Big Brother knows best.

"Progressives" recognize that some people will be irresponsible and cause damage by using firearms. They conclude the State must therefore prohibit everyone from access to firearms.

"Conservatives" recognize that some people will be irresponsible and cause damage by using drugs. They conclude the State must therfore prohibit everyone from access to drugs.

Libertarians reccognize that some people will be irresponsible and cause damage regardless of what the State does. They conclude the State's prohibitions cause more harm than irresponsible indviduals.

Solving the Civil Union issue.

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. As a Christian, I find it offensive that a marrage - a holy bond between a man and a woman, before God and performed in a holy place by a holy man - is not official until a low level government clerk grants the state's approval. That is blasphemous.

The Denver Post doesn't quite get the "anger" of the "far right."

State Senator Pat Steadman's "civil union" bill is expected to pass the Democratic controlled Senate today. Its future in the House, where Republicans hold a one-seat majority, is less rosy.

The Denver Post (see "Civil-unions bill advances") has this to say about Speaker of the House Frank McNulty and his decision on how to handle the bill once it reaches the House:

Hard-right members of the party already have accused the House speaker and majority leader (Amy Stephens) of not being conservative enough, and failure to assign the measure to a so-called "kill" committee will only further their anger.

The Post gets this wrong. The "anger" felt toward McNulty and Stephens by some small-government activists has very little do with social issues like "civil unions." The "anger" is about perceived squishiness on fiscal issues.

No doubt, McNulty and Stephens will face heat from social conservatives on this issue, but that heat will be from a different constituency.

Correcting The Guardian on Palin

The Guardian, a paper based in the UK, covered Sarah Palin's visit to India. (See "Sarah Palin uses India visit to fuel rumours of her White House ambitions.")

The writer, Jason Burke, made an error in his story. I responded via email thusly:

The article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/sarah-palin-delhi-presidential-speculation states that "she revealed a deep ignorance of international affairs, famously saying that Russia could be seen from Alaska."

You can see Russia from Alaska: http://www.slate.com/id/2200155/

You are probably confusing comedian Tina Fey, when dressed as Palin and mocking her, said "I can see Russia from my house!" http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/09/14/tina-fey-skewers-sarah-palin-on-saturday-night-live.htm

The irony of your writer accusing Ms. Palin of "deep ignorance" is apparent. I am no fan of Ms. Palin, but facts are important. I hope you see fit to print a correction.

Thank you for your consideration of the matter.

Government is force. Always. Let's not sugarcoat it.

I created quite the discussion thread on Facebook, by asserting that there is no social contract, not even metaphorically. This upsets some people and they responded, in essence, that I am wrong. For example, it was asserted that we "consent" to our government by living under its protections. I responded:

Consent is an affirmative act. The concept of "implied consent" by silence is untenable. If a person comes to you and says "I'll give you $500 for your car" and you ignore him, he cannot take your car regardless of whether or not he gives you the $500.

Words have meanings. Consent means consent.The social contract loyalists are applying the notion of consent when it does not exist. They are unilaterally applying it to me as an individual against my will. They are telling me I have consented when I have not. Black is white. War is peace. Welcome to Newspeak, the official language of statists of all stripes.

My overall point is not that government is always illegitimate. It was asked "what justifies the government if not a social contract?" It is not about "justification." I summed up:

I am simply agreeing with George Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force." The only thing keeping any government in place is force or the threat of force. That is an undeniable fact. Let's not gloss over it. Statists come up with all kinds of nonsense to justify that use of force, but even if it is justified, it is still force.

Whenever forms of government are discussed, the discussion is actually "when is the use of state sanctioned force justified?" Right now, today, how many U.S. citizens would pay taxes in support of the federal government but for the threat of jail? Some. I submit a small percentage of those currently paying income taxes would still do so without the threat of a federal agent eventually coming to your house with a gun. Most would not. That is force.

Is it justified? That is a different conversation. I say it is not.

When is government force justified? Definitely to stop criminals, to try those of accused of crimes and to punish those convicted of crimes; definitely to enforce contract and property rights; definitely to defend the state's sovereignty from outside attack; definitely.... well, after that, it starts to become a bit dicey.

Is government force justified to feed the poor? Absolutely not. I may have a moral obligation to feed the poor, but that is a personal obligation. I submit mankind is generous and charitable. The statist, like Thomas Hobbes, believes us mere common men are beasts that need to be controlled by our betters in government. They, of course, believe they are our betters. If the statist is right, and it the forcible taking of money from one to give to another is justified, lets be honest about it: The government act is neither generous nor charitable - it is theft. The statist then justifies the act of theft by calling it "compassion." I'm just calling "bullcrap" on the Newspeak. Let's call it by its proper name.

As he left DC, John Salazar tossed out money like Mardi Gras candy

The failed drug war is just another big government program.

Progressivism is not Christian.

by David K. Williams, Jr.

A.

One of my adamantly "progressive" Facebook friends recently said opposing universal health care is "unchristian." It is not an uncommon charge.

The accusation, however, shows both a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and Christianity. The economic fallacy is that universal health care will result in universally better health care. This assumption is belied by recorded history. That, however, has been widely explained. This post is not about the economics.

This post is about Christianity. Jesus' summed up his teachings in Matthew 22:36 - 40. He was asked by a Pharisee "what is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Consider Jesus' answer the Cliff's Notes on all of Christianity. In sum, Jesus said to be Christian is to "love God" and "love your neighbor."

This is where progressives get lost. They mistake Jesus' command for us to "love our neighbor" with a command to make OTHERS love their neighbor. See, progressives want to take other peoples' money - via forcible taxation - and give it to their neighbor. That's not what Jesus said.

In short, Christianity is about helping others voluntarily. It is about charity. Jesus said you should help others - and if you do not, you have to live with it and the consequences.

Progressivism is the opposite. Progressivism - indeed, all statism - is brute force, nothing else. Progressivism says that, by government dictate, some of us must help others - or go to jail.

The two could not be more different.

I'll make a final comparison: Walking next door and giving your neighbor in need some of your bread is Christian. Walking across the street, taking bread out of the window, and then giving it to your neighbor in need is progressivism. They are opposites. One is love. The other theft.

B.

Can a case be made that Christians are not voluntarily loving their neighbor, as Jesus commanded? Absolutely. The answer, however, is not to abandon Christianity and institute force to make Christians love their neighbor.

How absurd is that notion? You will love your neighbor or we will MAKE you! It is nonsense.

George Washington was right when he said, "government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force." One might add that "government is not charity; it is not love; it is force."

The progressives, therefore, make a fundamental, and crucial error: They equate love with force. They equate compassion with force. They equate charity with force.

They might as well equate war with peace, day with night or lies with truth.

In fact, they do.

God is love. Government is force. Using one in the name of the other is not only futile, it is destructive.

Kristen Wyatt and the Denver Post get me wrong.

Kristen Wyatt's story in today's Denver Post severely mischaracterizes my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. (See "Colo. lawmakers urged to ban 'spice'")

She wrote:

Also, a handful of people testified that the ban is unnecessary.

David K. Williams Jr., a Denver lawyer, said a state ban would be like banning table salt or fatty foods in restaurants. Asked about whether a ban wouldn't help discourage Spice use among youths, Williams scoffed.

"It's my responsibility to teach my daughter to make good decisions, not the government's," Williams said.

This was my response to the editor regarding the story:

Dear editor:

Kristen Wyatt's characterization of my response to Senator King's question is completely inaccurate.

I didn't scoff at all. I agreed with Senator King that [the synthetic cabbinoids] should be banned for minors, just like cigarettes and alcohol. The implication that I was anything less than respectful before the committee is offensive and inaccurate.

My entire point was that prohibition does not work and never has. I did not compare salt and fat foods to synthetic cannabinoids, I said that banning of things for "own good," like salt, is nannyism and is not the role of government.

It is no wonder paper copies of news are harder and harder to find.

For the record, I get along very well with the bill's sponsor, Senator Mike Kopp. We just happen to disagree on this particular piece of legislation. The Gadsden Society and I are working in favor of the "Healthcare Opportunity & Patient Empowerment Act" he is sponsoring. This bill would allow Colorado to join an interstate compact with at least one other state and opt out of Obamacare.

Separated at birth?

Just a gratuitous fat joke, I know. I'm ashamed of myself.

Quillen's wonderful defense of wonderful public employees.

Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen defends public workers in his column today. The headline is "Who are the overpaid parasites?" Not public employees, according to Ed. In support of his proposition, he lists several wonderful anecdotes of public employees doing wonderful things.

But like the wonderful progressive he is, Ed never mentions how much his wonderful anecdotal public employees get paid. Not once. You see, cost matters not to compassionate, wonderful progressive people like Ed. Cost is irrelevant in his wonderful world of selfless wonderful public servants. They are wonderful. Worrying about such nasty capitalistic things as "cost" is so un-progressive. It is so non-compassionate. It is so un-wonderful.

And we all know, in Ed's wonderful world, money does not make the world go 'round. Love does.

How wonderful.

It's a big dose of something, all right.

According to the Denver Post, Scientology played a role in a recent murder at a Denver area software company. (See Division at software company over Scientology apparent before 2009 shooting.)

One of the employees of the company, a Scientologist, said

A beginning Scientologist like herself could never comprehend the writings. "Cause it's hard on them," Jan Fowler said. ". . . that's why it's confidential. Not from commercial reasons. Not because it is hurtful. . . . it's big dose for somebody who's not ready for it."

I imagine so. How can one prepare oneself for the knowledge that Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, come to earth 75 million years in a spacecraft with billions of people, then stacked them around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs, and that the essence of these people remain, causing us spiritual harm.

I know I'm not ready for that.

A quick hit on the Westboro Baptist Church decision...

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Westboro Baptist Church case is a loss for civility, good manners, politeness and basic decorum. Thank God the government is not in charge of enforcing any of those things.

The case is an excellent example of why federal judges are given lifetime tenure. It is almost inconceivable to think that any official subject to an election would have had the courage to correctly apply the First Amendment.

(It is important to note that the decision has no affect on the ability of communities to force the hateful likes of Westboro Church to stay away from funerals or otherwise disrupt them.)

HB-1205 Urgent item for action on concealed carry bill, act today!

Now that Rep. Holbert's HB-1205, "Concerning the authority of a law-abiding person to carry a concealed handgun without a permit," has successfully passed the House, Senate President Brandon Shaffer must assign it to a Senate committee for review. Among his options is to assign it to the Senate State Affairs committee, AKA the "kill committee." In this committee, Democratic Senators Bacon, Boyd and Heath, constitute a majority and will certainly kill this bill.

The Gadsden Society is urging Senate President Shaffer to send this bill to a committee that will give it a fair hearing. We ask you to do the same. In your own words, please contact President Shaffer via email, brandon@brandonshaffer.com, and ask him to send the bill to a committee that will give it a fair shake. See our letter below as an example.

Dear President Shaffer,

Now that this bill has passed the house and is on it’s way to theSenate,
the Gadsden Society and our members ask and hope that this bill be given the
opportunity for a fair hearing in a Senate committee, and not sent to die in the
Senate State Affairs committee. We understand that you may consider running
against Cory Gardner for US congress in CD4. We believe giving this bill a
fair hearing will be beneficial to you in that endeavor, especially among the
many pro-2nd Amendment and pro-freedom voters in that district.

Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.

Sincerely, David K. Williams, Jr., President
Dave@GadsdenSoc.com

Molly Vogt, Vice President
Molly@GadsdenSoc.com

The Gadsden Society of Colorado