Hiatus

I'll be away from the computer for a couple of more weeks. Y'all keep after 'em in the meantime.

Read More

Where the rubber meets the road on "equality"

In a new entry today at VFR, Lawrence Auster gets down to it in two paragraphs:

Lawrence Auster writes:

Everyone wants to be superior

Contemporary America says it believes in the equality of all groups and cultures, but in reality none of those groups or cultures believes in equality. Each group wants to be superior and dominant. Blacks don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Hispanics don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Muslims don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. The only group today that doesn’t want to be superior and dominant, the only group that sincerely believes in the equality of all groups, is the historic Anglo-European majority population and culture of the United States.

The non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest. There is thus no substitute for making the decision as to which group or culture will be dominant, or, by continuing to bleat about the wonders of equality, passively letting that decision be made for us by others. Liberalism has no answer to this problem, because its only answer to all problems is to call for more equality. I therefore propose that the traditional, Anglo-European majority culture of this country, shorn of its suicidal liberal belief in the equality of all groups and cultures, be the dominant culture.

Mr. Auster's entry reminds me of several related entries, both recent and not-so-recent, archived at this blog. As to the latter, there was the entry dealing with the Congressional Republicans' ecstasy at now being in the minority. As to the former, there was the entry where we concluded that school segregation was the answer to the dilemma of having whites-favorable rules applying to non-white school students.

Read More

Little Green Footballs -- I'm kicking one right about now

You know, I don't think I've ever made a single reference to ... well, that site, well, since this site has been in existence. Ta Da! But, you see, that site has been, among conservative bloggers, some kind of epitome for conservative thinking expressed in writing, though I cannot possibly imagine why.

Allow me to put Chuckie-cheezie-Johnson in his place: You're worse than a menace, sir; you're a conservative-poser (I.e., a deranged leftist) by everyone's estimation. Good riddance to you you piece of garbage.

No apologies, no appeals to his higher ... whatever ... just, you know, what it is.

P.S., Chuckie (here comes one of those appeals I swore off of earlier), can I get a 'little green football' with your signature on it? Not that I really want one, but I'm purty sure I could sell it, at this point, for at least a couple hundred bucks in any event, which would certainly help me out financially, umm, dude.

By the way, please don't designate my site as one deserving of your ultimate (inernet) disapproval. Oh, you bastard! But can I get a charles johnson signed lttle green football for my efforts nonetheless? No? Ain't that a peach!

Tell ya what, Chuckie, why don't you and I have a meeting of sorts down here in conservative-central?-- you could express your idiotic understanding of conservatism and I could kick your ass for your efforts. How about that? No? Thought not you leftist piece of dung. Can I get a rain check?

Read More

How Oklahoma saved the Union -- not

Hey, look, I don't particularly appreciate digs on Oklahoma citizens (affectionately known internally as "Okies") by outsiders. In point of fact, ask one of my local (migrant, misinformed) neighbors about all that (we had a little -- potentially major, though it didn't turn out that way in the end -- disagreement on that recently), anymore than I appreciate digs on my country by outsiders. On the other hand, as an Okie, I feel imminently qualified to, and particularly justified in, criticizing my own state. All others need not apply.

And here we see the tried and true stupidity of democratic ficklness once more set in stone. But, of course, I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of democratic government on a local level, I'm simply agreeing with the ancients that democratic government can be the worst possible of all forms of government. And when you have a stupid people stupidity will ultimately rule the day.

Isn't democracy just wonderful!?

Read More

Why am I wrong to take the position I take?

In attempting to find some Webster's reference (which I think there is) to commenter Chiu Chunling's assertion which I quoted in the previous post, I found this comment (which I included as a comment) to one of my posts,

Terry Morris said...
It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something." [TM: I actually saw this teacher at a football game last Friday night, though I didn't introduce my 25-year-older self as a matter of ultimate respect).

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.

This challenge still stands.

Read More

Quote of the Day

This "Quote of the Day" comes from Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty and our own frequent commenter Chiu Chunling:

Chiu Chunling writes:

In war (and you are fighting one now), one must consider tactics and strategy, not just the final objective. The objective should be a nation where abortion is not merely prohibited by Federal law, but unthinkable to the citizen of good standing. [TM: for context, read Dr. Keyes's latest entries.]

Certainly, if you know (as opposed to not knowing) what your final objective is then the means to your end become more clear.

BTW, by 'the war we are fighting now,' Chiu isn't referring to the so-called "war on terror," or whatever we're calling it now.

Read More

Back

We actually made it back home late yesterday evening (around 9:30pm local time). At which point I scanned my regular reads, including the comments here. Interesting.

I feel a "quote of the day" coming on ... in the next post.

Read More

So you DO know who your children are meeting on MySpace

Auster has posted at VFR a follow-up entry on the quadruple "horrorcore" related murder in VA that I wrote about here the other day. Included in the VFR entry is an AP article which helpfully fills in some of the gaps left in the case by previous reports.

Let me simply say that I sit here, having just read the AP story a few moments ago, and I'm quite literally stunned, STUNNED by what I've just read. I've known of some pretty horrible parents in my day, but Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures take the damn cake. Unbelievable!

Mood: Disgusted, Outraged!

(Note: In the other entry I mistakenly wrote that Emma Niederbrock's father was a Baptist minister. He was, in fact, a Presbyterian minister, which I've changed the entry to reflect.)

Read More

A fundamental flaw in Dr. Keyes's thinking?

Let me state at the outset that I highly respect Dr. Keyes, his historical knowledge, his influence and abilities, his generally superior moral positions, which my regular readers already know. Anyway...

I was reading Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry earlier today when I ran across this line,

Dr. Keyes wrote:

...bereft of the choices that today allow many to determine for themselves the moment at which they surrender with dignity to the inevitable prospect of their mortality.

which didn't set real well with me. Allow me to attempt an explanation:

Okay, death is inevitable. We agree on that. And to die with dignity is certainly better than dying in an undignified way. This (a 'dignified' death) must be one of the primary goals of every living human being for himself and his loved-ones (it probably extends beyond his loved-ones, but let's establish that limitation for our purposes here).

Well, I acknowledge that insofar as any human being has legitimate control or authority (or "choice") over human life (and death), it is the individual whose life is in question, and extends no further. But I think there's a fundamental flaw in that sort of thinking, a flaw that ultimately leads, or has led, to the dire situation we're in now. No human being, in my humble opinion, possesses any kind of power over human life, including his own. As he did not give himself life, he cannot, on his own whim, "decide" when, and/or, under what particular circumstances to give it up, 'dignified' or not. Ultimately he has no control over it anyway, he just thinks he does. Which is an indication of his underlying lack of faith in the giver of life, The Sovereign God of the Universe.

Anyway, I thought it might make for an insteresting discussion, both here and at Loyal to Liberty. I decided to bring it here for my own purposes, which are altogether self-interested. So sue me.

Read More

Decision made -- looking for suggestions

I'm going to take the U.S. flag, currently displayed at the top of my left sidebar, down. Any suggestions as to an appropriate banner to replace it with? (Note: The Oklahoma flag is out of question.)

Thanks.

Read More

Attn.: Editrix

Our female German correspondent, The Editrix, has some intriguing insights about the female sex, and what causes women (as women) to do some of the things they do.

At VFR is posted an article concerning the actions of a Dutch female reporter putting herself in harm's way. Read the article -- titled: Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are -- to understand what exactly I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not trying to make any sweeping generalizations, truly, but I've witnessed this kind of thing before in certain women who are (relatively) close to me. They engage themselves in certain self-flagellating, ceremonious, ritualistic behaviors, and in their particular cases I've generally identified it as a self-centered grasp for the sympathy due to victims as well as the applause and adulation due to someone so obviously self-less, warm, loving, non-judgmental, and so forth and so on. In other words, my sense in this particular case is that this woman seeks self-promotion and self-gratification, and she was willing to put everything (including her life) at risk to get it. What I find so irritating sometimes, is that people go along with it, legitimizing this kind of behavior, thus effectively creating a monster, er, a whole host of 'em.

But I want to hear (or read) Nora's point of view, as well as any other woman's perspective who would like to add her own thoughts or insights.

Read More

View From the Right (VFR) -- Home of Traditionalist-Conservative Apologetics

I've written, since the inception of this blog, any number of favorable items about Lawrence Auster's VFR. I've also written several items critical of VFR. But I make no bones about the fact that I've written many more of the former than of the latter.

I don't comment as much at VFR as I used to, but it doesn't mean that I have some problem with Auster or his site. Nor does it mean that I neglect keeping up with VFR articles as they're posted. As you all know, there are a number of factors which govern whether we make a contribution to a site or not; opportunity, time, whether one is knowledgable enough (or, possesses humility enough to admit it) on a given subject to speak intelligently on that subject, etc., these are all factors which govern when and how, and to what extent one makes (or doesn't make) such contributions.

Mr. Auster often delves into subjects that are, quite frankly, beyond my personal ability to add anything of any real significance. In such cases, though I often find the articles interesting, informative, and intriguing (the three-I's?), I'm really not able to add anything comment-wise, so I just keep my proverbial trap shut like a good little reader. ;-) But here's the point...

I've often said of VFR (and Lawrence Auster), that it is, in my opinion, the Premier Trad-Con site on the internet, notwithstanding the naysayers, the critics, the Auster-skeptics and detractors (Yes, I'm aware of them and their arguments -- some of them have apparently made it their life's purpose to refute virtually anything and everything Auster has to say on any subject).

I maintain today that VFR is the Premier Trad-con site. And here is a good (singular) example of why I say so.

Update: I've been informed that the second link goes to VFR's main page, instead of to the VFR article I intended. I've tried to correct this, twice, but to no avail, so, the title of the article, posted May 22, 2009, 10:40pm, is: Tyrannical Atheism. Scroll down the main page to access the article. At present it is the fourth article listed.

Read More

On the sorry state of the Christian Church in America

As if the preceding two posts to this blog were not enough, I received a report from the frontlines a few days ago relating to the post title.

Now, I'm not particularly friendly to what some would call "organized religion." I'm a Christian, and I strive to follow Christ's teachings. That would include the Old Testament which Christ, several times in the New Testament, confirmed. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to some level of "organized" religion. There has to be a balance struck, and again, I strive [truly] to strike that balance as an individual, as well as in my relation to others outside my personal individuality.

In the particular case in question, and among other serious errors, it was reported to me, from a very reliable source, that the minister of this church announced to the congregation during his "altar call" during last Sunday's service that "if you want to be released from the bonds of traditionalism, then come forward and pray with me and you shall be set free." Well, okie dokie. That's about the point at which I would have walked out. And indeed, according to my informant, that WAS the point at which he walked out of the service, with no intention of ever returning.

Now, in and of itself it isn't that big of a deal if we establish some reasonable context in which the statement was made. But this isn't the case. This is the kind of church in which overweight females actually pray the calories out of their food (you'd think they'd look in the mirror, or step on a pair of scales once in a while), and such as that. It is the kind of church in which the Spirit of God cannot be in attendance unless virtually everyone is acting like a bunch of teenaged idiots at a rock concert or a local nightclub. And etc. You get the idea I think, but let us seal the deal: This is the kind of church in which the impending economic crisis is thought to be exclusive to the world; the kind of church in which the congregation is assured that as long as it pays its tithes, everything (for faithful tithe-paying members in exclusion of all others) will be hunky-dory. Getting the picture?

You see why I find life so interesting? Here we have a "Christian" church (and this is more common than some of you might think) which teaches doctrines that are not only unscriptural, but which also denies God's very nature and essence. But God is not mocked; He will laugh and will have us in derision. Let me put it this way: if you're a so-called "Christian" church, and your sole and exclusive focus is on the book of Revelation, end-times prophesy, name-it-and-claim-it "gospel," then you're so far from genuine Biblical-Christian teaching that you have no earthly business claiming to be "Christian" in any sense of the word. And this whole problem spans the denominations, believe me:

Several years ago one of the neighbor children came to me while I was busy doing some yard work and announced that she'd been "saved." Now, knowing her like I did, I thought this was kind of odd, so I began to quiz her on what she meant by the term "saved." She said that she was in church and the preacher had an altar call in which he invited all of the non-saved to participate. She, of course, participated. As I 'interrogated' her as to what she'd done, I found that she was completely oblivious to what she'd done. First, she didn't know who Christ was. Second, she had no idea about his birth, death, and resurrection. I gave her a few scriptures to read, and said to her that she should go back to the pastor and explain that she wasn't aware, at the time of her "conversion", what it all meant; that she wanted to be saved legitimately. She did so, and reported back to me (with a bit of an attitude this time) that the pastor in question had informed her that he had saved her before, so there was no need to go over it again ... and that she was to communicate this to me at our next encounter, which she did.

Years prior to that particular incident I was working on a job when the lady of the house announced to me that the weather at the time was the "weirdest weather she'd experienced during the course of her lifetime," and that she could "no longer tell the difference [between the seasons]." This occurance, to her, meant that Christ was soon to return in accordance with Revelation. The season in question was Fall, and I simply said to her that I can tell the difference -- all I have to do is look outside and see the changing as it takes place. And accordingly I asked how much time she spent outside the house. (Does geographic location -- in this case 35 degrees North latitiude, 100 degrees West longitude, approx. 750 ft. above Sea Level, and completely surrounded by land -- mean nothing to any American anymore?).

That, my friends, is the state of Christianity in this country. I've seen and experienced it over and over and over again during the course of the last several years. And it isn't getting any better. It is getting worse, and the stain on Christianity and Biblical-Christian teaching is becoming more and more profound as we speak.

I completely understand where many of you non-Christians are coming from when you say things to the effect that religion is unreasonable. But I want you to know that there are some of us 'religionists' who do not deny our physical beings and our physical natures, nor the physical world in which we live. Indeed, we embrace it as essential aspects of who we are. At the same time we do not deny our spiritual sides either. And we believe, with assurance, that our physical existance is governed by physical laws which are more or less immutable. The same applies as well to our spiritual natures.

Read More

Randians vs. Trad-cons

At VFR we read, once again (**rolls eyes**), the "articulation" of the simplistic view among men which states that reason alone is to be our guide in everything, at all times, and under the inexaustible minutia of conditions and circumstances which we as human beings experience. My God!, what kind of kool-aid are these people drinking? Do they pay any attention to the goings-on around them?

Here is my comment to the VFR entry:

Terry Morris writes:

Humorous on one hand, sad and dangerous on the other, that Andrew Dalton has put his full faith in his own ability to reason properly and correctly, when all of human experience (as well as his own experience whether he cares to acknowledge it or not) hath shown that mankind is particularly disposed to reason incorrectly, as the faculty of reason without cultivation, without experience, and without revelation, is a miserable guide which often errs from ignorance, and more often from the impulse of passion.

His own words are his own undoing. To claim someone has rejected reason altogether on the basis that that person rejects the pitifully ignorant, sophomoric notion that reason alone is to be our sole and exclusive guide, and thus to count him a savage, is to reveal oneself as completely detached from genuine reason, not to mention humility. But as long as he's managed to convince himself, I guess that's all that matters as far as the poor soul is concerned.

LA replies to me:

I like your paraphrase of Mr. Jefferson.

Ah, we have a glimmer! It is satifying indeed to see that Mr. Auster recognized my paraphrase of Mr. Jefferson. But so far as he's concerned I would expect no less. Any Trad-con worth his salt would immediately identify the first part of my paraphrase as originating with Mr. Jefferson and the DoI. BUT...

...how many among you can identify the original source from whence the second part of my combination paraphrase emanates? Just yell it out when you know! ;-)

Read More

The problem with non-discrimination as the ruling principle for any society --

--Civilizational Suicide.

Excerpted below are a few paragraphs selected almost at random from Lawrence Auster's excellent speech -- A Real Islam Policy for a Real America -- given at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference, February 8, 2009 in Baltimore, Maryland (The full text of the speech is here.):

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

[...]

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today's liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It's not impossible.

[...]

What I'm saying here is nothing fancy or metaphysical, it's something that all people know by common sense. We live within these two dimensions--the better and the worse, the more like and the less like--in everything we do.

That is, we did live within them, until modern liberalism came along and said that it's wrong to discriminate between higher and lower, it's wrong to discriminate between better and worse, it's wrong to discriminate between like and unlike.

[...]

The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature. It prohibits normal authority such as the authority of parents and teachers over children. It banished the very idea of a morality that men ought to follow. And even God is banished if he's a God who has any claims on us.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted--it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world. ...

I just became aware that Auster has posted a permanent link to the speech in the sidebar of VFR only an hour or so ago while visiting the site and trying to catch up a bit. It's good to see the speech posted at VFR in its entirety. And perhaps we might think of adding it to the Lawrence Auster on Islam page in the near future.

Speaking of which, if you happen to be new to Webster's and you've not yet become familiar with the articles and pages I have permanent links posted to in the sidebars of the blog for ease of accessibility, if you will look under the heading On Islam in the left sidebar there is a permanent link to the page in question which we created over a year ago.

If you are familiar with the page but haven't been there in a while, you will notice during your next visit that the page has undergone something of a facelift in recent months. This was not my idea, nor am I particularly satisfied with the looks of the page by comparison with the original. But I do give some latitude to the individual who handles the technical aspects of putting these kinds of things together for me. And on that latter note, I have some other ideas for additional pages to add to the blog (not related to Islam) hosted by my own website in the relatively near future that I'll be sharing with you. Stay tuned.

Read More

To my loyal readers, the few of you there be:

Things are going to be slowing down considerably here at Webster's during the next several weeks. Some of you know of my coaching duties, and this is the time of year when that becomes something of a major priority around here, i.e., STATE (we're in a fair position to do well again there.). So four hours a day, four days a week are now devoted to that pursuit exclusively until the first weekend in May.

Beyond that, there is so much going on in the world of politics that I can hardly keep up with it and maintain some semblance of a normal life. Two hours each Monday night are devoted to attending Dr. Keyes's live Webinar conferences until the series is finished in June (please consider joining us; I'll ask all the questions. ;-)). Then we have the TEA parties to plan for. On that latter one, I've been on the phone virtually all day recruiting people to attend with me. At this point I'm not sure whether I'll be in Tulsa or OKC on April 15, but you can rest assured I'll be at one of those two places on that day ... with as many as I can successfully coerce into going with. Then, of course, since I'm not independently wealthy, I have to earn a living.

Elsewise...

Everyone please give a warm welcome to Chiu Chunling -- a frequent commenter, with very good insights, over at Dr. Keyes's Loyal to Liberty site. Read Chiu's comments both here and at Loyal to Libery, you'll see what I mean.

Read More

Tenth Amendment redux

Numerous entries found in the archives of this blog deal with the Tenth Amendment Resolution movement specifically, and/or otherwise reference the tenth amendment as being, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter insofar as its intent as part of the Bill of Rights is concerned.

In this October 15, 2008 entry I offer a proposal for shoring up as well as maintaining the importance of the tenth amendment for generations to come, and for preventing the judiciary's ruling on the matter.

Here is the text of the proposal as I wrote it in October:

Section I: The People reserve to themselves and to the states wherein they reside all powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Section II: The several states which at any time are part of this union, and from the date of the ratification of this article, shall at every fifth leap year succeeding, call a convention for review of the Constitution, and on the applications to Congress of two thirds of the state conventions for Constitutional review, the Congress shall be compelled to call a convention for addressing the states' concerns. The states shall determine, by two thirds majority vote, and at every third convention interval, by what mode to direct the Congress to act, but the fifth article of the Constitution, or any provision thereof, shall not be infringed.

Section III: The People prohibit review of this article by the Federal Judiciary, or preemption thereof by the United States, but the Judiciary may act as advisory to the Congress.

Read More

New Addition to the Links of Interest section of the blog

I'm happy to add a permanent link to a new website, The Tenth Amendment Center, under the heading Links of Interest in the right sidebar of this blog.

I was led to the site while scanning the newest articles and following a link to one of them posted at OutragedPatriots.com (also permanently linked under the same heading) earlier, and was pleased to find during my visit to The Tenth Amendment Center site that in addition to providing the service (to those of us with an intense interest in the subject) of posting frequent updates chronicling the growth of the movement and the progress of the individual Tenth Amendment Resolutions as they make their way through the legislative process in the various states, the site administrators have included a permanent link to the AFB in the site's blogroll, which was a pleasant and unexpected surprise.

Now you'll have a reliable place to go where you can quickly bring yourself up to current on the progress of the individual resolutions and the movement as a whole. Go tell all your friends.

Meanwhile, the "freestaters" are givin' 'em hell up in New Hampshire. They don't take too kindly, and they certainly do not simply submit, to law enforcement officers and government officials attempting to bully their way onto their private properites without a proper warrant, among other things. They're not particularly inclined to answer questions of the authorities which they are not required by law to answer, frequently (and very respectfully I might add) educating their law enforcement and goverment employed antagonists as to what questions they are required by law to answer, and what questions they are not required by law to answer. And they make it a point to keep a video camera with them at all times, which seems to be a very good deterrant to abuse of power from what I've seen. One of them made a good and salient point in one of the videos I watched, he said in very concise terms following the N.H. Legislature's striking down of their Tenth Amendment Resolution proposal, "When peaceful revolution is prohibited, violent revolution is inevitable." Google it.

Read More

And now for some much needed entertainment to temporarily take your mind off the pain

Read More

Limits or Balance, or both?

In connection with the video posted at the AFB, and also with the Democracy or Republic entry posted below, some of you may be interested in this Oct. 2007 AFB discussion on limiting government via governmental balance.

The discussion initially got a little heated between myself and our libertarian friend ol' shep, but we finally came to an understanding agreeing that re-establishing governmental balance is a superior concept to that of placing artificial arbitrary restrictions on government in order to limit its power to do evil. If you care to read the discussion avoiding all of the initial hostility exhibited between myself and ol' shep, you can start about here (Note: I was writing at that time under the pen name D. Webster.).

Also, for a better understanding of what "Balanced Government" is as we at the AFB have attempted to explicate it, see my AFB article What is Balanced Government?. I need to make some revisions to the article, but the basic concepts are all there. Also, the article, in fact both of these AFB articles are permanently linked at the top of this blog's left sidebar under the heading Select AFB Articles.

Read More