′s as being some kind of cultural wasteland.  The fact of the matter is that there has always been art, music, and other creative works throughout history.  Since man first walked the Earth, we figured out how to entertain ourselves and create.  This is part of the reason why they say that we are created in God’s image, as only God can create.  As far as we know, we are the only creature who has this ability.  I am sure that the 50′s had art and music and variety as well.  However, we were not as divided back then.  Now, we have been so cut up and patched together, and they mock us by telling us that we should come together when they were the ones that tore us in twain to begin with.

Of course, the teenagers are the heroes in the movie.  Leftist always exalt the youth and tell them how important they are and how they are the only ones that can fix society.  This is because teens are easy to mislead–easy to fool.  The fact of the matter is that adults have always been smarter and wiser than teenagers.  They always have been, and they always will be.  This is because adults have had to work.  They have had to get along in the real world.  They understand how things work.  Teenagers can be convinced that Socialism is great…because they have never had to work for their living.  They have never had to give up doing something they wanted to do because 25% of their paycheck is taken from them before they even spend a dime.

In fairness, the movie’s gimmick of seeing stark perfection disintegrate to be replaced by a more colorful imperfection is interesting, but you really have to be a Leftist, ignorant of underlying message, or able to put aside your own beliefs to enjoy this movie.  There are some people who will love this movie.  Perhaps I’m just over thinking things again.

There She Blows! – Obama’s Narwhal

Posted by Troy on 17th February 2012 in Current Events, Political

Welcome to your Technocracy!

Slate’s pretty much a crazy Leftist think puddle, but here you go.  This is the Left, personified.  You are not a person with complex views.  You are points of data on a line.  Slate praises Obama’s computerized technique, but this is nothing but Big Brother data mining when you get right down to it.  This is what happens when every second of your life becomes recorded (and this is reflected in 2084).  When we start relying on computer programs for everything, we end up failing.  We forget that people are people.  Part of the problem from the recent Housing Finance crash came from the fact that the formulas for the derivatives were developed by rocket scientists.  What this eventually taught us (after a financial crisis that allowed the Government to steal more money and liberties from us) was that math does a terrible job at predicting simple, self-interested, human behavior.  I was watching a documentary on Joseph Merrick (The Elephant Man).  Scientists wanted to know how he could possibly walk with such a contorted skeleton.  They made a computer simulation and ran it through a super computer.  After a month, the super computer was able to get the model to walk.  If I afflicted you with any sort of aliment, you would be able to figure out how to walk in probably less than five minutes.  Am I saying that a person is smarter than a super computer?  Yes, in some things.  A super computer will never understand some things that we just intuitively know.  Within a few steps, a person has figured out that twisting his foot to the right and only taking a half step with his left leg will let him walk with the least amount of pain and instability.  A computer will never understand fear, love, hate, greed, or any of the other things that humans just flat know.  Now, when it comes to running calculations, yes, the computer will stomp a human into the ground.  When it comes to chess, the computer will beat all but the best chess players, and the best chess players can only hope to win about 33% of the time.

What I find humorous is that the Left is so in love with Obama that they will praise him for using Big Brother tactics and writing his supporters off as units which can be predicted by a logarithm.  This is dehumanizing.  This is a step towards what I discuss in 2084 where humans are seen merely as resources to be used and valued analytically.  The other view is the classic view.  In a religious sense, every person carries the holy spirit inside them.  Murdering the holy spirit is the same as murdering God.  If you believe humans live for 70 years, then a single person does not matter in the least.  If you believe, however, than we live forever, then each human spirit is more important than any country, economic theory, or race as all these affiliations are merely temporary.

Long Live the Constitution!