Archive for the ‘#liberty’ Tag

Global Food Security Act Leaves African Farmers in the Dirt | Stacy Ndlovu   Leave a comment

This Act will most certainly not improve global food security, especially in Africa, because it fails to address a fundamental cause of food insecurity in the developing world: US agricultural subsidies.

Source: Global Food Security Act Leaves African Farmers in the Dirt | Stacy Ndlovu

Posted August 3, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

President Obama: “We Don’t Look to Be Ruled” | Jeffrey Tucker   Leave a comment

Jeffrey Tucker’s analysis of Obama’s speech is spot on, except he only lightly touches on how Obama has been the most dictatorial president we’ve had in our lifetimes. He started his presidency with a statement that can be summed up with “Sit down, shut up, elections have consequences.” He has ruled us as he sought to do … as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both seek to do. Lela


It’s not the promises of an iron fist that speak to us, but rather the opportunities provided by freedom.

Source: President Obama: “We Don’t Look to Be Ruled” | Jeffrey Tucker


Here’s what fascinates me about political rhetoric: when a politician really seeks to be as compelling as possible — to entice people into moral sympathy with a vision, to elicit trust from the voters, to touch the very core of our aspirations for life and politics — the language of liberty serves the cause best.

Freedom is what inspires and ennobles us.It’s not the promises of an iron fist that speak to us, but rather the opportunities provided by freedom. It is not the power of politics they emphasize but the power of people on their own.

We’ve seen it often over the decades but rarely more poignantly than in President Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here we have a president who has spent eight years constructing an apparatus of executive rule, pushing out the boundaries of government imposition as far as possible, in every area of life, most conspicuously in education, surveillance, foreign policy, gun rights, and health care.

And yet, when it comes time to make a case for his party as against the Republican Party, and to make the case for his chosen successor, he gives us these awesome and inspiring words:

We are not a fragile or frightful people. Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order. We don’t look to be ruled. Our power comes from those immortal declarations first put to paper right here in Philadelphia all those years ago; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that together, We, the People, can form a more perfect union.

That’s our birthright — the capacity to shape our own destiny.That’s who we are. That’s our birthright — the capacity to shape our own destiny…. America has never been about what one person says he’ll do for us. It’s always been about what can be achieved by us, together, through the hard, slow, sometimes frustrating, but ultimately enduring work of self-government….

My grandparents explained that they didn’t like show-offs. They didn’t admire braggarts or bullies. They didn’t respect mean-spiritedness, or folks who were always looking for shortcuts in life. Instead, they valued traits like honesty and hard work. Kindness and courtesy. Humility; responsibility; helping each other out….

Demagogues will always fail in the end.That’s why anyone who threatens our values, whether fascists or communists or jihadists or homegrown demagogues, will always fail in the end.

That’s America. Those bonds of affection; that common creed. We don’t fear the future; we shape it, embrace it, as one people, stronger together than we are on our own.

Exactly: we don’t look to be ruled. Our value as a people comes not from the top down but from within — from character, resilience, decency, all of which emanate from freedom itself.

Now, you can read that as an attack on Donald Trump, which it surely is. But what is the best way to achieve that? Where is Trump most vulnerable? President Obama found it: Trump aspires to be a strongman, and America is not about that. It’s a very effective critique, even if it emanates from the wrong source. For the Democrats to make such a critique is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Are we really supposed to pretend that the top-down imposition of Obamacare never happened? That Common Core didn’t come to dominate American education? That Obama played no role in the vast expansion of digital surveillance? That Obama’s (and Clinton’s) foreign policy did not extend the mindless war-making of his predecessors and did not unleash unholy hell all over the Middle East and Europe, setting off a catastrophic refugee crisis and spreading the terror threat throughout the world?

We look to be free of rule.Yes, we are supposed to forget all that. And if we set that aside, there is a wonderful lesson to be learned in the newest iteration of Obama: we don’t look to be ruled. We look to be free of rule.

It has also been generally true that presidents give their best – and most liberty-minded – speeches in the twilight days of their power. Think of George Washington’s Farewell Address and his remark that “the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” Consider Eisenhower’s final warning that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Or Reagan’s final speech, reiterating the vision of America as a “Shining City on a Hill,” and proclaiming: “Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past.”

Eventually, they see through the myth of power.We might ask ourselves: why do powerful people turn to liberty-oriented themes in the last days of their power? Perhaps it is because, in the course of their rule, each of these people gradually discover that ruling is not all it is cracked up to be.

They arrive in their offices with grand ambitions, the perception of a public mandate, and huge plan for making the world conform. What they face is a vast and implacable bureaucracy, a legacy of centuries of lawmaking, a professional class of managers and fixers at all levels of government, an army of special interests and lobbyists who are ready for war to the knife over the slightest changes in the operations of government, and a populace who just never seem to get with the program.

And there are only so many hours in a day. What presidents must probably discover is not how much power they have, but rather the opposite: how much power the apparatus of government has over them. Between all the meetings with dignitaries, the travels, the speeches and public appearances, the flattering of big shots that swirl in and around the White House at all hours, they are wholly dependent on their advisers, who are in turn dependent on theirs, who are in turn dependent on theirs.

When presidents finally get a chance to act, they make a hash of it.And yet there are moments when presidents do seem to act with genuine authority extending from their own volition. Bush invaded Iraq, and look what that did to the world. Obama threw himself behind Obamacare, with the conviction that a vast array of experts had vetted the system and pronounced it good. The whole thing blew up and wrecked much of what was good in American healthcare. The legacy of his signature legislation is so unpopular that mention of it was reduced to just one oblique reference in his convention speech.

So, yes, the experience of governing can be truly humbling. I can’t imagine the trauma that this is going to cause Trump, whose only experience has been in bossing people around in the private sector in businesses he owns. No one in particular owns government, and the bureaucracy is never more implacable than when faced with someone who purports to be in charge of them.

If presidents were to be honest with themselves, they would have to admit that they were fools to believe that the government, much less the whole nation, could be ruled by their will alone. It’s preposterous to believe that 300 million people — each person with a mind, heart, will, soul all his or her own — can be ruled by anyone.

Someday I hope to read an honest autobiography of a former president:

I arrived flush with anticipation of changing the world. Crowds screamed my name and cried out for me to bring justice, fairness, equality, and happiness to the country. I discovered over time that I personally had very little power at all, and the little I did have was dangerous because the results were nothing like what I had anticipated. I pretended to be important. I kept up appearances. People doted on me constantly.

And yet I learned, gradually, that I was just one man, and the system swallowed me completely. And that’s probably a good thing too because, in the end, I’m no different from anyone else, no more or less capable, no more or less knowing and brilliant. My main talent was in campaigning and here I excelled. As for governing, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Or as Obama beautifully summed it up: “We don’t look to be ruled.”

Posted July 29, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Forget Armed Revolt   Leave a comment


The Rutherford Institute

July 19, 2016


“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

America is a ticking time bomb.

All that remains to be seen is who—or what—will set fire to the fuse.

We are poised at what seems to be the pinnacle of a manufactured breakdown, with police shooting unarmed citizens, snipers shooting police, global and domestic violence rising, and a political showdown between two presidential candidates equally matched in unpopularity.

The preparations for the Republican and Democratic national conventions taking place in Cleveland and Philadelphia—augmented by a $50 million federal security grant for each city—provide a foretaste of how the government plans to deal with any individual or group that steps out of line: they will be censored, silenced, spied on, caged, intimidated, interrogated, investigated, recorded, tracked, labeled, held at gunpoint, detained, restrained, arrested, tried and found guilty.

For instance, anticipating civil unrest and mass demonstrations in connection with the Republican Party convention, Cleveland officials set up makeshift prisons, extra courtrooms to handle protesters, and shut down a local university in order to house 1,700 riot police and their weapons. The city’s courts are preparing to process up to 1,000 people a day. Additionally, the FBI has also been conducting “interviews” with activists in advance of the conventions to discourage them from engaging in protests.

Make no mistake, the government is ready for a civil uprising.

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

Indeed, the government has been preparing for this moment for years.

A 2008 Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report goes on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

Subsequent reports by the Department of Homeland Security to identify, monitor and labelright-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) have manifested into full-fledged pre-crime surveillance programs. Almost a decade later, after locking down the nation and spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS has concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.

Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that is colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones,fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.

It’s astounding how convenient we’ve made it for the government to lock down the nation.

We’ve even allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.

The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have all conjoined to create an environment in which “we the people” are more distrustful and fearful of each other and more reliant on the government to keep us safe.

Of course, that’s the point.

The powers-that-be wants us to feel vulnerable.

They want us to fear each other and trust the government’s hired gunmen to keep us safe from terrorists, extremists, jihadists, psychopaths, etc.

Most of all, the powers-that-be want us to feel powerless to protect ourselves and reliant on and grateful for the dubious protection provided by the American police state.

Their strategy is working.

The tree of liberty is dying.

There will be no second American Revolution.

There is no place in our nation for the kind of armed revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical Great Britain. Such an act would be futile and tragic. We are no longer dealing with a distant, imperial king but with a tyrant of our own making: a militarized, technologized, heavily-financed bureaucratic machine that operates beyond the reach of the law.

The message being sent to the citizenry is clear: there will be no revolution, armed or otherwise.

Anyone who believes that they can wage—and win—an armed revolt against the American police state has not been paying attention. Those who wage violence against the government and their fellow citizens are playing right into the government’s hands. Violence cannot and will not be the answer to what ails America.

Whether instigated by the government or the citizenry, violence will only lead to more violence. It does not matter how much firepower you have. The government has more firepower.

It does not matter how long you think you can hold out by relying on survivalist skills, guerilla tactics, and sheer grit. The government has the resources to outwait, out-starve, outman, outgun and generally overpower you.

This government of wolves will not be overtaken by force.

Unfortunately, we waited too long to wake up to the government’s schemes.

We did not anticipate that “we the people” would become the enemy. For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erectingsurveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agenciesto equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.

What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, whether intentional or not.

By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence has become inevitable.

What we are now experiencing is a civil war, devised and instigated in part by the U.S. government.

The outcome of this particular conflict is already foregone: the police state wins.

The objective: compliance and control.

The strategy: destabilize the economy through endless wars, escalate racial tensions, polarize the populace, heighten tensions through a show of force, intensify the use of violence, and then, when all hell breaks loose, clamp down on the nation for the good of the people and the security of the nation.

So where does that leave us?

Despite the fact that communities across the country are, for all intents and purposes, being held hostage by a government that is armed to the teeth and more than willing to use force in order to “maintain order,” most Americans seem relatively unconcerned. Worse, we have become so fragmented as a nation, so hostile to those with whom we might disagree, so distrustful of those who are different from us, that we are easily divided and conquered.

We have been desensitized to violence, acclimated to a military presence in our communities and persuaded that there is nothing we can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation. In this way, the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns have become non-issues to a populace that is easily entertained, distracted, manipulated and controlled.

The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.

We are fast becoming an anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of our revolutionary forebears incapable of mounting a national uprising against a tyrannical regime.

If there is to be any hope of reclaiming our government and restoring our freedoms, it will require a different kind of coup: nonviolent, strategic and grassroots, starting locally and trickling upwards. Such revolutions are slow and painstaking. They are political, in part, but not through any established parties or politicians.

Most of all, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, for any chance of success, such a revolution will require more than a change of politics: it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than their fantasy games.

Source: Forget Armed Revolt

Posted July 25, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Liberty

Tagged with ,

The Truth About the Trans Movement   Leave a comment

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is because revolutions are driven by the desire for power, and once this power is tasted, the thirst for it can never be satiated. Were the Star Wars films to accord with the rules of history, having defeated the Empire, the rebellion would itself eventually become corrupt and despotic. All noble revolutionaries eventually become seduced by the dark side.

Movements that begin with dreams of liberation end up in bullying and the pursuit of vengeance. It is thus with grim inevitability that one observes how the struggle for sexual liberation on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community has started to assume illiberal tendencies.

There was a need for gay liberation when homosexual acts were illegal and gays were beaten up on account of their sexuality. But ever since homosexuality became normalised – gay marriage cementing this transformation – and now homosexuality and gender fluidity is fashionable among the young, there is no rational need for a sexual liberation movement any more.

Yet still it continues, driven by its will to power. This momentum made itself evident some years ago with complaints about bakers refusing to make cakes for gay couples, and Christian owners of bed and breakfasts turning down custom from homosexuals. Such complaints seemed petty, which is why only a modicum of fuss was made about them at the time. It’s a shame the law should be invoked to punish small businesses run by people with antiquated prejudices. But in the end, so what?

(Unless you happen to think these people have a right to hold to a belief and refuse to participate in that which violates that belief. Lela)

This year, however, the LGBT movement has turned to the dark side in earnest. The corporate, governmental and celebrity bullying of North Carolina’s decision to forbid people with penises using public toilets designated for women might prove to be significant. And now, this week, news comes that businesses in New York City will face fines under a new law that makes it a violation of someone’s human rights not to use their preferred gender pronoun. Henceforth, employees, landlords and businesses who refuse to refer to transgender people with terms such as ‘ze’ and ‘hir’ will be in violation of the New York City human-rights law.

‘Where will it end?’, you may ask. To which the answer is, ‘it won’t’. Christian churches will be next in line, then gender differentiation in schools and hospitals.  (I think it will be the other way around, but churches will be targeted eventually. Lela) Those who fight in the name of liberation will always demand more, even when the revolutionary movement has surpassed the boundary of reality into fantasy – in this case, the state enshrining in law, with penalties for those who disobey it, someone’s belief that ‘he’ is a ‘she’ because he simply believes it so.

The impetus for change and the desire to seize power is inherent to revolutionary movements, whether they be communist, Nazi, Islamist, trans or animal rights. Once human beings become subordinate to abstract notions of equality and the future, people become expendable. ‘The future is the only transcendental value for men without God’, said Camus. Thus revolutionaries must forever meddle with the present, because tomorrow never comes.

Source: The Truth About the Trans Movement

Why Religious Liberty Is Important to Me?   5 comments

Featured Image -- 20674












If I had to name THE most important principle in my life after my salvation and my family, it would be my religious liberty. Anyone who has read my blog should know by now that I take Christ with me in EVERYTHING I do. I don’t just worship Him in church, I worship Him with my life. It colors how I treat people, how I conduct my business, how I vote, what I do with my leisure time, even what I choose to spend my money on.

I don’t segregate God into a little corner of my life labeled “church worship” because I can’t. My relationship with Jesus informs every aspect of my life.

Not everyone knows that about me. If you’re a casual acquaintance you won’t see a Bible on my desk, hear endless Scripture quotes from me, or see a cross around my neck (though I do have some pretty jade earrings I wear occasionally). I don’t immediately lead a conversation with my faith insights. You can probably figure out that I go to church if you’re around me for a while, but I don’t hang my faith around my neck like a signboard.

My closest friends are Christians, but I have many friends who are not. Alaska is more unchurched that the New England states, so it’s impossible not to have friends (and family) who are not Christians. To be “in the world but not of it” when you’re surrounded by non Christians requires that Christians exercise a high degree of toleration for the non-Christian behaviors of their neighbors, but that word “toleration” has been hijacked by the postmodernists. This radical breed of skeptics rejects any idea of truth and often follows up their rallying cry with an appeal for “tolerance.”

The “tolerant” person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each individual is permitted to decide for him or herself. No judgments allowed. All views are equally valid.

Of course, if you’re a Christian living in 21st century America, you know that this definition of tolerance is s a myth! While relativist is freely encouraged to assert:

  • All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.

The Christian will be labeled “intolerant” if she asserts:

  • Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the only way to heaven.

Postmoderns view the first statement as truth and the second statement as violating the first statement, but anyone trained in logic knows that the second statement is itself a view, so ought to fall under the first statement, but it is deemed “intolerant” because it is telling someone who believes differently that they are wrong, which is disrepectful and now gives society authority to treat Christians with disdain for holding wrong views.

Yes, the serpent can eat its own tail.

It really comes down to a failure to understand that while all people have value and should be afforded respect and dignity in their interactions, not all ideas are equal. You’re welcome to reject what I believe as I may reject what you believe. But that doesn’t make either of us of less value than the other person and it should not be an excuse for society to marginalize those who believe differently or to coerce them into violating their beliefs.

In the classic view of tolerance, people were egalitarian regarding persons, but elitist regarding ideas. We treat others as having equal standing in value or worth, but we recognize that not all ideas have the same merit.

When we do that, we recognize the right of people to hold their own ideas and to share them with anyone who is willing to listen. We may not agree with those ideas, but we acknowledge the right of other human beings to agree with them. As well that door swings both ways. There can be no tolerance if we don’t allow others to hold ideas that differ from our own.

But allowing them to hold divergent ideas does not obligate us to accept or approve those ideas, nor participate in behaviors stemming from those ideas, because the person being forced to accept, approve or participate is then subjugated to the will of the one doing the forcing. One becomes the slave while the other becomes the master. People become unequal.

Of course, we’re talking hypotheticals if we don’t take the conversation down to the brass tacks. I’ve got examples. In the marketplace of ideas, there are some ideas that are patently ridiculous. If someone came to us and said they could fly without an airplane, we would usually suggest they need mental health treatment. There are economic theories that have shown themselves to be utter failures, collapsing the economies the countries that have tried them. There are all manner of “snake oil” medicine that reasonable people realize is just so much placebo. Yet, the mentally ill person, the foolish economist and the medical con artist all deserve to be treated with dignity as human beings. They should not be treated as “less than” just because we disagree with their ideas. It’s their ideas that require opposition. And, while it is not fun to have your ideas opposed by others, it is far preferrable than being forced to surrender your will to the will of others.

The free exercise of religion presents some complications. We can’t all be right. There is no way the atheist and the devout Christian are ever going to agree. Despite what atheists want to believe, there is no scientific evidence they are any more right than Muslims. A lack of evidence is not an argument for non-belief any more than it is an argument for belief. Everyone has a right to the free exercise of religion to the degree that that exercise is not harming anyone else. What does not break my leg or pick my pocket is none of my concern. Ah, but … the right of conscience is self-evidently inadequate if believers are prevented from acting upon their beliefs.

Examples, religious liberty would be inadequate were Jews free to believe that sons must be circumcised on the eighth day after birth if American law concurrently prohibited circumcision. That was actually a proposed initiative in San Francisco that was struck from the ballot. But such initiatives have a habit of returning. Efforts to ban circumcision and the kosher slaughter of meat are having some success in Europe. If measures such as that pass, then observant Jews become slaves to the consciences of those who consider themselves better than observant Jews. Freedom of religion becomes a mockery … a meaningless sentence on a parchment barrier that means about as much as the wind sighing through trees.

Why? Let’s look at it closely. The logic goes something like this. Jews have their beliefs, but it is wrong to mutilate the body of an infant who cannot consent. Similarly, the argument goes, animal-rights laws are broadly and equally applicable. There is no reason to give special exemption from the law to anyone. After all, the law applies equally to all citizens. Pierson versus Smith is a US Supreme Court case that ruled that.

Should a Muslim restaurant be forced to prepare pork dishes or serve alcohol because their customers demand it? What if a law were floated to demand them to do so?

In years past, I had a pastor who would not conduct weddings unless both parties were professing, church-going Christians. This was a very firmly held belief of his that is not universally embraced among Christian churches, but does have support in the Bible. Should he be forced to violate that belief because some non-Christians or marginally churched folks want to get married?

It really comes down to a fundamental question of “Can Americans be free to pursue happiness if the government makes it impossible to work peacefully at one’s business, to conduct that business according to one’s conscientious beliefs, to raise one’s children according to those same beliefs?” The answer is clearly “No!” If the government can tell you what you are allowed to believe and how you may worship your god, then there is no freedom of conscience and religious freedom is a hoax.

Tolerance (in the classical sense of the word) makes it possible for us to truly be free, but only if we take a PAUSE and realize that just because we believe something is a net good that everybody ought to get on board with does not mean that people have to agree with us. Tolerance is minding your own business and allowing the other guy to mind his.

My fellow blog hoppers are also discussing this same topic. Check it out.

<!– start InLinkz script –>
<a rel=’nofollow’ href=”“><img style=”border:0px” src=”“></a>
<!– end InLinkz script –>
Custom Blog:
<!– start InLinkz script –>” title=”click to view in an external page.”>An InLinkz Link-up

<!– end InLinkz script –>
Code for Link:
<!– start InLinkz script –>
<a rel=’nofollow’ href=>get the InLinkz code</a>
<!– end InLinkz script –>

They Said No To Big Government | Richard M. Ebeling   Leave a comment

The Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state.

Source: They Said No To Big Government | Richard M. Ebeling

Posted July 3, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Liberty

Tagged with , ,

Will the UK Write Freedom History?   2 comments

We are one week away from the EU referendum, the moment when the British people will be called upon to make a historic decision – will they vote to “Brexit” or to “Bremain”? Both camps have been going at each other with fierce campaigns to tilt the vote in their direction, but according to the latest polls, with the “Leave” camp’s latest surge still within the margin of error, the projected outcome is too close to call.

It is a rare moment in history. The British haven’t had their say since they voted to join the European Community back in 1975. What was initially thought of as a project to unite Europe into one common market, with benefits of free trade and great promises of increasing national wealth, has mutated into a completely different entity. The British have, instead, found themselves being dragged into a regional economy of zero growth and a weak Euro, and heavily indebted states. You may have come across the arguments of both camps, but here we wish to address what a “Brexit” or “Bremain” scenario would mean for Britain.

Source: Will the UK Write Freedom History?


I haven’t said much about Brexit because — to be perfectly honest, I don’t think Americans should be telling the British how to conduct their affairs. I am thoroughly ashamed that the President of the United States threatened British voters. It was not his place to do that. King Obama needs to keep his mouth shut.

I feel the same sentiment going the other way, too. If Texas or Alaska decides to exit from the United States, Britain can send her good thoughts our way, but we don’t need her advice. David Cameron can hold all the views he wants to on the subject, but it’s not his place to tell us what to do.

As anyone who has read my blog should be able to guess, I am for Brexit. Short-run, it may have some negative fallout (though I’m not convinced that it will be worse than the negative fallout of remaining in an EU that appears to be spiraling out of control), but long-term, I think the UK will be rejoice that they were not still in the EU when the train goes over the cliff. Just taking a LONG historical view of things … it would appear that England is playing the same role the American colonies played 240 years ago. I’m not going to tell anyone how to vote, but I will say that the American separation from England worked out rather well for us. And, if they do it, then that re-invigorates the conversation on this side of the pond. The United States are going torn apart by the same stresses as the EU. Loosening the ties that bind us might to just want we need to save the nation as a whole. A return to federation might slow us before we reach that cliff.

This article does a good job of analysing both sides of the Brexit issue.

Posted June 21, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Uber Is Progress, So Why Aren’t Progressives On Board? | Steven Horwitz   6 comments

I have sung Uber’s praises before. For me, if the choice to take Uber is available, I will almost always choose it over a regular cab. Patronizing Uber supports entrepreneurial individuals rather than cab companies that are often monopoly franchises or benefactors of other forms of crony capitalism.

So it always surprises me when left-liberal/progressive friends of mine look askance at Uber and other similar innovations. My priors are that people on the left would side with the apparent “little guy” against the corporate employers and local monopolies of cab companies (or large hotel chains in the case of AirBnB). And some do. But others don’t, and it’s worth thinking about how we might make the progressive case for Uber to them.

Source: Uber Is Progress, So Why Aren’t Progressives On Board? | Steven Horwitz


We don’t have Uber here and I haven’t used it, but I have friends who have and trust their evaluation. Lela

Posted June 14, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in economics

Tagged with , , ,

LGBT activists blame Christians for Orlando attack   5 comments

Several prominent gay-rights activists took to social media to blame Christians for Sunday’s massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Source: LGBT activists blame Christians for Orlando attack


A Muslim did this, but somehow it is the fault of Christians for not wanting to violate God’s clear commands?

Bigotry is alive and well in the United States and in the gay rights activist community.

So, bigots … You’re welcome to live your chosen lifestyle, but if you try to force me to approve of it or participate in it as a vendor at your wedding, you force me to have an opinion and to resist your attempts. I’m not doing that because I hate you. I am doing it because I love God and His Bible tells me that the way to love you is to not condone your sinful lifestyle. Furthermore, my worshiping God by rejecting sexual immorality in my own life does no harm to you whatsoever … unless you seek to deny me the right to live my chosen lifestyle because you think yours is more valid. And then we have a conflict with one another that YOU are causing.

Enough said.

Posted June 14, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in cultural divide

Tagged with , , ,

Seeing the State for What It Is | Matthew McCaffrey   1 comment

Most people don’t realize what it means for government to “solve” a problem.

Source: Seeing the State for What It Is | Matthew McCaffrey


a voracious reader. | a book blogger.


adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff


The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street


What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

%d bloggers like this: