I would like to express my sincere appreciation for Mr. Dunn's coming out in support of gay marriage - it was a courageous and forward-thinking decision. As our future governor Rob McKenna is fond of saying, the Republican Party must learn the difference between private convictions and public policies.
It is encouraging to see an up-and-coming star in the Washington State Republican Party exhibit that understanding. We have always been able to count on the GOP to lead us constructively on fiscal issues. Perhaps this move towards constructive leadership on social issues will become a pattern.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
An Open Letter to our Congressional Delegation
Dear Representatives and Senators,
We are tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders by Big Government, reined and ridden by Big Business. We are tired of liberty and freedom being treated as quaint ideas to be pondered wistfully. We are tired of our Senators and Congressmen acting as if they have never heard of an oath of office or the Constitution or who fail to understand that government is established primarily to enable the freedom and welfare of the individual – not the corporation.
We expect our representatives in Congress to consider the big picture, rather than merely follow along with the talking points from a dozen industry lobbyists' white papers. We expect that you will always side with and protect liberty and freedom when laws are presented to you.
Any law which has the potential to detain or restrain members of a free society, honestly and conscientiously exercising their God-given rights in our Democracy, is a bad law. Every time you vote in approval of a bill with any such provisions, you dishonor your position, your oath of office, and the trust the People have placed in you.
Please take action and vote against SOPA and PIPA. Please also take action and vote to remove the Bill of Rights shredding provisions of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization act. Please read proposed laws before uttering "Aye!" Please remember your oath and the proper function of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
We are tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders by Big Government, reined and ridden by Big Business. We are tired of liberty and freedom being treated as quaint ideas to be pondered wistfully. We are tired of our Senators and Congressmen acting as if they have never heard of an oath of office or the Constitution or who fail to understand that government is established primarily to enable the freedom and welfare of the individual – not the corporation.
We expect our representatives in Congress to consider the big picture, rather than merely follow along with the talking points from a dozen industry lobbyists' white papers. We expect that you will always side with and protect liberty and freedom when laws are presented to you.
Any law which has the potential to detain or restrain members of a free society, honestly and conscientiously exercising their God-given rights in our Democracy, is a bad law. Every time you vote in approval of a bill with any such provisions, you dishonor your position, your oath of office, and the trust the People have placed in you.
Please take action and vote against SOPA and PIPA. Please also take action and vote to remove the Bill of Rights shredding provisions of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization act. Please read proposed laws before uttering "Aye!" Please remember your oath and the proper function of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government
To many people, the Libertarian Party's slogan, “Minimum Government – Maximum Freedom,” sounds like a feel-good hybridization of the “anarchy” and the “free love” movements. This interpretation, not an uncommon one based on conversations with others about Libertarianism, belies the major principle underlying the goals of the Party. It is time to make a shift in our message in order to clarify our message.
Libertarianism is indeed about freedom; however, it is not based upon freedom. Rather, freedom is the natural result of the basic tenets of Libertarianism and not a tenet unto itself. “Freedom” taken as a tenet is best compared to “free lunch” (TANSTAAFL!)
If we wish to be taken seriously and to become a major party, we must resist the temptation of continuing to appeal only to the low-hanging fruit: those who are intellectually attracted to the principles of Libertarianism and those who think freedom is a result which a party, of any ilk, can deliver and preserve. We must broaden our appeal.
If freedom should not be the stated goal of this Party, then what should? What is it that the human spirit cries out for? “Liberty,” yes, but isn’t that just another word for “freedom?” What do we mean by these words? I believe that the cornerstone of Libertarianism is “individual responsibility,” without which there can be no freedom. We hold the individual to be responsible for their own lives, and we work to promote governments at all levels which interfere minimally with that responsibility.
Today, our Republic is nearly lost under the combined weight of laws and restrictions imagined by the liberal and conservative movements to expropriate individual responsibility from the people and to place that responsibility on government. Every step these people have taken to relieve individuals from their responsibilities has removed a slice of our liberty, until a large portion of that which remains is merely superficial. Further, in taking on these responsibilities, the size and scope of government at all levels has swollen unchecked, bursting beyond any reasonable boundaries and threatening to destroy liberty once and for all.
I believe the goal of the Libertarian Party is better expressed by the slogan: “Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government.” In the Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers, each individual is indeed responsible for their own profession, their own family structure and activities, their own religious beliefs, their own sustenance, their own happiness, and their own freedom. If we want the freedom envisioned by our founding fathers, then we must first and foremost promote the acceptance of the level of individual responsibility that they envisioned!
Libertarianism is indeed about freedom; however, it is not based upon freedom. Rather, freedom is the natural result of the basic tenets of Libertarianism and not a tenet unto itself. “Freedom” taken as a tenet is best compared to “free lunch” (TANSTAAFL!)
If we wish to be taken seriously and to become a major party, we must resist the temptation of continuing to appeal only to the low-hanging fruit: those who are intellectually attracted to the principles of Libertarianism and those who think freedom is a result which a party, of any ilk, can deliver and preserve. We must broaden our appeal.
If freedom should not be the stated goal of this Party, then what should? What is it that the human spirit cries out for? “Liberty,” yes, but isn’t that just another word for “freedom?” What do we mean by these words? I believe that the cornerstone of Libertarianism is “individual responsibility,” without which there can be no freedom. We hold the individual to be responsible for their own lives, and we work to promote governments at all levels which interfere minimally with that responsibility.
Today, our Republic is nearly lost under the combined weight of laws and restrictions imagined by the liberal and conservative movements to expropriate individual responsibility from the people and to place that responsibility on government. Every step these people have taken to relieve individuals from their responsibilities has removed a slice of our liberty, until a large portion of that which remains is merely superficial. Further, in taking on these responsibilities, the size and scope of government at all levels has swollen unchecked, bursting beyond any reasonable boundaries and threatening to destroy liberty once and for all.
I believe the goal of the Libertarian Party is better expressed by the slogan: “Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government.” In the Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers, each individual is indeed responsible for their own profession, their own family structure and activities, their own religious beliefs, their own sustenance, their own happiness, and their own freedom. If we want the freedom envisioned by our founding fathers, then we must first and foremost promote the acceptance of the level of individual responsibility that they envisioned!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
AARP, You're Fired!
Dear AARP,
This is the third “Membership Reactivation Form” letter with shiny new membership cards I have received since I fired you. I compliment you on your creativity, especially the part that says:
“We are fighting for your American Dream. AARP is encouraging policy makers and leaders to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, pension and retirement benefits.”
With all due respect, that is a crock! You may be fighting for Karl Marx’s dream, but you sure as hell aren’t fighting for my American Dream. My American Dream is about opportunity, not federally mandated Ponzi schemes that suck the life out of the economy.
You may be fighting for the Utopian ideal of everyone living in peace and harmony, under the full control of a benevolent, efficient, all-powerful government. My American Dream, however, is one that emphasizes limited government and individual responsibility.
I notice you are no longer crowing about your successful support of the federal healthcare takeover. Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans think the federal government will only screw that up like they have everything else. Well, you are stuck with it. I will never return to your membership rolls, no matter how many big government handouts you promise to try to get for me.
With great disdain,
David Rogers
This is the third “Membership Reactivation Form” letter with shiny new membership cards I have received since I fired you. I compliment you on your creativity, especially the part that says:
“We are fighting for your American Dream. AARP is encouraging policy makers and leaders to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, pension and retirement benefits.”
With all due respect, that is a crock! You may be fighting for Karl Marx’s dream, but you sure as hell aren’t fighting for my American Dream. My American Dream is about opportunity, not federally mandated Ponzi schemes that suck the life out of the economy.
You may be fighting for the Utopian ideal of everyone living in peace and harmony, under the full control of a benevolent, efficient, all-powerful government. My American Dream, however, is one that emphasizes limited government and individual responsibility.
I notice you are no longer crowing about your successful support of the federal healthcare takeover. Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans think the federal government will only screw that up like they have everything else. Well, you are stuck with it. I will never return to your membership rolls, no matter how many big government handouts you promise to try to get for me.
With great disdain,
David Rogers
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tolerating Islam as a Religion or as a Political System
My question of the day is, "How can one be true to the concept of freedom of religion without admitting the risks implied by the political nature of Islam?" Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Americans; however, Islam carries within it a political system which is an anathema. The most troubling aspect of Islam for Americans is the apparent structural connection between these two facets of the Islam belief system.
Whether political power is granted to Caliphs or to Imams by the Quran is a source of internal debate within Islam - but either way we have a conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. (I acknowledge that this conflation of Church and State is not limited to Muslims. We already have ongoing battles pitting religious beliefs against Liberty most apparently within the Republican Party. However, that is another issue.)
On the surface, it appears to me that one has to choose between tolerance for the religion with the associated risks of appeasement for the politics, or intolerance for both. Since, as a belief system, Islam is intolerant of our traditional belief systems, both religious and political, it seems the choice has already been made for us, since tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a fool's (or a saint's) bargain.
David
Whether political power is granted to Caliphs or to Imams by the Quran is a source of internal debate within Islam - but either way we have a conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. (I acknowledge that this conflation of Church and State is not limited to Muslims. We already have ongoing battles pitting religious beliefs against Liberty most apparently within the Republican Party. However, that is another issue.)
On the surface, it appears to me that one has to choose between tolerance for the religion with the associated risks of appeasement for the politics, or intolerance for both. Since, as a belief system, Islam is intolerant of our traditional belief systems, both religious and political, it seems the choice has already been made for us, since tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a fool's (or a saint's) bargain.
David
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
It's the Constitution, Stupid!
I believe the Libyan affair is truly a fight for Democracy; one which demands the immediate and passionate involvement of the People of the United States. Obama’s acts of war under the pretense of a United Nations Resolution constitute a direct assault on our United States Constitution and must be countered.
Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:
Dear Congressman Reichert,
I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.
President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.
I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Bellevue, WA
Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:
Dear Congressman Reichert,
I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.
President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.
I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Bellevue, WA
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Regarding the Messages of Intolerance in the Koran
RE: Bill Maher Debates Islam with Democratic Muslim Congressman
Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.
That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!
The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.
Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.
That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!
The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
