by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | April 29, 2015
Reported on DRUDGE today: ALITO: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?
The implicit assumption in begging the Supreme Court to rule on marriage is that the government has any legitimate interest in things as personal as marriage. They do not. The government has insinuated itself illegitimately into every nook and sinew of our personal lives and our society. I say keep out! The root of so many of our problems is government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. Government = Force and if you want liberty, I say limit the scope and reach of government. Being mostly a libertarian at heart, I want the government out of my business and out of my personal life; so my answer to Alito’s question above is that it is none of the government’s business if 4 or 20 lawyers marry each other. However, neither is it the government’s business to force a bakery shop to make a cake for anyone whom they do not want to bake a cake for; neither is it the government’s business to force a church to marry someone whom they choose not to marry. The government needs to stay out of marriage period. Marriage is a religious and a cultural tradition, not the purview of the government. We need to start pruning the tree of tyranny, not asking it permission to get married or forcing our neighbor to bake us a cake.
November 28, 2009 at 4:18pm
THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT 12/2/1988
From John Galt, Dreams Come Due (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1986)
[pp. 145-6] [Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
In the interest of explaining the way various forms of government function politically and economically, the following examples (based on an old European joke) are presented for your edification:
Socialism You have two cows; there is an election. The new government takes one of your cows through taxes and gives it to your neighbor. The neighbor knows nothing of livestock so his new cow dies.
Communism You have two cows; there is a revolution. The new government confiscates both your cows and gives you a small portion of the milk they produce. Both cows soon die, but the government is able to get powdered milk on credit from a democratic government.
Fascism You have two cows; there is a military coup. The new government confiscates both your cows and sells you part of the milk for ration coupons.
Nazism You have two cows; there is an assassination. The new government confiscates both your cows and shoots you.
New Dealism You have two cows; there is a depression caused by the government, and then an election. The new government buys your cows with currency it has just printed. It then shoots one cow, hires an unemployed person to milk the other cow, and throws the milk away in order to help raise milk prices.
Democracy You have two cows; there is a surplus of milk and prices are low. You appeal to the government to subsidize your milk for the “good” of the country. The government enacts your program, raises taxes on its citizens, and buys your milk at inflated prices. It then stores the milk in rented warehouses until it spoils or they can find a communist government to buy it on credit and at a loss.
Capitalism You have two cows. You sell one cow and buy a bull. There is freedom and prosperity.
by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | JULY 23, 2012
Like so many others, it has become clear to me that our federal government no longer seeks to defend and protect individual rights or the founding documents that guarantee these rights. All have sworn an oath to defend and protect these founding principles; yet day after day, this sacred oath is ignored to the detriment of those persons and things sworn to protect. They only seek their own purposes.
“They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
“Experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But this long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
I have meticulously listed my grievances against this increasingly controlling and deceitful government. I have helplessly watched our protector—the judiciary– ignore and bastardize our sacred constitution. They give pass after pass and acquiesce to the executive and legislative branches of government as the rights of the individual are supplanted with the rights of the state.
I have hoped in vein that the fourth estate, i.e. our news media, would somehow rally public opinion against these forces; only to find they too support the increasing power of our federal masters. These are historical times as we find ourselves perched on the razors edge of freedom or tyranny. We are witnessing the rapid destruction of our individual rights, once sustained by our respect and reverence for our founding documents of still visible scribbles on parchment at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This experiment in the primacy of individual rights 237 years ago created the greatest engine for freedom and prosperity in the history of man. Are we now expected to sit passively by and watch as our treasure is plundered by the Permanent Political Class and their legions of Bureaucrats?
So the question for me is: “Is our government legitimate?” Can a government who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies (foreign and domestic), who is now engaged in the wholesale destruction of these same principals …can this government by any reasonable measure be considered legitimate? The answer is clearly no.