Robin Bailey’s

My Mom asked me the other day if I considered myself a Libertarian or what? 

First of all, I am a huge non-supporter of the “party system” especially a two party system.  Political parties have too large of a influence over a Representative’s voting.  Their #1 worry should be keeping their voters happy and not walking a party line. 

Democrats and Republicans (this is a very broad stroke), for the most part, are both taking “We the People” to hell in a hand basket.  They both do it at different speeds and different ways.  Lately, there are very few of them that actually want to make the government “smaller” or “get back to basics”.  They are both about taking away certain rights or voting tax dollars to their constituents.  I think progress is nothing being done by the Federal government.

I am anti-abortion, but I think it is a moral problem not a legality problem.  That being said, when abortions were legalized, the birth rate did not lessen.  It just encouraged more people to exercise less care.

I am pro-Bill of Rights.  Freedom of the press and media is being attacked by both parties at different fronts.  Protection of speech is also dying on the table.  Both parties to a horrible job at upholding the 2nd.  Why are not democrats pro-choice about guns?    And I think that income taxes are a giant fraud.  Freedom of person and property is also dying on the floor.   The Federal Reserve is a huge problem.  Nearly every president who were anti “central bank” were assassinated.   (another post for another day)  I think that the Right to Vote should only be given to those who own property (this can include any race and sex).     blah blah blah….

I am also Pro-Legal-Immigration.  If we turned back to basics and the Fed and State stopped the Paternal care, then the only immigrant who would have incentive to come would be to contribute.  I think that welfare Americans need to get that same spirit as well.  This IS the land of Oppertunity, and should not be the land of welfare.  I think that a physical “fence on the border” is a horrible idea.  It is a political boundary.  Free poeple are not surrounded by fences, because they can keep us in too.

Charity is a private action.  Government Charity is not charity, it is “Robin Hood” robbery.  It is voting money from the treasury.  Let those American who are religous exercise their duty to “give” to the poor, not be “taxed” for the whoever.

If I had to be put into one box, I would feel most happy in the “Constitutionalist” box.   (Yes, I love Ron Paul too). 

I think that most our problems have come from the “People” becoming immoral, complacent, greedy, etc, and “Government” becoming too paternal, irresponsible, and large.  I think both these problems can be solved by a return to the fundamentals that the country was based on.

Government handouts have been long seen a unfavorable by some.  Their Constitutionality is weak to say the least.  Despite the fact, this is how we are still providing for the poor.  But it must be done!!!  If you are a Christian, you better understand that providing for the poor is a commandment.  It is essential. 

But, We think there are only two choices:
(1) Have Parental Government, or
(2) Do nothing for the Poor

There is however more than two choices.  The third way is to rely on genuine charity from churches and other non-profit types.  This is where instead of Robin Hood (The IRS) stealing our money (Taxes) to give to the poor, we do it ourselves.  Biblically, if a person gives a gift grudgingly or without his own choice, it is not counted for righteousness.  If we want to put government back into their proper role, and begin to fulfill our proper role, charity is our job. 

(3) Provide for the Poor ourselves

This was taken from a pamphlet entitled “Not Yours to Give” 

In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.

There is more to the story.  The full pamphlet can be downloaded here.

Alright, welcome to 2009.  There is a new bill which requires a buyer to get licensed (I cannot spell “license” without crossing my eyes) before he/she can purchase a firearm. 

The full text of the bill can be found here.  It is H.R.45 by Rep Rush, Bobby L. in the 111th congress.  It is currently in committee.

The premise of the bill is that a national licensing system for anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm will reduce gun crime.  (The non-epidemic of “gun crime” will be discussed later). 

At first thought, it may be understandable.  Compare with a Driver’s License.  You have to have on of those to operate a car, why not guns?

Well, first a Driver’s License grants one the right to legally OPERATE a vehicle on PUBLIC lands/roads.  One does not need a DL to operate a car off of public land.  Also one does not need a DL to PURCHASE a vehicle. 

Now, what if a person was required to have a DL to PURCHASE a car?  What if, when grandpa gets old and loses his DL the Fed comes and takes his car away? 

I am personally all about having to require people who hunt, aka OPERATE, firearms on Public Lands to have a proper License.  Well Tada!!!  It is already in place.  It is called a Hunter’s Safety Tag.  It is also Illegal to OPERATE a firearm in a Homicide etc. 

Do you get the difference between having Private Ownership Rights and Public Use Rights?

There are many other issues with a bill like this that raises many other red flags.  Gun Registration is the step before Gun Confiscation.  It is also based on “Interstate Commerce” just like the Gun Free School Zone Act.  Most Federal gun laws are based on interstate commerce because they fail the 2nd Amendment.  The Gun Free School Zone Act was deemed Unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights in the supreme court, link and link.

In the words of the Founding Fathers, “I think ’shall not be infringed’is perfectly clear”

If you are still reading, check this out as well.  Article on H.R.1022

Do you think if you met a serial killer, there would be a gut instinct that he is a killer?  Many people have impressions about people that they end up ignoring due to the impression failing good reasoning.  I think that the Divine Spark in all of us receives warnings of various types from time to time.

Okay, one of the foundations of our free government is that of Natural Law.  The founding fathers were largely inspired by Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Natural Law basically states that everyone in granted divine rights by their creator.  These are life, liberty, and property (later changed to pursuit of happiness).  We then enlist government, who does not have these rights, to protect them.  The only rights of government are listed in the Constitution.  There is however, a large difference between the government’s actual rights and their assumed rights….

Here is the what if.  What if your government was attempting to violate your God given rights?  Do you think you would be warned?  I think yes.  This warning would be a gut feeling, not something you read in the paper.  I think that many, if not most, people in the U.S. have a very good feeling on where we are headed as a country.  Now I am not talking about what people hear on the news.  I think these people have a “secret” or “theory” that they largely feel is unique to themselves.

I personally have impressions about things in the future.  These are not all national issues, but they all are there because something will effect me.  For example, I have a large food and water storage that I built two years ago.  Is a worldwide famine coming?  I don’t think so, but we are using this food now because times are tight for us.

My conclusion is we need to listen to our own gut more.  We need to talk to others if we want to really hear the pulse of our world.  I don’t think that there are many who listen closely to what they hear.  Hopefully, if a serial killer smiles our way, we will listen to our gut.  Just remember, if God has given us something, such as our lives, freedom, etc, He will also provide a warning system for protection of that blessing…