Why I Don't Respect Bill O'Reilly?

I don't respect Bill because I have yet to see him espouse and cling to any principles.  He's not thorough and he's not consistent.  He's just an argumentative blowhard.

This video is an example.

I realize that he used the phrase, "I don't care about the Constitution" to force the argument in his own direction.  I know he probably doesn't mean it.  It makes one wonder, however, in light of his lack of consistent principles, if in some way he does really mean it.

There are some things you shouldn't say even for the sake of argument because they reveal a lack of respect.
Examples . . .  "I don't care about God.", "I don't care about the Bible", "I don't care about my wife", "I don't care if people die", etc.  This fits in that category.

By the way, on the issue at hand, I agree wholeheartedly with the Judge.

Government Control - Be Careful What You Wish For

The other morning on the way to work I was listening to my local talk radio show called On The Mark.  They were discussing the gay marriage voter referendum in Maine and the show's left-wing commentator Than Mitchell was upset by the proposition of the voters violating the rights of gay couples. 

I wanted to call in, but resisted the urge this time.  I am constantly amazed that liberals don't see the downfall of government control.  They want the state - the government - their democracy - in control of everything, but they fail to see how that will always lead to a loss of freedom for some if not all of those involved.

When the state assumed the role from the church of licensing marriages, they took control of the governance of marriage.  I'm certain that big government types were happy to yield that power at the time, but now in the case of gay marriage they aren't happy with the end product of their democracy.  The problem they face is that a majority of Americans still "suffer" from a stigma against homosexuals calling their relationships a marriage.  When the churches were in charge, you may have received sanction from some non bible-believing church to marry a person of the same sex.  Now that government licenses marriages, you are at their mercy.

The article below appeared on a blog today and it seemed to describe the problem well.


Marriage License & Registration, Please


By Steve Bierfeldt

Published 11/06/09

A Necessary Question
At some point in your life you asked the government's permission for something you should never need approval for in the first place. Though you have a God given right protected by the Constitution, you swallowed your pride, took your marching orders and got in lock step with the government. Don't be embarrassed, you're not alone.

Today the government has its hand in every taxpayer's pocket. From starting a business to building a house, to going fishing with a family member, people obtain licenses for almost everything. The idea of government "licensing" us has become so commonplace most fail to give it a second thought. It is not pertaining to fishing or starting a business that the most curious aspect of licensing arises however. Instead it is the practice which the vast majority of Americans take part in at some point in their lives, the institution of marriage.

The idea of submitting yourself to your spouse, pledging your faithfulness and planning for a future together is about as old a custom as exists today. And yet curiously so many individuals have never considered the implications behind granting the state jurisdiction over their marriage. Without a hunting license you are not permitted to legally hunt. Without a fishing license you may not go fishing. And without a driver's license you cannot legally drive a car. Should it then seem that foreign the same logic applies to a license declaring marriage? What if you applied for a marriage license, and the government said, "No"?

According to the Ohio State Bar Association, you do not have the right to get married on your own terms and instead your marriage is a legal contract with three equal parties. A marriage in Ohio is a creation of the state with the government taking the reigns of that union. They claim, "Marriage is a legal as well as a spiritual and personal relationship. When you state your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio."

Some believe marriage is a God given right, some a natural born right, and others a personal liberty that exists outside of religion and morality. Yet many submit to an entity that should have no authority to determine the details of their family. When urged to forgo a marriage license, the response received is often one of half-hearted protest. Many cite tax benefits; others do not want to deal with the hassle, and some still believe the worst-case scenario is grossly exaggerated. When asked what they would do if they sought the government's approval to get married and were denied, the response is often a variation of, "that could never happen."

Within the past month however an intriguing story splashed across the news wire. A small town in Louisiana gained a great deal of media coverage due to a man and woman who had asked the government for permission to get married and were told, "No." The man and woman, of different racial backgrounds were refused a marriage license by their local justice of the peace. The justice stated he had no feelings of discrimination or resentment, rather personal aversion to granting a marriage license to a couple whose children he felt would face difficulties down the road.

While a fair amount of disdain came against the justice and he has since resigned, his logic and motives for denying the marriage are not important or especially relevant to the story. What is relevant is that government has gotten into the business of deciding who should be allowed to marry and who should not. As the state has ordained itself with this power, the people have meekly submitted themselves in hopes of attaining its seal of approval.

The Idea of a "License."
The definition of a license as per Black's law dictionary is, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." The idea of a license does not often get people riled up despite the obedience to the state it implies. A license confers a right to do something that would otherwise be illegal. We do not need the government's approval to get married and we should certainly never grovel before state bureaucrats in order to obtain it. Yet we give the government power to decide if we can hunt for our dinner or own a pet. The state of Alabama even requires individuals to submit their social security number to obtain a fishing license. When we acknowledge the state has the authority to license, we likewise acknowledge the state has the authority to prohibit. The Pandora's box this opens pertaining to marriage is frightening.

In the American colonies and the subsequent Republic, the idea of the government holding preeminence over a marriage is a relatively new concept. Historically the "requirement"to get married had more to do with obtaining parents' approval, making a public announcement, and finding a willing church official to perform the ceremony. State supreme courts often ruled public cohabitation was sufficient evidence the marriage was valid and referred to the couple as having been married under "Common Law." A couple whom had the approval of their parents, held a ceremony, and pledged their faithfulness to one another had made it as clear as possible they were getting married.

How then did we arrive at the point we now find ourselves? As time progressed, many states began passing laws outlawing the marriage of racially mixed couples. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages as long as those marrying received a the state's approval. In the 1920's more than 30 states prohibited whites from marrying individuals of another racial background. 18 states had restrictions on remarrying after a divorce, and a dozen states would refuse a license if one partner were a drunk, addict or "mental defect." Soon states began requiring all people to obtain a marriage license. By 1929, every state in the nation had adopted marriage license laws.

The government had now entered into the business of determining who was fit to marry, how drunk was "too drunk," or if some had an addiction or just a vice. By granting government the license to marry, we are granting it the license to further infringe on our individual liberties. How does the state decide who is a "mental defect?" Could a situation arise today in which the state could claim one partner was not mentally competent enough to get married? Unfortunately, it already has. Last month in Scotland social workers halted a wedding because they deemed the woman, "Not bright enough to marry." Kerry Robertson, who admits to having mild learning difficulties is able to read, write, and speak clearly. However social services informed her she would not be allowed a formal license because in their view she "did not understand the implications of getting married." The government officials were kind enough to inform Ms. Robertson of their decision just 48 hours before her wedding.

Unfortunately this story takes an even more morbid tone. Last week Kerry met with social services to determine the fate of her baby. Kerry who is currently pregnant with the couple's first child, was told she was not intelligent enough to be a mother. She was informed she would be allowed only a few hours with her baby before government officials took custody and placed the child in foster care. Social services assert Kerry's fiancée has no standing as the child's father because the two are not married and do not have the state's permission to do so. This story belongs on the cover of a supermarket tabloid and yet it took place in an industrialized western nation in the 21st century. If the government claimed you had no right to get married, how would you react? If the government informed you it would be stealing your child just hours after his birth, what would you do?

Faith
For those who hold faith as their moral compass, the power to get married does not come from the government. That power comes from a creator who gave that gift to be enjoyed for His glory and our betterment. In the Bible the blessing of marriage is first found in Genesis 2:18 and outlines God's desire for man and wife to be joined together in both a physical and spiritual union. Yet the idea of a license removes both God and parental responsibility from the marriage. Traditionally a woman was given in marriage by her father as the ceremonial passing of care to the new, most important man in that woman's life, her husband. Even today the tradition exists and can still be heard in almost all wedding ceremonies. The marrying official states, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" At which point the father states his approval. Deuteronomy 22:16, Exodus 22:17 and I Corinthians 7:38 are just a few of the many Scriptural references glorifying God's blessing in our lives and supporting God's sovereignty in marriage over the state's.

Christian principles teach us the institution of marriage is something that should indeed be protected. However it is the government's intervention in marriage that has created the crumbling moral foundation inherent in so many of our well intentioned laws. While states such as Texas and Utah may have different marriage laws than Massachusetts and Vermont, is a religious individual who adheres to a traditional view of marriage supposed to support government intervention when it suits his interests? Certainly not. Rather the believer who wants to defend marriage should do just that by removing the government's role instead of supporting big government policies only when convenient. The necessity of opposing a marriage license solely on Christian principles could be an article unto itself.

However it is vital to question why those adhering to a socially conservative, religious, and perhaps also Christian worldview are often the largest proponents for the government's involvement in marriage. The same government that creates unjust statutes, institutes immoral policies, and has grown consistently more tyrannical, is the same government we want to promote morals and defend the institution of marriage? No thank you.

Freedom
For some the issue of faith and religion has no place in the marriage discussion. A moral code comes not necessarily from a deity but a natural right bestowed upon one from birth. You have an unimpeded right to life, liberty and property just so long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty and property of another individual. No government entity, no matter how pure they claim their motives to be, has any right to steal your liberty or tell you how you can live your life and whom you can spend your time with. A couple who claims to be in love, chooses to have a ceremony announcing their union, and begins living together as a married couple has rights both under natural law and the Constitution.

Yet despite the enormous media coverage ballot propositions and marriage laws have gained, the genders of the individuals are actually irrelevant to the rights they share. These individuals have the right to live their lives as they wish as well as the right to be left alone. What they do not have however, is the right to force those who disagree with their lifestyle to pay for their coupling through tax breaks, partner benefits or economic subsidies. Just as some on the right pine for government intervention in marriage in order to defend traditional values, some on the left clamor for that same intervention in order to secure financial gains and increase the size of government. Their fight is not for the freedom and equality they claim to desire, but rather the statist policies that would create more bureaucracy and more government debt.

If both the left and the right came at marriage from a liberty perspective they would realize there can be a joint agreement on the necessity for the individual to have pre-eminence over the state. While they may have different sets of values, they could easily reach the same conclusion. The idea of a marriage license infringes on both the God given right to get married and the natural right to live how you wish.

A Necessary Conclusion
In almost every wedding you've been to, you've probably heard the final words uttered by the marrying official. Whether from a judge, a pastor, or another religious representative, he states, "By the power vested in me by the state of __________, I now pronounced you man and wife." Advocates of individual freedom should cringe every-time we hear those words. The idea of, "Power" being granted by a government agency is like a dagger into the heart of liberty. Opposing government involvement in marriage holds no bias for those professing faith, those adhering to law, or those preferring individual freedom.

A religious individual should want to defend the idea of traditional marriage as an institution created and blessed by God. It is because of this belief they must push for government to be removed completely. The believer examines a state that has consistently assaulted his faith and the values he holds dear, and somehow he wants that same government to be involved in promoting his moral values? A liberty minded individual should want to defend each person's right to live as they deem proper. It is not important we agree with one lifestyle or another. It is instead important we agree an individual has certain freedoms that their religion or lack of religion should have no impact on, just as long as others are not forced to administer it, pay for it, or approve of it.

The advocate of liberty must be ready to pledge their allegiance not to the state, but to the values they hold as high. For some this may be a spiritual worldview, for some a view based on the life of Christ and a Biblical foundation, and for others an emphasis on the natural rights and liberties each person is born with. Though they may take different paths to get there, it is vitally important they end up at the same conclusion. In our battle to protect personal ethics and individual freedoms we must understand our enemy is not our fellow brother in the cause. Our enemy is a state that uses tyranny to bully us into asking permission to engage in an activity for which no permission is needed. Though we may disagree on a moral code and how that code should be defined, we can come together to promote individual autonomy, protect inherent rights, and turn away from marriage licenses once and for all. We may find we have more in common than we thought.
Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty

Election News

In case you read this blog, but aren't a local paper reader or a facebook friend, I am thankful to inform you that I won a Township Supervisor seat in Tuesday's election.  Here are the results:

Union Supervisor

Bob Zechman, Jr. DEM       68     29.96%
Billy Allred REP                 159     70.04%

I appreciate the help I received from friends and neighbors by posting my signs and asking their friends and neighbors to vote for me. 

I spent election day at the polls talking to voters.  My opponent, Bob Zechman, was there as well and we had a good time talking through the lulls of the day.  He's really a nice guy and I would have voted for him if I wasn't running.

So now the six year term of fun begins.  Several people have asked me what I was going to do now that I have the job.  I think it's a little easier to define what I'm NOT going to do.  Here's a few for starters:

Raise Taxes, Pass Zoning, Increase Regulation, Deny Variances, Centralize Power, etc.

Overall, my goal is to spend wisely, and hold private property sacred.  It should be a real treat dealing with other county officials who think highly of planning and zoning, ie. their own control. 

Obama Believes In Open Government . . .

He just hasn't accomplished it yet.

Local Government Is Better Than Federal, But I Prefer Private Property

I'm running for Township Supervisor in less than two weeks. You could infer that I think local government at its most granular level is . . .
1.  Legitimate
2.  Beneficial
3.  In need of my help.

I actually think local government is . . .
1.  More Legitimate than the far away mob of elites who rule us.
2.  More Beneficial than those who plunder our wealth and devalue our currency.
3.  Always in need of consistent leaders who value property rights more than power.

So I will run to serve.  Not to serve the government, the majority, the businesses or the special interests, but to serve the common man's right to rule himself and his property as he sees fit.  

After all, that is what works.

A Nobel Winner Who Showed Freedom Works
by John Stossel

Pundits and politicians act as if government can solve almost any problem. At the slightest hint of trouble, the ruling class reflexively assumes that knowledgeable, wise and public-spirited government regulators are capable of riding to the rescue. This certainly is the guiding philosophy of the Obama administration.

So how remarkable it is that this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in economics was shared by Elinor Ostrom, whose life's work demonstrates that politicians and bureaucrats are not nearly as good at solving problems as regular people. Ostrom, the first woman to win the prize (which she shared with Oliver Williamson of UC-Berkeley), is a political scientist at Indiana University. The selection committee said that she has "challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource-users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts" (emphasis added).

Ostrom's work concentrates on common-pool resources (CPR) like pastures and fisheries. Policymakers assume that such situations are plagued by free-rider problems, where all individuals have a strong incentive to use the resource to the fullest and no incentive to invest in order to enhance it. Analysts across the political spectrum theorize that only bureaucrats or owners of privatized units can efficiently manage such resources.

Few scholars actually venture into the field to see what people actually do when faced with free-rider problems. Ostrom did. It turns out that free people are not as helpless as the theorists believed.

She writes in her 1990 book, "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action," that there is no shortage of real-world examples of "a self-governed common-property arrangement in which the rules have been devised and modified by the participants themselves and also are monitored and enforced by them."

In other words, free people work things out on their own.
 Not only is government help often not needed, Ostrom says it usually screws things up because bureaucrats operate in an ivory tower ignorant of the local customs and the specific resource.

Political theorists assume away the problems of political control, but the problems are real. There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. Unlike bureaucrats, they bear the costs of their mistakes. Moreover, as the prize committee pointed out, "Rules that are imposed from the outside or unilaterally dictated by powerful insiders have less legitimacy and are more likely to be violated."

Some of Ostrom's readers think that she is as critical of the free market as she is of government management. She writes, "(N)either the state nor the market is uniformly successful in enabling individuals to sustain long-term, productive use of natural resource systems." But what those readers miss is that the resource-management arrangements Ostrom documents are voluntary agreements that people themselves devise, monitor and enforce. These agreements are part of the free market, even if the resource is not formally divided into privately owned units. Fundamental for advocates of freedom is not "the market" narrowly conceived, but the broader realm of consent and contract.

I was amused to see the lengths to which the New York Times went to spin Ostrom's (and Williamson's) selection in an anti-free-market direction. Reporter Louis Uchitelle wrote, "Neither Ms. Ostrom nor Mr. Williamson has argued against regulation. Quite the contrary, their work found that people in business adopt for themselves numerous forms of regulation and rules of behavior – called 'governance' in economic jargon – doing so independently of government. ..."

Please. Rules of behavior that are independent of government are not what anybody means by "regulation." Advocates of regulation say people can't devise methods of "governance" that leave politicians out of the picture, but Ostrom shows they are wrong.

We libertarians aren't against rules – we are against top-down rules imposed by out-of-touch bureaucrats. People generate better rules when the state leaves us alone.

Before You Get A Swine Flu Shot . . .

You should probably watch this 60 Minutes 1979 expose about the '76 swine flu scare. You should ask some questions.

1. Based on the state's past record will you accept their word that we are experiencing or are about to experience an epidemic or pandemic?
2. Are you willing to stake your life on the safety of these vaccines?
3. If you don't receive the vaccine how much more likely are you to die or suffer long term debilitation from swine flu?

Part 1


Part 2

This Man Should Have Been President

In many ways, I regard him as my president.  He is certainly a leader who leads with the right ideas.