WLO banner ad

Friday, April 18, 2014

Solve for "X"

A. Harry Reid, President of the United States Senate, "Calls Backers Of Nevada Ranchers 'Domestic Terrorists.'"

+

B. Barack Obama, President of the United States, asserts the authority to unilaterally execute a U.S. citizen whom he deems "an imminent threat."

=

X


Sunday, March 30, 2014

Force. It's bad policy.


Bastiat, taxes and "legal plunder"

On a Facebook thread I asked if taxes were theft. Hardly anyone answered the question. (Though some did). 

Apparently the notion that the state is benevolent and that taxes are therefore a good thing is so ingrained in in so many, that the question can not be honestly faced by most. Many of the responses to my question were a mere variant on the idea that taxes are necessary. OK. That is irrelevant to my question.

You may ultimately determine that theft is necessary. If that is the conclusion, so be it. Bet let's be honest with ourselves. Let's not pretend are actions are something they are not.

Let me restate:

I only ask if Frederic Bastiat was correct when he wrote:

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

I will take state pay. But I will not pretend it was voluntarily given to me. I will acknowledge, without sugarcoating it via the fiction of a "social contract" or some other nonsense intended to soothe the conscience of the robbers, that it was taken involuntarily from those providing it.

I am merely honest. That's the first step. It seems a step too far for most statephiles to take.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

My thoughts on Jesus and Congress

I am a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior.

Unlike some of my fellow believers, however, I do not think Jesus needs the help of the whoremongers, drunks and thieves in Congress to advance Christianity.

I don't see where Jesus said to lobby the government to implement Christian beliefs via statute. I do see where he said to love your neighbor and to strive to live life as he did so that others would come to Christ. I see where he said to feed the poor, but not where he said to use the force of the government to make others feed the poor.

But, that's just me and my understanding. I don't begrudge differing views.

You can make a man kneel by pointing a gun at his head. You can not make him pray.

Only the Holy Spirit can move him to pray.

Any notion that the Holy Spirit needs the help of man's statute books, as far as I can tell, misses the point.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Why I vote third party


I refuse to vote for a big-government candidate solely because he is less big-government than the other major party alternative.

Big Government Republican apologists cannot grasp this. They ask me, incredulous: “Don’t you believe things would be different if Mitt had won instead of Obama?”

They have played their trump card. They are satisfied that if I admit a smidgen of difference, then they have won and they can rest easy in their support of the Big Government Republican, because, you know, they believe in limited government.

I readily concede the point, however. Things would be different. And running into a tree with your car at 90 miles per hour is different than running into it at 100. I love the passion with which the Big Government Republican apologists are committed to hitting it at 90 instead of 100.

I, however, refuse to agree to hit the tree at all.

And if I'm the only one refusing, so damned be it.

Let’s look at another illustration: If one major party candidate was "Lose a Thumb" and the other major party candidate was "Lose an Eye," is there a difference? Sure there is!

So what? I still refuse to vote for either. Voting for one over the other because it is “not as bad” is consenting to losing a body part. I simply will not consent. If the government ends up taking it anyway, it will be against my will.

Why is that so hard a concept to grasp?

Even if it is rational to pick one over the other, why play the game? Why agree to the terms?

The terms of the game are absurd. Playing it voluntarily is our fault.

It's a con game, people. And we are being played like rubes.

I vote third-party because I refuse to play the game. If the choices are limited to 1) hitting a tree at 100 miles per hour, or 2) hitting a tree at 90 miles per hour, I will not vote. 

There is another choice, however.

The third option is not hitting the tree at all. That’s how I will vote. “But Dave!,” you exclaim, “Not hitting the tree at all has no chance of winning!”

Even if true, that is really no reason to vote for running into the tree. That is really kind of a silly reason to vote for your own demise, when you stop and think about it. “All your friends are doing it, Dave! Woot! Hit the tree with us, Dave!” No, thanks, if we hit the tree it will be because I am locked in the trunk.

And even if it is true, it is only true because people declare it so.  Let’s keep the sample size small: There are three of us deciding where to eat for dinner. I want Mexican food. The third person wants Chinese. You tell me you are voting for Chinese so there is no way I can win the vote so I should quit trying to convince you to vote for Mexican. (Think about it).

No, I will keep trying to convince you. And if I do, when we drive to the Mexican restaurant, we won't even hit any trees.



Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Anti-gun fear mongers don't think much of their fellow man.

Anti-gun advocates think you are an ignorant, violent rube, just looking for an excuse to put a bullet in someone’s brain.

The Sunday, December 29, 2013, edition of the Denver Post illustrates this irrational fear.

Craig Marshall Smith, in a letter to the editor, laments:

“I was a college professor for more than 30 years. If I had been required to pack [a gun], I would have quit overnight. I wouldn't have felt safe in our highly volatile faculty meetings, much less in classrooms and hallways.”

Putting aside his absurd assertion that any reasonable person anywhere has suggested mandatory packing of heat for professors, this man’s distrust and contempt for his fellow man is palpable. He wouldn't have felt safe among his fellow professors? He thinks his colleagues would have shot someone over a policy disagreement? He thinks the only thing preventing violence among his fellow academicians is the absence of readily available firearm?

The Professor has shown himself to be a sad, pathetic scared man who thinks his fellow professionals are mere reservoir dogs on the very verge of snapping and killing anyone who crosses their path.

And the students? He holds them in even lower regard.

On the next page, columnist Rich Tosches writes:

“I play golf. And frankly, it’s scary enough without a guy having a .44 hanging from his golf trousers when he misses a $20, 3-foot putt.”

With whom does Tosches play golf? Since he holds his golf-buddies in such low regard, what must he think of strangers?

The anti-gun movement thinks you - the public - is ignorant, mean and base. The anti-gun movement believes you can’t be trusted. The very idea of trusting you frightens them.

This fear is the underlying foundation of their philosophy: Government control of the masses is an absolute necessity.

You can’t be trusted with a gun. You don’t need a gun. Hand them over. The professors and the columnists will feel so much better if you do.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Simple economics drug warriors ignore.



The State loves photo ops. The one pictured is from a Cleveland area drug bust in 2009. (See "Drug bust is largest in Cleveland history").

You've seen these before. The State always has a large stack of confiscated drugs to stand behind. They congratulate themselves and do their best to position themselves for the next election or next opening above them in the bureaucratic flow chart.

They smile for the cameras. They talk about dealing a blow to the drug industry.

And they know it is all a lie.

Play along with me and picture this: For some reason, the State confiscates the entire Denver metro-area supply of Diet Coca-Cola and arrests 32 high ranking Diet Coke officials. Who benefits from this confiscation and these arrests?

Diet Pepsi, that's who. Pepsi fills the void left by Coke. Pepsi's prices go up. And Pepsi's profit goes up. The very industry the State pretends to fight makes more money.

Diet soda is still being sold. It is still being consumed. Absolutely zero has been done to end the scourge of diet soda.

Market forces, for marijuana and for diet soda, are just as real as physical forces, like gravity and chemistry. Legislation does not stop these forces. The State can not stop market forces anymore than it can stop gravity.

Drug warriors usually pretend to be "conservative." Conservatives are supposed to understand economics. Drug warriors don't.

Upton Sinclair explained this phenomena when he said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Sinclair, of course, while correct, was no conservative.

Perhaps Milton Friedman can explain it better to conservatives, “See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.” Yes, it is.

Drug warriors, however, have a retort! They begin and end their argument by unintentionally quoting Mr. Mackey from South Park, "Drugs are bad, mmkay?"

Well, OK.

Let's grant that premise, drug warriors! If you want fewer drugs on the street, your current drug war is making the problem worse.

Rethink it.

Conservatives frequently criticize "progressives" for being more focused on intentions than on results. (See "American Progressives and the Tragedy of Good Intentions.")

There is no better example of intentions trumping results than the Drug War.

The Drug War is just another failed big government program that exacerbates the problem it was intended to correct. You'd think "conservatives" would oppose such a thing.

Too many don't. Because drugs are bad, mmkay?






Thursday, December 19, 2013

On A&E, Phil Robertson, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Gay Weddings, or "How Freedom Would Work if We Let It."

A. Regarding the television show "Duck Dynasty," the network A&E, and Phil Robertson.

A&E, by and through its Board of Directors, is free to associate - or not - with whomever they wish.

Phil Robertson is free to say whatever he wants.

A&E, by and through its Board of Directors, is free to disassociate with Phil Robertson because Phil said something they don't like.

You can watch A&E. You can choose to NOT watch A&E.

You can buy Duck Commander stuff. You can choose to NOT buy Duck Commander stuff.

You can tell all your friends to watch/not watch A&E.

If A&E doesn't have enough viewers, it goes out of business.

You can tell all your friends to buy/not buy stuff from Duck Commander.

If Duck Commander can't sell enough duck stuff, they go out of business.

B. Regarding Masterpiece Bakery and same-sex wedding cakes.

Masterpiece Bakery is free to associate - or not - with whomever they wish.

Masterpiece Bakery can sell you a cake or not.

You can ask - or not - Masterpiece Bakery to sell you a cake. You can ask some other bakery to sell you a cake.

If either you or Masterpiece Bakery do not wish to associate with the other, then you don't associate with the other.

You can tell all your friends NOT to associate with Masterpiece Bakery in an effort to keep them from selling cakes.

If Masterpiece Bakery doesn't sell enough cakes, they go out of business.

C. Conclusion

The threat of government violence is not necessary at any of the above listed points.

If you advocate for a law to make someone or something behave differently than listed above, you advocate for the threat of government force. You believe an agent of the state with a gun should point it at someone else so that the other person acts in a manner you prefer.

Frankly, that is how governments have worked throughout history. So you have precedent on your side. But let's not pretend your desire to use government force is something else.

Force is violence. It is not eloquence. It is not reason. It is not persuasion.

It is violence.

For example, Masterpiece Bakery has been ordered to make cakes for use in same-sex marriage (or civil union) ceremonies in the future. This is against the will of the owner of Masterpiece Bakery. If the owner wilfully refuses to comply with the Order, he is in Contempt of Court. In Colorado, the punishment for Contempt of Court is up to six months in jail. When you are put in jail, a law enforcement officer puts handcuffs on you and escorts you to a cage where you are locked in until released. If you attempt to resist, the law enforcement officer has several means of forcing you to do so, including a firearm. This is called "force." It is violence.

And if you conclude violence is an acceptable way to change the world, be honest enough with yourself to admit it. And understand that when politics change, and the new rulers want to use force against you to make the world into their vision, you will have little room to protest.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Despite successful recalls, don't expect repeal of anti-gun laws in Colorado this session.

A few years ago there were many pro-civil union advocates very irate that the Republican controlled state House of Representatives refused to allow the Civil Union bill onto the floor. During a special session called for the very purpose of addressing civil unions, folks chanted "let them vote!" from the House gallery.

They, like Republican Speaker Frank McNulty knew the measure would pass the chamber if he did not send it to the "kill" committee. There were sufficient Republican votes on the floor for the measure to pass. McNulty used his power to make sure that did not happen. He sent the measure to die in committee.

He was lauded by some social conservative groups for his courage.

In the upcoming legislative session, the state Senate lost two Democratic anti-gun votes due to recall. Those anti-gun votes have been replaced with pro-gun Republicans. The Senate now has an 18-17 Democratic majority. However, there are Democratic Senators who voted against at least one of the anti-gun bills passed last year.

Imagine if the new President of the Senate, Democrat Morgan Carroll, decides to send a bill to repeal an anti-gun law to her own "kill" committee because she knows there is at least one pro-gun Democratic vote in her chamber, thereby allowing the bill to pass.

Will the same irate folks demanding the civil union bill reach the floor demand the same for a pro-gun bill? Will the same groups applauding McNulty's "courage" applaud Carroll's?

Unlikely.

It seems outrage at the use of the process is engendered only when you don't like the outcome. It appears that laurels are only tossed when you do like the outcome.

Don't pretend the process is unfair if you have no qualms about using it to your benefit. That's hypocrisy.

Know the rules. Play by them. And save the faux outrage when the other side plays by them, too.

Omar Little, from the HBO television show, summed it up: "All in the game, yo. All in the game." 




Saturday, November 02, 2013

Methinks Rep. Stephens won't tout this endorsement...

I'm thinking Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, current State Rep. Amy Stephens, would just as soon not have this endorsement during her four way primary contest:

Laura Chapin, state director for the liberal advocacy organization Protect Your Care, said Colorado "got it right on Obamacare thanks to the legislation introduced" by Stephens. 
"We congratulate Rep. Stephens and urge other states to follow Colorado's example in successfully implementing the Affordable Care Act. And we hope the Republican members of Colorado's congressional delegation will follow the example of Rep. Stephens and do the same," Chapin said in a statement.

-- Denver Post article "In GOP primary, Amy Stephens' 2011 health exchange bill could draw ire."


Monday, October 21, 2013

The QB gets too much blame this time...

It has become cliche to point out that the quarterback gets too much of the credit when a football team wins and too much of the blame when it loses.

Yesterday's Bronco loss at Indianapolis is just another example. Colin Cowherd, for example, spent a segment on his radio show using the loss to illustrate his point that Peyton Manning wilts in big games.

Hogwash.

Make no mistake, Peyton did not have a stellar game. However, he did not fumble and give a touchdown to the Colts. That was Trindon Holliday. He did not get beat by Colt lineman Robert Mathis, forcing a safety and giving the ball back to Indy after the free kick. That was Chris Clark. He didn't fumble inside the Colt five yard line with minutes to go in the game. That was Ronnie Hillman.

Please, people. The quarterback is important, but he is only one of twenty-two offensive and defensive starters. Wins aren't his sole doing. Neither are losses.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

The insanity of gun possession laws.

Joe Jefeged was a passenger in car that was stopped by police. According to ESPN.com

"Police say they found a handgun in the car that authorities believe belonged to Lefeged.
Lefeged and another passenger face charges including carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. "

So what?

Really, so what?

He wasn't robbing anyone. He wasn't point it at anyone. He wasn't doing anything with it at all.

He merely possessed it.

Possession - of anything - is not a legit crime. It is the use of government force to modify behavior deemed unacceptable by those with the power to wield that force. It is a political offense.

===
You can contact attorney David K. Williams, Jr. at 303-800-0894.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

The Coloradoan asks why Colorado is turning left. It is not.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan asks "What's behind Colorado's hard left turn?"

The question is meaningless.

The opening lines show why:

"Somewhere along the road between 2004 and 2012, Colorado’s politics veered to the left. Voter behavior provides the most obvious evidence. Electors in 2006 banned gay marriage, rejected civil unions by another name and turned down a measure to legalize marijuana. Fast forward to 2012, when polls showed 65 percent of Coloradans favored allowing civil unions for gay couples, and 55 percent of voters approved an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana."

The Coloradoan characterizes this shift as a "hard left turn." It isn't. It is a turn toward freedom.

Civil unions were banned. Now they are allowed. That's a turn away from tyranny toward freedom.

Marijuana was banned. Now it is allowed. That, too, is a turn away from tyranny toward freedom.

The Coloradoan is really asking "What's behind the recent failures of the GOP?" Some of us know exactly.

The GOP is losing because it's on the wrong side of these issues.

Freedom is dangerous. The GOP is scared of it. As long as they are, they remain impotent.

The future belongs to those that believe in liberty. No exceptions. And that ain't the GOP.