Scott Bradley: 'A Law For Everything?'

Source:Scott Bradley- Not in a free society. 

“After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Facebook Live Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST on: To Preserve the Nation

Scott’s Website:Freedoms Rising Sun."

From Scott Bradley

I actually like this piece from Scott Bradley (and I don’t mean to be insulting here) but I had him pegged as someone who was more of a Christian-Conservative and not just that but a Christian-Theocrat or Christian-Nationalist who did believe that it was the role of government to not just legislate morality, but to legislate and enforce laws based on fundamentalist religious scripture. So things like alcohol and premarital sex, adultery, along with homosexuality, and gambling would all be illegal in a theocracy and that form of government.

But what Bradley is doing here instead is saying that something might be wrong or immoral and not God’s will, but doesn’t mean it should automatically be illegal.

Alcohol is obviously bad for people especially if it’s abused, but that alone doesn’t mean it should be illegal. And the same thing with gambling, adultery. (To use as examples) There’s nothing necessarily wrong with premarital sex, but it does violate some people’s religious beliefs, but that alone doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Which I guess is what Scott Bradley’s point would be here.

The great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke once said that he’s very socially conservative in the sense as far as how he lives, but he doesn’t believe that government shouldn’t force everyone to live like him, just because his own personal lifestyle is pretty conservative.

Me personally, I don’t drink alcohol let alone smoke tobacco and I don’t gamble, but I would never want government to force other people to make the same decisions that I’ve made here, especially since they’re not hurting anyone else simply by having a drink or smoking a cigarette or gambling their paycheck.

I believe if you’re going to have to free society there are certain things and activities that government simply has to put up with in order to protect the freedoms of that society. Including behavior and activities that come with real risk that I’ve already mentioned and even more like marijuana and even prostitution and pornography. And that government should come in when people are hurting innocent people with the choices that they’re making.

It’s not a question of whether government should legislate morality or not since that question is already moot anyway. But the real question is to what extent and I want government to protract me and every other innocent person from predators, but not try to protect us from ourselves; Which is where I come down as a Liberal. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

Tom Woods: 'Remember When Conservatives Didn't Make You Pull Your Hair Out?'

Source:Player FM- Conservatives or anti-Conservatives?

"Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you'll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him -- not literally, so don't get your hopes up -- in this episode.  Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

From Tom Woods

This is a great conservation because when I think of Conservatives as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I don't think of people who try to pull my hair out. Maybe that's just me not seeing any Conservatives at my barber shop, ( ha, ha ) but I think of people as a Liberal that I actually have a lot of things in common with. People who are anti-Communist and anti-authoritarian all together, as well as anti-Socialist, but people who believe in not just the republic, but the federal republic and not people who want theocracy regardless of what religion a theocratic government would come from.

Conservatives, actually are people who believe in fiscal responsibility, regardless of what the current Republican Party is saying today. Ass well as a strong, but responsible and limited national defense. Not Neoconservatives who believe that it's the job of America to force democracy on the rest of the world that doesn't currently have it, or believe that deficits don't matter. That expansionist deficits and debt are worth having a strong national defense and that tax cuts pay for themselves. The Lindsay Graham's of the world and other Neoconservatives in Congress who actually believe in this.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of people who believe in limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. who believe in conserving our individual rights and that the best way to do that is to limit governmental power especially at the Federal level and decentralizing governmental power, which is one of the main reasons for having a federal republic unlike a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in the country is centralized in the national government especially with the executive.

The people that Tom Woods was talking about that he was calling Conservatives, aren't actually Conservatives at least when a Republican is President. The so-called Constitutional Conservatives from the Tea Party era from earlier this decade only applied to President Barack Obama. Once President Obama was out of office the Constitution no longer mattered that much to them ( if at all ) except as it related to executive power and believing that the President has the power to do basically anything, just as long as these anti-conservatives ( as I call them ) or Nationalists actually agree with what the President is doing. This is no longer about Constitutionalism or Republicanism when it comes to today's Republican Party, but about short-term partisanship and short-term political convenience.

The reason why we have a Libertarian Party and a Conservative-Libertarian movement today, is because we have a Republican Party that no longer believes in limited government and Constitutionalism. Who now believe that executive essentially has unlimited power just as long as the executive is doing what they want him to do and the executive is a Republican. I believe those are the people that Tom Woods is talking about when he talks about "Conservatives who don't make him want to pull your hair out."

But to me Conservatives are people who would never want me to make me pull my hair out, because they tend to have principles that I agree with. The beliefs in the U.S. Constitution, limited government, individual rights, strong but limited and responsible national defense., and fiscal responsibility. I obviously don't agree with Conservatives on everything as a Liberal, but we once had a strong Conservative-Libertarian movement, that was a great alternative to Liberals and Progressives in America. And I wish the Republican Party would at some point get back to that, especially when there's a Republican in the White House. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

The Globalist: Richard Phillips: 'Enter Alexandria O. Cortez, Socialist'

Source:The Globalist- The U.S. Congress: good luck finding and more unpopular institution anywhere. 

"The word “socialist” is suddenly gaining currency in American politics. After decades of laying dormant, the term briefly reared its ugly head in Bernie Sanders’ run for the US presidency in 2016.

But it quickly disappeared when Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination. Now, however, the word is suddenly experiencing a major renaissance.

In fact, it was used prominently during President Trump’s recent State of the Union speech, turning the word into the GOP’s go-to weapon against Democratic opponents. It is a cudgel with which to beat questioning individuals into blind submission...

From The Globalist

"Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the newest political figure everyone loves or loves to hate. From her ‘Green New Deal’ proposal to combat climate change to her clapbacks against Trump and her critics, here’s how AOC danced her way into the spotlight...

Source:USA Today- Democratic Socialist?

From USA Today

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez , D, New York , self-described Democratic Socialist 

Socialism, similar to libertarianism and perhaps conservatism and when I think of conservatism I think of Conservative-Libertarians, but that's a different discussion, but socialism similar to these other political ideologies have different factions. I get that, I was one of the first people to acknowledge that when I first started blogging ten years ago. So when I think of Socialists, I don't automatically think of Communists and the Fidel Castro's of the world or Neo-Communists ( as I call them ) the Nicholas Maduro's of the world. But when I think of Socialists, I don't automatically think of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, like Swedish or French Socialists. I take each Socialist and socialist faction one by one and look at them individually.

For me if you want to recognized as a Democratic Socialist, you can't just be in favor of government-run health care and health insurance, as well as a lot of welfare state programs, you also have to be in favor of democracy, free and fair elections that include non-socialist democratic parties and candidates, including conservative parties and candidates, you have to be in favor of a free, fair, and open press, check and balances, limits on executive power, and you have to be against bigotry regardless of where and who it comes from. Not just be against bigotry when it targets non-Europeans and non-Christian religious groups, but antisemitism as well.

In case there is anyone left who doesn't already know this, but Jews are both ethnic and religious minorities in every country in the world outside of Israel and in most countries their tiny minorities representing 1-2% of the population ( depending on what country you look at ) so when you when you attack Jews simply because they're Jewish, you're attacking not just a religious minority, but an ethnic minority as well when you're outside of Israel. Which is something the Far-Left and not just in America, but in Britain as well doesn't seem to understand or even care about. Who seem to believe that oppression and bigotry against Palestinians is somehow a horrible thing, but it's OK when it's against Jews in and outside of Israel. Why, because Palestinians are Arab and not Jewish, why would that make any difference.

Freshman Representative Alexandria O. Cortez and Representative Ilhan Omar can all themselves Democratic Socialists all they want, but until they come out against antisemitism and the state oppression and authoritarianism of the Socialist Maduro Regime in Venezuela, they're just Socialists to me. Perhaps even hippie Socialists or hipster Socialists, yuppie Socialists, which are common in both New York and San Francisco, but they're just Socialists who apparently don't have issues with bigotry just as long as it targets the rights groups ( according to them ) and don't have issues with authoritarianism, just as long as it's left-wing authoritarianism.

If you want to be a Democratic Socialist, you have to remember that Democratic Socialists starts with Democratic which applies at least that you believe in at least some level of democracy and appose authoritarianism regardless of where and who it comes from. And you oppose authoritarianism regardless of who and where it comes from. The same thing with Liberals and liberalism, anyone can call themselves a Liberal, but if you don't believe in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come from liberal democracy, you're not very liberal if at all. The same thing with Democratic Socialists and democratic socialism, if you don't believe in democracy and don't oppose bigotry in all forms, you're not much of a Democratic Socialist. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Onion: 'Trump Base Celebrates President For Standing Up To The Constitution'

Source:The Onion- President Donald Trump: "I don't need the Constitution!"

"WASHINGTON—Enthusiastically praising the commander-in-chief for holding firm in the face of opposition, Donald Trump’s political base cheered on the president Friday for standing up to the U.S. Constitution. “He stayed strong and really showed the Constitution who’s boss,” said 48-year-old Trump supporter Ross Heddens, applauding the president’s bravery and determination in taking on the document that represents the social contract through which all authority vested in the U.S. government is ultimately derived. “No fundamental system of laws is going to get in his way. Trump has shown that he won’t allow mere constitutional articles—not even the ones that explicitly delineate which powers are granted to which branches of government—to stop him from doing what he has pledged to do. That’s how tough he is.” Members of Trump’s base went on to urge the president to continue standing his ground by ignoring any future rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that may seek to prevent him from fulfilling his campaign promises."   

From The Onion

"Congress poised to reject President Trump's national emergency declaration; Rich Edson reports."  

Source:Fox News- I guess Donald Trump's base now views Rand Paul as a RINO 

From Fox News

At risk of sounding serious for a moment which I can promise you will be fly by as fast as one of Donald Trump's political positions: Donald Trump and his base in America doesn't represent political Conservatives and political conservatism. Similar to how Communists and Socialists in general are illiberal on many if not all issues, the Donald Trump and his base are anti-conservative. They don't believe in tradition, even in "little annoying documents" like the U.S. Constitution which they trend to view as obstacles to their political agenda.

Donald Trump, wasn't elected to conserve tradition and the status-quo. He was elected to blow those things up. He views rules, checks and balances, tradition as not applying to him. And the mindset that he wasn't President or even around when the U.S. Constitution and our form of government was put together and never officially signed off on it, so why should it apply to him. And views the The White House and the executive as extensions of the Trump Organization. 

People need to understand these things when they look at Donald Trump and understand that the man is not even a Republican, let alone a Conservative. He doesn't believe in Republicanism let alone conservatism. And neither does his bases at least in a constitutional and political sense, regardless of whatever their religious values and beliefs might be.

So when I say that Donald Trump is not a Conservative or Republican that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about what his party registration is. Someone could own a second home far from where they actually live and technically, be a resident of that community. But if they're never there and perhaps just own that second home as an investment or own it to avoid taxes, they're really not part of that community. 

If you're familiar with the term RINO that the Tea Party coined back in 2011-12 ( Republicans in Name Only ) which is how they described establishment Republicans ( the real Republicans ) who weren't as far to the Right or as partisan as they were, well, RINO is Donald Trump. I mean we're talking about a man who claimed to be the King of Debt when he was running for President and that he liked debt and all of that. Which is something that no actual Conservative would ever be proud of.

So when Donald Trump takes a position on something that his base ( or political cult, depending on who you talk to ) they're not interested in how gets it done, just as long as it gets done. So if Congress including Republicans say no to President Trump's so-called border wall, the President just says: "I'll do it without you." even though U.S. Constitution ( that little annoying document ) says that the President cam't appropriate money by himself and that only Congress has the power of the purse. And his so-called national emergency is just an example of that. 

The Donald believes he can pull the licenses of media organizations whether it's NBC News or CNN or anyone else ( not named Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, The National Enquirer ) because he believes that First Amendment and the Freedom of Press doesn't personally prevent him from taking such actions. 

Donald Trump, really is a wannabe dictator and autocrat and we should thank God and Founding Fathers ( The Founding Liberals ) everyday ( even if we're not religious ) for our Constitution and checks and balances that we ca use to fight back against his authoritarian leniencies. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState. 

History Collection: Dwight D. Eisenhower- 'Quotes On Politics, War, and Freedom'

Source:History Collections- President Dwight E. Eisenhower, on extremism. 

“Dwight D. Eisenhower (”Ike”) was one of the most prominent American presidents and US Army Generals. In this video, you can find his thoughts about warfare, American politics and goverment.”

From History Collection

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “If you want total security go to prison, where you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” President Eisenhower, talking about the value of freedom, freedom of choice, personal autonomy, etc, the tools that every person every free society uses to manage their own affairs.

Source:Words On Images- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, on the value of freedom 

The only thing that is free about a free society is the freedom for individuals to make their own decisions. Everything else about a free society comes with choices, investments, even costs. To be able to do things and make your own decisions, you have to earn that by doing other things. Like getting and education, and good job that allows you to able to take care of yourself.

And those really aren’t costs either, but more like investments because you get a lot of education and a good job that you’re good at other than money and a good job which is knowledge that you can use in your future which either helps you at work or in other places, but with everything that you do in life.

And in any society wether it’s a free society or an authoritarian society or even let’s say a social democratic society where the national government attempts to eliminate as much economic risk as possible, but falls short of nationalizing the economy there’s going to be some risk there.

A good education is so important so the people have as much knowledge and quality information as possible to be able to make their own good decisions and investments. But even life in prison ( not that I know from personal experience ) comes with real risks and those risks generally having to do with one’s physical security. Even non-violent offenders have to deal with the risk that one of their fellow inmates might actually hurt them or worst at some point.

And in any authoritarian society where both economic and personal risk is eliminated or that’s what the government tries to create, there is a risk that the state might pick you up, because they see you as some threat to the regime. Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia are great examples of that. So in no society and no form of life comes without personal risk. The question is how do you manage it and what decisions you make with your own life.

For me is the best form of life is a free life where people are able to make their own personal and economic decisions themselves, but are then held accountable for their own decision making for good and bad. And allow for everyone to get themselves the best education that they can so they can make the best lives for themselves as possible. As well as encourage people to get a good education, good job, earn a good living. So you have as many free people as possible in society. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

Scott Bradley: 'Should We Try To Legislate Morality?'

Source:Freedoms Rising Sun- Moot question.

“Should We Try to Legislate Morality?"

From Scott Bradley

To answer Scott Bradley's question: no we should not try to legislate morality. At least when it comes to personal behavior and how free adults conduct themselves in their personal lives.

Source:Merion West- People protesting against alcohol prohibition 

It's sort of a moot question anyway because every civilized country in the world with a functioning government whether it's a developed country or developing country, legislates morality at least in the sense that it lays the rules for how people can interact with each other. To put it simply, we're not allowed to hurt innocent people. We're not allowed to rape each other, physically attack each other, steal from each other murder each other, kidnap each other, commit fraud against each other. We're not allowed to commit these acts and other dangerous acts against innocent people and if we do we face steep legal consequences for doing these things. Which is why we have jails and prisons because we have people who hurt innocent people everyday and have to pay a justifiable price for them.

Source:Faithful Thinkers- Religious of Freedom, but not theocracy 

But that's not my main interest here anyway, because I'm more interested in what government's role if any is when it comes to how people conduct themselves in their personal lives. I'm not talking about people hurting innocent people, but I'm not talking about who people act and do with their own lives and conduct themselves in their personal lives and how much freedom should we have in our own lives. When people can have sex, what we can eat and drink, smoke, the types of entertainment that we can listen to and watch, what we can do with our own bodies and what we can put into our own bodies.

Government already legislates morality and I think Scott Bradley is at least smart enough understand that at least, if he doesn't already know that. The real question is to what extent and should we remain liberal democratic republic or not where personal freedom and autonomy is vast, even if some of our personal choices and activities offends others religious and cultural values. Or do we want big government coming in and telling us who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, who we can marry, what we can put into out bodies, do in the privacy of our own homes and tells us this is what moral and what's not based on some religious and moral code. And even if what we're doing is not actually hurting anyone, it still has to be illegal, because it's immoral according some people's religious and moral values.

And as a Liberal myself I believe it's not the job of government to try to protect us from ourselves, but to protect innocent people from predators and predatory behavior. And as long as people aren't hurting innocent people with what they're doing, government should stay out of the way and allow for free adults to live their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead of big government coming in and telling us what we should believe and how we should think and this is how we should live our own personal lives.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Emergencies Do Not Trump The Constitution'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Ron Paul: R, Texas. 

“Using “national emergencies” to rule by diktat is an old and unfortunate tradition among U.S. presidents. It is also unconstitutional.”

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

In the United States we have not only separation of powers, but three branches in our national government that all have different roles and responsibilities. Whether they're all equal or not and under the Constitution they're supposed to be, they all have different roles and responsibilities. If the President wants new funding to pay for one of his new priorities or additional funding to an existing program in the government, he has to get that approved by Congress. He can't just pass that new funding and objective on his own. he has to get that approved by House and Senate and sign it into law.

Source:Newsmax- President Donald Trump: "what national emergency?"

I'm not a lawyer and neither is Representative Ron Paul, but just looking at President Trump's so-called national emergency there are at least two obvious problems with looking at it from the outside.

The first one is practical and that the emergency that the President Trump is declaring simply doesn't exist. Not even Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, America One News, or any other right-wing pro-Trump media outlet is reporting that there are millions, thousands, or even hundreds of less of people coming across our southern border right now illegally. If there is any emergency whatsoever as it relates to illegal immigration in America and I don't believe there is one, but the fact that have 10-15 million illegal immigrants in America in a country of 320 million people is certainly an issue that this country has been trying to deal with going back to the Reagan Administration.

President Trump said himself the day that he declared his so-called national emergency that he didn't have to declare right now. I don't know about you and I image everyone would agree with this, but if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Department right away to get the fire put out, because that would obviously be an emergency. Donald Trump ever since he started running for President in the summer of 2015 has been talking about the need for a border wall on our southern border and there is an emergency at the border.

Donald Trump, was elected President a year and a half later after he announced his presidential campaign and has been President for 25 months now and not once until after Republicans lost the House in November 2018, did he either officially declare an emergency at the national border, or send up a bill to the Republican Congress in 2017-18 to get his border wall completed. And you can talk about 60 vote rule in the Senate all you want and that Democrats had 48-49 seats in the Senate during that Congress, but if you're familiar with Congressional spending rules, you know that Congress can pass a spending bill out of the House and Senate with simple majorities in both chambers.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans could've passed a border security bill on their own with just Republican votes both in the House and Senate under reconciliation. But they chose to spend six months on ObamaCare repeal and when they failed there they went to tax cuts where they did pass their tax cuts through reconciliation in the House and Senate. So President Trump seriously has a credibility problem claiming that there is an emergency at the border which is why he declared his national emergency, when he's already admitted that he didn't have to declare his emergency.

The other issue with President Trump's so-called national emergency is constitutional. Congress, not the execute appropriates money for the Federal Government. Congress, has the power of the purse and gets to decide what the government can spend and what they can't spend. Meaning that the executive can only spend money that has already been approved by Congress to spend on the priorities that Congress has approved at the levels that Congress has approved. In other words, Congress decides what the levels of funding are in the budget and where and how that money is spent . Once the President and Congress agree on what levels of funding and where that money is going to be spent by the government, then the Executive has the responsibility to spend and enforce those laws that have already been passed and sign into law.

As much Donald Trump might want to be President of the Russian Federation or the King of the Saudi Kingdom, or lead any other right-wing or any other dictatorship in the world, unfortunately he's the President of the United States and just our problem to deal with. But we still have our checks and balances and separation of powers. Things that every single American gets to learn about when they're in high school. I took U.S. Government as a sophomore in high school. This is not something that we have to read books or listen to documentaries about as adults, but something that we learn in high school and take further courses on in college if we decide to do that, but something that Donald Trump seems to have very little knowledge about or interest in.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.