So, did you turn off all your lights between the hours of 8 and 9 PM last evening for the sake of the environment?
I didn't.
In protest, I turned all of mine on.
I did this for two primary reasons. One, I am not one of the sheeple who do as I am told simply because Socialists, environmentalist snobs, or government elitists say so. I am an adult, thank-you, and I can make my own decisions based upon what I read and study. Two, instead of forcing people either by law or by shame and guilt to give up something, why not put all of our brain cells to work developing new and sustainable energy sources?
You see, I believe that intelligent people secure sensible solutions to problems based upon human ingenuity and creativity. Imbeciles believe that the only way to solve a problem is to limit human choice and freedom.
Thus, my lights stayed on and they will continue to stay on each year the Commie-sympathizers stage this imbecilic 'lights off' showcase.
Showing posts with label threat to liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label threat to liberty. Show all posts
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Suspension of Disbelief
Novelists employ a common literary device known as 'suspension of disbelief' in order to draw the reader into the fictional world that the writer has created, in order to prevent the reader from objecting to the non-reality to the point that they cannot become emotionally involved in the story.
This is how good writers create a fictional world in which we, the readers, react as if we are in the middle of the story, although that story may be about creatures from outer space that like to use human bodies as incubators for their young.
Engage with me in suspension of disbelief for a moment. Suppose the reason our government and other governments around the world are engaging in a push to band together as a united entity because they know something we commoners don't know.
And suppose one of the things we don't know involves information held by only an elite few who head these various governments, and that this information has to do with extraterrestrials who have made contact someway and have hinted at our destruction.
Suppose, further, that these creatures are so highly advanced and intelligent that there is no way an individual nation on earth, not even the United States, could defeat them on its own, and that only by banding together with other nations in some sort of federation would give humanity one fighting chance at holding our new enemies at bay.
Granted, the concept is not new in fiction. These ideas form the foundation of some of our society's greatest and most recognizable science fiction, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and others.
But the fact that these fictional concepts could become reality is the cutting edge, and this is where suspension of disbelief becomes essential.
It is to be remembered that cartoons from the 1930s and 40s depicted space ships that traveled to the moon. These fictional space ships bear a remarkable resemblance to the real thing that was developed in the 1950s and 60s. And we did actually go to the moon, when during the 1930s such an idea was fodder for laughter and frivolity--nothing more than a cartoon subject.
The question is, if we are headed for such a massive federation of nations on earth, where does liberty fit into the picture? Where is the demand that freedom be preserved? Do citizens maintain the right to keep and bear firearms? Do they have the right to self-defense?
In all of the hoop-la surrounding federations such as the EU and the proposed North American Union, never once have I heard prudent concerns being voiced about preserving the liberties of the people. The only concerns I have heard mentioned involve the issues of security and economics.
Security and economics--the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes that promise their constituencies greater security and better living. Only free societies place human liberty ahead of security and economics, though the latter two may be an important part of the mix.
When human liberty is not part of the mix, what you have is totalitarianism.
Now, come back with me to reality for a moment. Let's suppose that although there is NO such threat from extraterrestrials these governments manufacture a threat of some kind in order to scare their constituencies into submitting to giving up many of their liberties.
This manufactured threat could be just about anything, from economic collapse to terrorists holding us hostage to, well, extraterrestrials who are threatening to annihilate us. Governments are not above conjuring up such fiction, including employing the novelist's device of suspension of disbelief, in order to convince the citizens that only government officials hold the key to our survival.
The thing is, for many such a stark reality is more difficult to believe than the fiction of extraterrestrials threatening our destruction.
It is never a pleasant exercise to seriously consider the fact that people within your own government have everything but the citizens' best interests at heart, and that some of your favorite elected officials are actually engaging in a dark evil.
What is even more unpleasant is to seriously consider that some of your neighbors, fellow citizens, are aiding and abetting these dark and sinister subversives who wish to destroy liberty and turn America into something it was never envisioned to be.
The central question thus becomes, do you wish to remain as one of the uniformed masses who are being toyed with by the puppet-masters, or do you wish to be a fully informed and totally involved American citizen?
Of course, the easier of the two roads is to believe the fiction, fantastic and unbelievable though it may be. The hard thing to do is accept and deal with reality. But then, we are Americans. We've always done the hard jobs.
This is how good writers create a fictional world in which we, the readers, react as if we are in the middle of the story, although that story may be about creatures from outer space that like to use human bodies as incubators for their young.
Engage with me in suspension of disbelief for a moment. Suppose the reason our government and other governments around the world are engaging in a push to band together as a united entity because they know something we commoners don't know.
And suppose one of the things we don't know involves information held by only an elite few who head these various governments, and that this information has to do with extraterrestrials who have made contact someway and have hinted at our destruction.
Suppose, further, that these creatures are so highly advanced and intelligent that there is no way an individual nation on earth, not even the United States, could defeat them on its own, and that only by banding together with other nations in some sort of federation would give humanity one fighting chance at holding our new enemies at bay.
Granted, the concept is not new in fiction. These ideas form the foundation of some of our society's greatest and most recognizable science fiction, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and others.
But the fact that these fictional concepts could become reality is the cutting edge, and this is where suspension of disbelief becomes essential.
It is to be remembered that cartoons from the 1930s and 40s depicted space ships that traveled to the moon. These fictional space ships bear a remarkable resemblance to the real thing that was developed in the 1950s and 60s. And we did actually go to the moon, when during the 1930s such an idea was fodder for laughter and frivolity--nothing more than a cartoon subject.
The question is, if we are headed for such a massive federation of nations on earth, where does liberty fit into the picture? Where is the demand that freedom be preserved? Do citizens maintain the right to keep and bear firearms? Do they have the right to self-defense?
In all of the hoop-la surrounding federations such as the EU and the proposed North American Union, never once have I heard prudent concerns being voiced about preserving the liberties of the people. The only concerns I have heard mentioned involve the issues of security and economics.
Security and economics--the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes that promise their constituencies greater security and better living. Only free societies place human liberty ahead of security and economics, though the latter two may be an important part of the mix.
When human liberty is not part of the mix, what you have is totalitarianism.
Now, come back with me to reality for a moment. Let's suppose that although there is NO such threat from extraterrestrials these governments manufacture a threat of some kind in order to scare their constituencies into submitting to giving up many of their liberties.
This manufactured threat could be just about anything, from economic collapse to terrorists holding us hostage to, well, extraterrestrials who are threatening to annihilate us. Governments are not above conjuring up such fiction, including employing the novelist's device of suspension of disbelief, in order to convince the citizens that only government officials hold the key to our survival.
The thing is, for many such a stark reality is more difficult to believe than the fiction of extraterrestrials threatening our destruction.
It is never a pleasant exercise to seriously consider the fact that people within your own government have everything but the citizens' best interests at heart, and that some of your favorite elected officials are actually engaging in a dark evil.
What is even more unpleasant is to seriously consider that some of your neighbors, fellow citizens, are aiding and abetting these dark and sinister subversives who wish to destroy liberty and turn America into something it was never envisioned to be.
The central question thus becomes, do you wish to remain as one of the uniformed masses who are being toyed with by the puppet-masters, or do you wish to be a fully informed and totally involved American citizen?
Of course, the easier of the two roads is to believe the fiction, fantastic and unbelievable though it may be. The hard thing to do is accept and deal with reality. But then, we are Americans. We've always done the hard jobs.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Nationwide Ban on Smoking?
Conceivably one could have nightmarish visions of a new role for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--that of enforcing a national smoking ban. After all, tobacco is one item that falls within the broad purview of the bureau.
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Mike Huckabee, R-Arkansas, stated Tuesday that they would support a national smoking ban.
Obviously Huckabee's opposition to smoking is based upon religious conviction. Many ministers believe smoking to be sinful. Perhaps they never heard that for over a century countless Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian ministers in North Carolina not only disagreed with that assessment but supported the tobacco industry since it was the state's largest cash crop.
As for Hillary's support for such a ban, it would be hard to imagine the Democratic candidate believing anything at all to be 'sinful' except for what evil capitalists do to the planet and the poor.
Hillary's support for the ban on tobacco arises from the modern liberal mindset, which views government as the ultimate nanny and guardian of our health, our diet, our lifestyle, lest we imbecilic peons make choices that are not for our own good.
After all, only government can know what is for our own good.
The New York Post reported that Hillary is very pleased with local and state laws forbidding smoking in public. She praised New York City in particular for its stringent restrictions on smoking, and further sarcastically quipped that the nay-sayers were predicting hard times for bars and restaurants, when in actuality those businesses continued to flourish after the ban.
It is not at all difficult to determine why restaurants and bars continue to do well in NYC. The desire for food and drink is greater than the desire for tobacco.
When put up against food and booze, tobacco loses every time.
Other cities and towns have not fared so well with smoking bans. Some have even turned down proposals to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.
The thing that is particularly troublesome about the notion of a nationwide ban on public smoking is that once again the long and intrusive arm of government reaches into private lives and attempts to regulate individual choice.
And with the BATFE on the loose, looking for ways to continue to justify its existence, it would not be difficult to imagine the day when the agency would be called upon to enforce anti-tobacco laws.
Want to light one up on the street corner after a meal at a fine restaurant? Better resist that urge, or your butt's going to jail, bud!
Surely government has better things to do than to watch citizens for signs of tobacco use. But then again, since when did government ever resist the temptation to seize more power to rule over the lives of citizens?
This is precisely why the words of the Framers are just as relevant today as they were in the 18th century. They warned about this very thing.
And if we are not careful, their very worst fears will come true. As Jefferson warned, 'From time to time liberty must be preserved by the blood of tyrants and of patriots.'
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
'Human Rights' Talk the Biggest Threat to Liberty
Washington, DC (TLS). The West is under siege. And the danger is every bit as real and lethal as the threat from Islamic terrorists. This threat, however, comes from within.
The talk of 'human rights' has become a catch-phrase for those groups that are committed to limiting human liberty.
No greater example can be found of this phenomenon than the Muslim Imams who were forced from a U.S. Air jet after other passengers alerted officials concerning their strange and unusual behavior--behavior that would normally land American citizens in jail.
But not these race-and-religion-baiters.
In the name of 'human rights' they would seek to take away the 'human rights' of the passengers and of U.S. Air to remove them from that flight and to treat them as a potential terrorist threat. Further, they want the names of the passengers so they can be sued. This is meant to send a message.
Muslim extremists wish to sue Americans into silence.
Thus, in order to protect the so-called 'human rights' of extremists, the rest of us must keep our freakin' mouths shut.
What about OUR human rights?
Melanie Philips writes an eye-opening column on this very issue as it has played out across the Atlantic in the U.K. Read it. It is entitled, 'Liberty Fades as Rights Talk Grows.' Click here to read it:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=495
The talk of 'human rights' has become a catch-phrase for those groups that are committed to limiting human liberty.
No greater example can be found of this phenomenon than the Muslim Imams who were forced from a U.S. Air jet after other passengers alerted officials concerning their strange and unusual behavior--behavior that would normally land American citizens in jail.
But not these race-and-religion-baiters.
In the name of 'human rights' they would seek to take away the 'human rights' of the passengers and of U.S. Air to remove them from that flight and to treat them as a potential terrorist threat. Further, they want the names of the passengers so they can be sued. This is meant to send a message.
Muslim extremists wish to sue Americans into silence.
Thus, in order to protect the so-called 'human rights' of extremists, the rest of us must keep our freakin' mouths shut.
What about OUR human rights?
Melanie Philips writes an eye-opening column on this very issue as it has played out across the Atlantic in the U.K. Read it. It is entitled, 'Liberty Fades as Rights Talk Grows.' Click here to read it:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=495
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)