Walter Block Tears Into Loyola College Maryland

This may be a long read to some, but it is well worth the time.

Block who is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, gave a lecture at Loyola College in Maryland and fills us in on the "controversy.

Again, this is a very entertaining piece that you will enjoy immensely.

Why Immigrants Voted Obama

In a recent column in the Tennessean, Saritha Prabhu tells us that America's newest voters identify with Obama. What she means by this is that immigrants from other cultures with newly acquired voting privileges are helping to shape modern America.

Little did I know that my first U.S. presidential vote would be in a historic race.

In early November 2006, about 60 of us immigrants stood in a Nashville courthouse and took the oath of citizenship. It was a disparate bunch, from different corners of the globe. One woman in a sari, obviously from India, smiled at me from across the aisle, perhaps in silent acknowledgment of our common national origin.

Fact is, if Obama was an "other," so were millions of new Americans. The country's demographics are changing, with rising numbers of the foreign-born, the brown-skinned, the biracial, and those in interracial marriages.

Millions of these people probably saw in Obama a piece of themselves. I know I did. As an immigrant who moved from one culture to another, who has evolved into a hybrid over the years, and who has a still-changing identity that is part Indian and part American, I could relate to Obama's story.

I couldn't keep myself from responding.

It is an ignorant and extremely gullible stance to think that the "other" is the better. It is in fact no different than what the "conservative" base does when voting. It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that you and other newcomers from other cultures get to shape our culture and help decide our national direction (satire).

This is yet another good reason to reject the false doctrine of "universal suffrage." When you, Prabhu, make a larger consideration for this "nirvanian" world of multiculturalism by the acceptance of a black skinned leader at the expense of Constitutional liberties, you are no different than those who still defend the Bush/Cheney doctrines. (By the way, I have no problem with a black skinned president if they can honestly take the oath of office and defend the Constitution.)

What makes this article that much more offensive is that you are a new citizen telling us how great things are going to be. It is a bit demeaning to those of us (no matter how few) who side with the anti-Federalists, when someone comes in and starts telling us how wonderful this great new leadership will be that is just as tyrannical as GWB was with a blatant Communistic twist.

I can do nothing more than I have to stop this trampling of constitutionalism, but I will lambaste those who come in like carpetbaggers and use a public forum and their so called "right" of suffrage to facilitate change in a manner completely unhealthy to the form of government that these states adopted and entered into voluntary contract thereof.

With all this being said, I would like to reiterate the opening...Only the ignorant, unlearned, gullible, mentally incapable of critical thought and logical reasoning believe that the "other" is the better. Perhaps this is the real reason that we are in the condition that we are here after eight years of Bush (thanks to your counterparts who lean right of left) and now as we top the hill of "progressive-ism" and see the Constitutional constraints of government completely vanish in the rear view mirror.

God save us from ourselves.

Man Jailed For Illegal Couch?

Where in the world might one be arrested and sentenced to 93 days of jail for having a couch on a lawn? Why right here in America of course.

Keene, New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman has been arrested by local authorities and tried in a private courtroom for refusing to remove a couch from his yard.

Patten claimed that he cited Freeman after receiving a complaint. Freeman said he would remove the couch if given an opportunity to speak to the original complainant, “like an adult, instead of calling in men with guns.” The city refused and demanded he come to trial Friday, where he was jailed for contempt almost immediately.

While some may find this to be a trite example of standing up for one's rights, I find it to be a good example of how horribly stupid our "laws" and court proceedings have become.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

It is becoming more and more common for folks to accept their position of constantly proving to the authorities that they have not broken any laws. The State has been making “laws” for years that have subtly done away with the assumption of innocence.

The particular laws cannot coexist with the particular liberties. One or the other must cease existence.

Sadly few people even notice when these tyrannical laws are passed or when they are even directly affected by them.

Take for example the Tennessee law that requires every driver to carry proof of insurance. You cannot have this law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

One must pay close attention to the laws to see how legislators have made it the responsibility of the citizen to prove his innocence. Perhaps the most aggressive example of this comes from the IRS in the form of tax audits.

They announce to the taxpayer that they will be investigating them for tax fraud only they call it an audit. It does not sound so bad that way. Also, by not calling it an investigation, they feel as though they need no evidence of wrongdoing or reasonable cause for suspicion.

The next step for the IRS to take in convicting you is nothing. It is up to you to prove your innocence. Of course everything you say can and will be used against you, but remaining silent in this case is “illegal.” Refusing to address these warrantless charges void of any evidence makes you “guilty.”

In short it is an inquisition. All of these laws become that. When stopped for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt, one may also be charged with other crimes if they cannot prove on the spot that they have not broken other laws. Unless there is some reasonable cause to suspect that one is driving without a license or without insurance, then the officer has no authority to fish for such offenses.

But they do and Americans capitulate.

This idea goes along with an earlier post about the State redefining rights. They are the ultimate wordsmiths and they will do as they please with laws in the name of the “common good.” The problem is that they have no authority to pass such laws.

A former law cannot be canceled out by a new law unless the former is repealed. The former takes precedence in this case. So when the officer asks you if you have proof of insurance, you might ask him if he has proof otherwise. It is not in the authority of the State to require from the people constant proof of not breaking the laws.

Perhaps it is the desire for tranquility; non confrontation? Perhaps Americans have forgotten their fathers’ fight over lesser grievances than today. Whatever the case may be, it is becoming a sad situation when one does stand up to unlawful authority and the masses condemn him. The maxim of Americans has become, “We must comply.”

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer applicable here and apathetic Americans are as much to blame for this as a corrupt government.

Now in closing, some readers might think that this is all trite, unworthy of provocation. To you the author declares two things. First, government is a monster that gets bigger and harder to control the more it “eats.” If you are unwilling to at least speak out against this now, then you are contributing as stated above.

The second declaration comes not directly from the author, but from a man who has witnessed the battle in its various stages. He was a man that has gotten in some cases a bad reputation as an agitator. After all, according to modern standards, he was in fact an agitator, though some still call him a Patriot.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” --Sam Adams

It's All Palin's Fault?

Funny thing how the GOP is looking for reasons that Obama won the election and not McCain.

Rather than key in on a the last eight dismal years in which we have seen the Constitution shredded by a Republican administration (no doubt with help from the other wing) or the fact that they ran the most liberal possible candidate this term, they look towards the ill experienced Sarah Palin.

There are a number of reasons that one could pick for the loss, but the author cannot believe that it is because of the Veep choice. More accurately in his humble opinion it is because the GOP has fallen so far left of center, that moderate Republicans see no real difference in who they vote for.

Of course, according to Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke, and others, race had something to do with it.

But really, for the GOP to pick on Mrs. Palin is outright ridiculous. Even if her lack of experience and some reports of her alleged ignorance regarding not just foreign policy, but the difference between nations and continents had something to do with the loss, it should fall squarely on the GOP's shoulders; more particularly the idiot(s) that picked her.

She was a strategic choice, but she's no saviour. There is a very real possibility, though, that despite her akwardness in some situations and the fact that she is unqualified for the position, she gave new "conservative" life to an otherwise dying party garnering a few votes that otherwise would have gone third party or not been cast at all.

Still, there are far too many greater reasons that are staring them in their face, but the GOP cannot see the forest for the trees.

That's right guys. Keep looking. You'll find it eventually.

Maybe?

Nah, probably not.

November 4, 2008: The Day Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream Died

While I am in no way a fan of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a good friend and fellow anti-Federalist sent me his take on the election. I have my own doubts about his affections for the doctor, but he has some very interesting things to say about Obama's election. Without further ado, Dr. Nate Hoeldtke. . .
___________________________________

The reader glancing at the title above will be forgiven if he thinks that
the writer mistakenly believes that John McCain won the presidential race. Indeed, this probably would be the title of some pundit’s essay if John McCain had won the election. Certainly there are many this day who think that the election of Barack Obama is the realization of that very dream. But just the opposite is the case. In a perverse way the election of Barack Obama marks the death of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, rather than its realization.

What was that dream? It consisted of many things, but it boiled down to this: “I have a dream that my . . . children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

On November 4, 2008 we saw a nation which judged a man more by the color of his skin than by the content of his character.

There were those who were going to vote for any liberal Democratic candidate that the party would put up. These are not the voters of concern. There were many others who weren’t so predisposed. What about them?

We saw a population with skin colored black, who voted for a man with skin colored black in unprecedented numbers. This included many men and women who claimed to be conservatives, but who left off any confidence they had in ideas and voted for an extremely liberal man based on the color of his skin. The more honest among them admitted that skin color was the basis upon which they were voting. In this was exhibited a spirit of tribalism and clan adherence of the highest order.

We saw a population with skin colored white, who suffering long under the “white man’s burden,” voted for a man with skin colored black. Their burden has been the guilt they have felt for the past sins of those with white skin color, which were committed against those in the past with black skin color. Instead of feeling guilty for their own sins they have found it more convenient to feel guilty for the sins of those who went before them. It is Biblical to acknowledge and confess the sins of our fathers, and even to acknowledge that those sins can affect the children. But the guilt of those sins belongs solely to those who committed them, not their descendants.

Nonetheless, many suffering under this false “white man’s burden” were giddy to salve their consciences by voting for a man with black skin color. They were eager to do penance and demonstrate that they aren’t racist. They were willingly to overlook glaring character flaws to make this point by their vote.

In each of these instances, the black man in a show of clan support, and the white man seeking to absolve his guilty conscience, the voters were judging by skin color.

On the other hand, we can see that this great mass of voters couldn’t have been judging him by the content of his character. For the content of his character is unknown and questionable at best, or objectionable and wicked at worst.

From time immemorial it has been universally acknowledged that a man is known by the company he keeps. Let us look at the company Obama has kept.

First up: Jeremiah Wright. A man who preaches black liberation theology, which embodies a hatred of whites (judging them by their skin color) and wraps Marxism in theological language. In Jeremiah Wright’s case this theology also encompassed anti-Semitism. Obama sat under this preacher for 20 years. He chose to have his children baptized by this man. He chose to have his children hear this preacher Sunday after Sunday. What is the character of a man who so willingly exposes his family to a man who judges others on the color of their skin? Who rails against Jews? Finally, when the radicalness of this man’s ideas became undeniable Obama said he didn’t know that this man believed or taught these things. Either Obama pays so little attention to his surroundings (for 20 years!) that he isn’t fit to lead a dog down the street, or he is lying. Nobody believes the former, so it must be the latter. Then when the pressure became overbearing, he disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, revealing expedience as his modus operandi.

Next up: William Ayers. A man who was involved in the bombings of the Pentagon, a police station and the private home of a judge. One who has never apologized or repented for these domestic terrorist actions and who even recently expressed regret that he didn’t do more. A man who dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassinator of Robert Kennedy. Barack Obama sat on a board with this man, started his political career in this man’s living room, and endorsed one of his books. When initially asked about the relationship, Obama said he was just a “guy in the neighborhood” that he knew. When the pressure became more intense, he then said that Ayers had done these things when he, Barack Obama, was 8 years old. Further, he said he was working with Ayers on educational projects, on which he agreed with Ayers. What is the content of the character of a man who overlooks such heinous acts, never repented of, because he admires a man for his educational ideas? This is similar to a man becoming friendly with a Nazi concentration camp guard, who after a day of beating and killing prisoners, comes home, pats his dog on the head, hugs his children and kisses his wife. When asked why one would have a friendly relationship with such a monster the man replies, “He’s such a wonderful family man!”

How about Rashid Khalidi? Tony Rezko? The list could go on. . .

Obama is a man who has espoused policies that entail taking the private property of one man to give it to another man. This is stealing, whether done at gun-point or by the power of government. What is the character of a man who would use his power to take what belongs to one man and give it to another?

Perhaps the truest test of a man’s character is the way he treats his family and those who are most vulnerable within his sphere of influence.

While Obama raked in millions of dollars he gave away only 1% of his income before he decided to run for president. Meanwhile, his half brother continues to live in squalor in Kenya, subsisting on one dollar a month. No help has come from Obama.

Planned Parenthood concentrates its abortion clinics in minority communities and a black woman who is pregnant is 3 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman who is pregnant, a situation that Jesse Jackson once rightfully called “black genocide.” Yet Obama has praised Planned Parenthood and pledged to them radical pro-abortion actions on his part as president.

When Obama had a chance to vote in Illinois to ensure that infants born alive during a late abortion attempt would be treated with the same care as any other infant, he was the sole state senator to speak out against the bill. This same bill, virtually word for word, passed unanimously in the United States Senate, by liberals and conservatives alike. No one else was cold-hearted enough to speak out against the care of a living, breathing human being, outside the womb. What is the content of the character of a man who sets himself so markedly against the most vulnerable charges within his care as a state senator?

Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., says, “For those who suggest that Barack Obama advances the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I say look again. His politics are anathema to the dream!”

It is no small irony that a black man who has absolutely no connection, familial or otherwise, to American slavery, is seen by many as a savior who will lead us to the Promised Land. But everything about his choice of comrades, his words and his prior actions suggest that he is a collectivist who will instead lead us into a new slavery to the State. Unfortunately, Dr. King’s dream must remain in the ether, for we cannot yet together rightfully sing, “Free at last.”

___________________________________

Thanks Nate!

Rights License

What is a privilege? What is the difference between rights and privileges. These are questions that Americans should know the answer to, but sadly too many do not even care. The citizens have relinquished all rights not knowing or not standing up for rights that they did not choose to exercise.

The State has found a new source of revenue in licensing rights. It is simple. They redefine rights as being privileges granted by the State. They have become gods to themselves granting men privileges to do such things as work, marry, travel, bear arms, etc., etc.

It seems the greater part of the population is eager to go along with such tyranny. In Tennessee, one is required to have a business license in order to be self-employed. This was particularly disturbing to me when I received a letter from the state requiring me to get a license to work for myself.

My simple argument was that God commands men to work and so the state cannot possibly require man to be licensed for doing what God commands.

I further stated that it was completely against good sense to require me to get a license for "making good use of one's self." (While the welfare roles are neither taxed nor licensed, I am required to pay tribute to the State so that I can be a productive member of society?)

I made these points to my state senator along with the fact that the Tennessee does not have the authority to license rights and starting a business or simply working without an employer is as basic a right as breathing.

It was one of the few times that I have not received any correspondence back from a politician, but lo and behold, I never received another letter from the state!

The pervasive problem that has arisen with governments is that they have redefined terms. One may find examples of this at every turn. Perhaps the worst lately is the new definitions of "terrorists."

In redefining words and dumbing down the Constitution, the State has cleared the way for all sorts of legislation. The rights that the governments have declared to be privileges are far too many to list here, but folks need to start opening their eyes and choosing a few battles. If every "sole proprietor" would refuse to get the business license, the State would have to address the grievances and declare their outright tyranny or capitulate.

If citizens would address the "handgun carry license," as a right rather than a privilege, then folks could arm themselves for protection for free. Seems like having the tools to defend one's self should be a basic right, doesn't it?

The problem that has occurred is that folks have become complacent. They are unwilling to stand up against government for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, while ignoring that the real Patriots did just that!

It is important to understand that when a license is required for an activity, the activity is illegal. At the point that the state "gives one permission" in the form of a license, it is then legal for the holder of the license to perform the activity.

Simply put, working is not illegal. Fishing in a boat with a motor is not illegal. Harvesting animals for food is not illegal. Becoming a nurse, lawyer, doctor, surveyor, contractor, etc. is not illegal.

But the requirement of a license from the state makes all of these activities and many, many more illegal. In fact, there are very few vocations that have not been licensed.

It is time for this madness to stop. But it will not unless people DEMAND it. It cannot be stressed enough that tyrants never, ever, EVER relinquish power!

It is going to take an educated society to stop this business of redefining rights. It starts with every single person who is aware of what is going on. Without educating others and standing up to the various levels of government, we should expect to see this not only perpetuate, but multiply.

Business License Tyranny

Here is a letter that I wrote to Senator Roy Herron, my state senator in Tennessee pertaining to the business license. It goes along with the upcoming post.

The Tennessee General Assembly authorizes counties and municipalities to levy a privilege tax, that is, a tax for the privilege of operating a business in their jurisdictions. All counties with the exception of Clay, Morgan and Macon levy the tax. Incorporated cities can also impose the tax. This tax is based on a percentage of sales or gross receipts in succeeding years. If your company operates in several different cities or counties, you would be liable to each city or county based on sales or receipts accumulated in each location.[1]

Senator Herron,

I have met you on one occasion in the past and admired your candor and desire to hear the voice of your constituents. I was also given the impression that you are a Christian man and well respected in many places. I believe that it would be safe to assume that being a Christian, you are aware of your position of authority that God Almighty has placed you. So it is with great respect and expectations that I appeal to you for your fervent consideration in the matter before you. The people of this district have entrusted their liberties to you and you being “God’s minister for the good of the people” have the lawful duty to execute justice when enacting laws and to put down all forms of tyranny and injustice by repealing laws. I do not say this with a mindset that you are ignorant of this truth, but only to establish it between us. I would hope that this appeal is received with all of the respect due to you and that I address you as God’s minister for good. It is also my prayer that God will direct your steps and that His Word will be instructive in your position as lawgiver.

I do not think that there are many people in this state that are aware of the implications of the above stated “law.” Upon receiving a letter from the state of Tennessee instructing me to get a business license, I was somewhat confused. I did not understand the necessity of this. I had in an instant gone from employee to self-employed and did not see really any distinction in the two. Upon studying the matter more closely, I was in disbelief that Tennessee legislators believed that it actually is a “privilege” to “make profitable use of one’s self” (self employment). I do not want to be presumptuous and making flying accusations that the state had a need of more revenue and thus enacted this legislation, but I can think of no other reason to license a man’s labor even labeling it a revenue tax. I am sure, Mr. Herron that you had no part in this because I believe that this was enacted before you had occasion to vote against it. I do not believe any godly man would ever enact this legislation.

Firstly, it is against liberty altogether to insist that self employment is a privilege as opposed to a right or a duty. Men are commanded by God to work, to take dominion over the earth by using their labor for the building of God’s kingdom. Theologians call it the Dominion Mandate. Thus, there is a mandate by God requiring us to be industrious. This is the Lord’s authority. It cannot be said however at this point that we can be industrious as long as we are all employees, because the scenario is impossible unless the state becomes the employer for all. Without the self employed there is no employee. The employee relies on the self employed always. The inverse is not necessarily true for the self employed may or may not employ other’s labor. So in this first case the legislators that enacted this have “licensed” something that is not in their honorable power to license, that being a duty commanded by God.

Secondly, it is a great injustice to levy taxes on one certain group of people, their labor, and their property. Am I less of a citizen than the employee or the vagrant even? I think humbly that you would say emphatically, “NO!” Jesus asked Simon, ‘“What do you think Simon? From whom do the kings of earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?’ Peter said to Him, ‘From strangers.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are free.’ ”[2] Taxation of a certain group is a confirmation of their position in society. What reasoning did the legislators have in enacting a law so repugnant to equality of citizens?

Thirdly, to expect the godly citizen to recognize the state as the provider of such “privilege,” is to ask Daniel to bow before the golden idol. Daniel refused to recognize the king’s authority over what God has claimed for Himself. By asking the state for permission to be industrious a man is admitting the authority of the state in such matters. God has claimed this authority and though He has given us lawful authority to minister to us (civil magistrates), it is God who determines what is Caesar’s and what is His. Christians are to be subject to all lawful authorities.[3]

“But in that obedience which we have shown to be due the authority of rulers, we are always to make this exception, indeed, to observe it as primary, that such obedience is never to lead us away from obedience to Him, to whose will the desires of kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty their scepters ought to be submitted. And how absurd would it be that in satisfying men [we] should incur the displeasure of Him for whose sake [we] obey men themselves! The lord, therefore, is the King of kings, who, when He has opened His sacred mouth, must alone be heard, before all and above all men, next to Him we are subject to those men who are in authority over us, but only in Him. If they command anything against Him, let it go unesteemed.”[4]

This is not to say that the Christian may revolt from any authority that infringes upon Christian liberty, but that at the point in which he must acknowledge the state as having authority that God has not given the state, he be compelled by God to humbly disobey.

Fourthly, that the state constitution has forbidden enacting of such laws in two sections. Article 1, Section 8 states, “No man to be disturbed but by law.--That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” This section presupposes that the law cannot abrogate our inalienable rights to life , liberty, or property (or privileges). Except by proven guilt of law breaking can any of these rights be destroyed. The presupposition is that the legislation (whether state or local) cannot make a law that voids any of these. Given that employing oneself to the end of prosperity, charity, etc. is commanded by God and is an unalienable right, not only does the state not have the authority to make laws that infringe on this right, but it does not have the authority to redefine the duty in terms of a privilege granted by the state. This is the point at which the state has trampled its own constitution and worse claimed what is God’s. It would be no different than imposing a license for life and enforcing it by death.

It would be absurd to allow this to mean that the future law can be construed as to ruin liberty. This section is to secure against all courts, laws, and authorities and citizens the people’s liberty except in such cases that a person forfeits his liberty through crime. To make liberty a crime, though, subject to ruin for the breaking of that very “crime” (liberty) is preposterous.

Article I Section 3 says, “Freedom of worship.--That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever by given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”

I call attention to first our right to worship God Almighty and further that in the worship of Him, “that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” It should be against every Christians’ conscience to acknowledge the state as the authority by which we derive our mandate to work and prosper. It is emphatically against my conscience and that of my fellow churchmen alike.


I do not have any desire to make any brawl out of this. I would at one instance rather submit and go on living peaceably, but the Lord corrects me in this. I acknowledge God Almighty alone in my duty to be industrious. I beg of you your consideration in this matter and that your instruction would be from God’s word and that the Lord would give you wisdom. I know that this is no small thing to bring before the House as a repeal item, but you have been called to a great task in that you are a “lawgiver,” a minister of God. To neglect this issue is to stand firm behind the state’s claim that it creates law apart from God thus bringing judgment upon yourself and the land. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”[5] It is God who says what is His and what He entrusts to the civil magistrate. I pray that I am faithful in obeying Him in this. It is with a humble character that I lay these things before you in hopes that they will be faithfully considered by a Christian man and I thank you for your meditation on these things.

Damon Crowe

[1] Additional Tax Information (2005). Retrieved 2005 from
http://tn.gov
[2] Matthew 17:25, 26.
[3] Romans 13:5, 6.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 225.
[5] Matthew 22:21.