Originally posted By Bosch Fawstin On December 2, 2011 @ 12:38 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

Muslim_Roulette_“There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

“But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

“So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

“Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

“Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.”



With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral

The most complete answer to the lefts appeal to statistics against guns.

Link  —  Posted: March 8, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Guns… Lots of guns.

Let’s rise above the fog of the Gun Debate and bring clarity to the discussion. Have you ever considered what the essential players and principles involved in the Gun Debate are? As far as players, you have the federal government, the state and local government, and the conglomeration of individuals making up the people of this great nation. The principles involved are highlighted in one of our nation’s oldest documents — The Declaration of Independence; it has outlined the proper relationship the people are to have with their government. Essentially, if men are to coexist peacefully (i.e., without tyranny) rights will need to be secured and the government is the institution charged with securing them.

Government secures rights and prohibits tyranny by making laws against the initiation of force, and utilizes the police, military and courts to enforce said laws. Government violates rights by instituting laws that initiate force and institutionalize tyranny. Today people seem to form interest groups to not only prevent their group from being taken advantage of, but also to seek special favors (via laws) that may initiate force against others. The right answer is not to form or join the most influential group, but to abolish the entire practice and not to initiate force against anybody.

Now, if the government is to secure your rights those rights must have solid roots; the connection must be proved without contradiction. Have you ever considered what our right to keep and bear arms is rooted in? Assuming you agree with me that rights are short for a right to action, needing no permission from any authority; and assuming you agree that the basic right of individuals is a right to act in their self-interest, and to take actions that sustain their life — also known as the right to life — then you might be able to make the connection between a right to life and a right to bear arms.

Your right to life means your life is an end in itself and needs no justification to exist; the fact that you’re alive, that you’re the only one in conscious control of your life, and that you’re able to sustain it by your own effort is sufficient to establish your existence as a right. Your right to life does not guarantee that you live without risk or without threats. By deduction this means if anything threatens your life, which can only exist in physical form via force, then you have a right to take actions to neutralize the threat (meaning to stop it) in order to secure your life — also know as the right to self-defense. By deduction this means if you are to have a right to take actions to neutralize threats, then you require a right to the means (or tools) to neutralize them — also known as a right to bear arms (a means of offense or defense). Your right to life is the root of your right to (acquire) keep and bear arms, and your right to life precedes the Constitution, which means your right to bear arms precedes the Constitution.

Let’s work this problem in reverse by reduction instead of deduction. Let’s assume for a moment that you don’t have a right to acquire, keep, and bear arms. By reduction this means if you have no right to arms, then you have no right to a means of offense or defense — the tools needed to neutralize threats. By reduction this means if you have no right to the means of neutralizing threats, then you have no right to neutralize threats. By reduction this means if you have no right to neutralize threats to your life, then you have no right to secure your life. By reduction this means if you have no right to secure your life, then you have no right to life. If you have no right to life, then you can only secure your life by permission, which is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves as Americans in the land of the “free” when we seek permits (tools signifying permission of the State) to purchase the tools of our self-defense.

Since governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, for men to seek the permission from their government to act on their rights is completely foreign to me. When did the roles reverse? The government needed permission from the people to take certain actions as granted by the US Constitution; and now the people need permission from their government. Given this backward relationship, and regardless of what professors may tell you, who do you think works for whom in this case?

This Could Be Us

At what point, or what is it going to take to get the uninformed (cons, libs, reps, dems, et al.) to see the gravity of our current trajectory as a nation. Our spending exceeds our revenue, which means we currently barrow money to function. It is difficult to visualize the amount of all three (our nation’s revenue, spending, and borrowing) without a visual aide.

The total debt our borrowing creates is so high that it’s difficult to visualize without the visual aide of skyscrapers.

The law of non-contradictions dictates that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. That means we cannot borrow money to spend it, and also have that money to pay back the debt. This also means there is a limit to how much our government can take from the economy (in the form of taxes) to optimize revenue and any more beyond that point reduces the revenue — we are likely beyond that point. People are hoping we haven’t reached that point and an increase in revenue — by 100% if we want to break even — will solve the issue. There are other options available beside everyone paying double in taxes across the board in return for nothing.

Assuming we want to pay down the debt, the options are as follows: spend less, print money, some combination of the first two which I will not discuss for brevity sake, or continue to do nothing.

If we go with option one, at some point our borrowing must stop and we must pay back our debt. That means our government will need to spend nearly half — if not more– of what it currently spends just to slowly (centuriesish) pay off the debt.

The alternative is to destroy our currency by printing money to pay off the debt. That means money would be worth practically zero, which will make everyone who doesn’t own objectively valued items (like a car, or gold, or a house, etc.) penniless, while the prices for services go through the roof. I’m talking people can’t even guarantee when their going to get their next meal. Any cash left in your hands would have more value as toilet paper or scrap metal than it would as currency — that’s why our government stopped minting silver dimes and quarters in 1974.  Who knows what would happen to our government, but the last time this type of inflation occurred in Germany, they found themselves ruled by the Nazi.  Who could blame them for wanting order from the mass chaos that ensued from a debauched currency?

The alternative to either of the first two choices, which are at least attempts to solve the problem, is to CONTINUE to do nothing. We will reach a point where we cannot physically meet all of the payments on our debt. When that happens our credit plummets like any other person who fails to make payment. That means the chances of someone lending us money at current interest rates drops to zero, if we can find a lender willing to lend us money at all. If we can’t barrow money, forget about it. We will be forced to cut our spending or print money (the first two options). If we continue to borrow at higher rates, this only delays the next time we fail to make payment… again. So if we haven’t lost the option to borrow before now, then the chances just went up — forcing us to options one or two. This process of borrowing and defaulting repeats until we proceed with options one or two or we have no more lenders left to borrow from and we are forced to options one or two.

Now if we have no intention to pay off the debt, we will still need to spend less since it’s safe to say no one will lend us money, or we need to print more money to keep up with spending. The first option will result in a similar outcome as option one above.  The second option will result in a similar outcome as option two above.  The only difference is that certain countries we owe money to may be required to go to war with us due to the impossible situation our permanent default puts them in (survival-wise). It won’t be too difficult to demonize us so that their populous wants our heads on a platter — their government will be all too happy to direct the angry attention of their masses away from themselves and use us as a scapegoat. I cannot guarantee we make it out of such a war since our permanent default will likely cripple both of our economies, and shear masses will mean everything in such a war.

So there you have it.  Without the ability of raising revenue, our choices ultimately are: we pay off the debt by spending less or printing money, or we permanently default and still spend less or print money. Out of the four, three will likely produce an outcome that will lead to our demise, which leaves us with one option that gives us a chance for a future — spending less money in order to pay down the debt.

I’ve suggested as convincingly as I can, for a couple of years now, that we need to limit government to its proper role of securing rights — and that’s it! This limitation is cheap and affordable. If we stayed at that limitation since 1776, the chances of such a state as we currently find ourselves in reduces to near zero — securing rights just ain’t that expensive. This limitation also gives us a decent out of our current situation — it allows us to pay down the debt by spending less money.

If not limiting government to an affordable size, then what is it that you would suggest? And remember, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Before you respond I have something I want some of you to consider. If you’re set on raising revenue, what if raising revenue isn’t possible over the long-run? Wouldn’t you want to know that bit of information? If you are wrong, and revenue cannot be raised to sufficient levels for the reason I stated, then you are essentially choosing the do nothing option, which will eventually force your hand anyway.


Posted: January 15, 2013 in Ethics, Politics
Tags: , , , , ,


The flu debate, like so many other debates this past century, is suffering from the lack of a principled approach. People speak of rights, of the greater good, of statistics, or of whatever concept in order to make their case.  These arguments lack a principled foundation and/or a principled structure.  What makes you say these rights are in fact rights?  Why is this for the greater good? What is considered the greater good in this case?  These are all questions begging to be asked but receive no acknowledgement.  I will provide the missing links and bring clarity to the debate.

 The initiation of force should be an illegal act, on principle.  This principle stems from the right to life, which is one’s right to live one’s life free from coercion and from initiated force.  It means you have a right to live for your own sake, and take actions that furthers your existence.  It does not mean you have a right to the life of others.  The initiation of force prevents or frustrates any number of those manifestations of a right to life, so if you or someone else initiates force, that is wrong.  A disease emanating from your body that physically affects others is a use of force whether it’s intentional or not, or if it can be controlled or not.  The government should have the right to quarantine you and others have the right to restrict your access on their property in order to counteract the use of force from your infection.  It’s not your fault, as the infected, but neither is it the fault of those who are uninfected.  As the uninfected, however, it would be an injustice for the government to quarantine you because it would be them initiating force on you.
As the uninfected and unvaccinated (or vaccinated with less than 100% effectiveness), you have the right to waive your right for the same reason the criminal can waive his right to remain silent and confess a crime.  You may visit known areas of contagious people, like hospitals, or work, or any other areas where contagious people may lurk.  If you are uninfected and vaccinated, however, then the infected or potentially infected cannot harm you so the initiation of force principle doesn’t apply; assuming of course that the vaccine strain is matching the infected strain and is 100% effective.  This year’s vaccine is only 62% effective according to some studies, which places the vaccinated under the category of unvaccinated in principle since they are still at risk of becoming infected.

As the infected, you have no right to be on the premises of another’s property without it first being cleared with the owners.  They have a right to refuse your admittance and the default assumption is that they are uninfected, unimmunized (vaccinated or not), and that they haven’t waived their right.  Your presence on their property would be a violation of their right if that is indeed the case.

Employers and property owners may set the terms of how they employ others or how others use their property.  They may restrict employment or customer access to those who are vaccinated or not, or from those who are infected or not.  If they choose to accept the infected on their premises, then they must warn those with whom they deal with so that the uninfected may choose to waive their right or not.  If the owners advertise an infection free zone, but knowingly permit the infected, then they become an accomplice.  If they only choose to accept the uninfected, then no warning should be legally obligatory even if they are unvaccinated.

Waiving one’s right and being exposed to the infected has some risks if you become infected yourself; however, vaccinations come with their own risks too.  Each individual should weigh the alternatives, judge their situation, and act accordingly.  It would be an injustice for the government to force either a vaccine on someone or to force someone to be exposed to the infected. In either case it’s the initiation of force, which is an injustice. To illustrate this idea a little better, both cases would be similar to forcing one to play one round of Russian Roulette. The risks involved with the flu are less than Russian Roulette, but the principle is the same. Does it really matter if the cylinder is chambered for 1,000,000 or so rounds instead of 6 rounds? In either case you are being forced — someone else is making the decision for you — to take a risk with your life, which makes such an act massively inappropriate and not to mention an injustice.I have listed the involved parties (infected, uninfected, property owners, employers and government) with regard to the flu, and their respective rights within a free society. These are the limits that each party should be able to freely act within in order to secure liberty and justice for all. These principles should guide one’s thinking when considering the flu debate (or any debate involving rights).

Fortunately, and yet unfortunately, one man and the philosophy he follows cannot destroy America alone; it is a metaphysical impossibility. This is unfortunate because the body politic of a society, on the other hand, is capable of destroying (or saving) America depending on the general philosophical principles that they hold and act upon. America’s fate is how important this topic and discussion truly is. Americans have a philosophical choice to make and America rests in the balance. Her fate will depend upon the aggregate choices every American makes — making no choice is one option, but that choice will not prevent any undesired or desired consequences. It will simply defer the conscious selection of America’s outcome to those willing and able to make this imperative decision.

To start this discussion, I will outline and describe the four philosophical categories — Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics — that Barack Obama held during his 2008 Presidential campaign, which the body politic supported at that time as they voted him into office. I will then proceed to highlight the contradiction and provide a non-contradictory alternative. I am hoping that this distinction will aid your decision as to which philosophy to follow; for, man has no choice in possessing a philosophy. Man’s only choice regarding his philosophy is whether his philosophy is consciously weighed and rationally selected, or whether it’s a hodge-podge of random assimilations that his experience happens to expose him to.

Obama begins his belief in metaphysics with a reality that is non-objective. For example, he is quoted as saying, “…[W]e live in a… contradictory world.”[1] This seems simple enough, but Obama further complicates his belief when he says, “Citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality (emphasis mine).”[2] If reality is non-objective, then a logical person might ask, “What’s the point of testing ideas against reality”? Obama’s purpose in claiming that we live in a contradictory world seems to be only to describe that sometimes it’s contradictory and other times it’s not. This is convenient when one says contradictory statements and expects others to overlook it.

Obama’s beliefs in metaphysics direct his beliefs in epistemology. If we always lived in a contradictory world, then we could at least be certain about being uncertain, but since the world is sometimes logically consistent, then one cannot even be certain about their uncertainty. Obama says it best himself when he says, “I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty — for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.”[3] Because Obama believes certainty is not possible, reason must be impotent; therefore, he must reach out for other means to discover truth. It is clear that Obama selects feelings and instincts for discovering truth when he says, “…if I could reach those voters directly, frame the issues as I felt them, explain the choices in as truthful a fashion as I knew how, then the people’s instincts for fair play and common sense would bring them around (Emphasis is mine).”[4]

Obama’s beliefs in epistemology logically ties into his beliefs in ethics. If everyone were uncertain about everything, then how could anyone judge the morality of anybody else or how could anybody judge them? This is the foundational premise for moral relativism, especially when Obama says, “…[I]f… my notions of truth and goodness… are as true and good… as yours — then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?”[5] This “non-cohering society” is what Thomas Hobbes refers to as the war of all against all.

Obama’s belief in man’s natural state of war of all against all necessarily leads to his conclusions in politics — government intervention and constraint. Since men would naturally be at odds against one another given moral relativism, then the government must exist to settle this natural antagonism between men. Obama stated clearly several times that he wants government to do more and individuals to do less, to the point that it must be common knowledge by now. I am not sure to what extent his desire to grow government goes, but here’s an indicator: “Economies collapse despite the best-laid plans.”[6] That seems like a willingness to go beyond any limit imposed by reality or economics, because this argument suggests that the fault lies with reality and not the “best-laid plans.”

Obama’s contradiction arises from the very root of his beliefs, which undercuts and voids the rest of the philosophical framework that he follows. Contradictions do not and cannot exist. Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect. The fact Obama thinks contradictions exist is simply his admission to the world that there are errors in his thinking. Contradictions may exist in wording, but not in reality nor conceptually. You will never find one in reality or conceptually and this law of non- contradiction holds true for all true principles. This is what binds ideas to reality.

If we live in a non-contradictory world, then we are free to discover it. Our means to discover truthful knowledge is reason, which is the non-contradictory integration of new information that we acquire through our senses with the rest of our knowledge. Just as our senses can never perceive a contradiction in reality because contradictions cannot exist, the integration of this information should not lead to a contradiction. So if we integrate that information correctly, then our knowledge is also non-contradictory.

Man is not infallible, however, for he is a volitional being. Choice is where the possibility of errors arises. Man is capable of selecting what he believes to be true or not and he can choose the method and standard he uses in determining what is true or not. Errors, therefore, can be made in what man considers true because errors can be made in the method he uses for determining truth. Common experience demonstrates this to all honest inquirers. Fortunately the process of obtaining knowledge through reason is self-correcting if an error is indeed made. The method of correcting errors is to identify and then resolve any contradictions in your thinking.

All knowledge is rooted in observation; therefore, one’s knowledge in ethics, if it is to be rationally validated must be rooted in observation. Our observation of reality and the application of reason force us to see that all living entities under normal conditions act in their self-interest. Plants obtain water, nutrients, and sun in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. Unreasoning animals seek shelter, water and food in the best proportions suitable for their life to the best of their ability. As soon as their ability isn’t sufficient they die. Once dead no action is possible to them any longer; their body remains, but their life goes out of existence. Man must discover, unlike plants and non-reasoning animals, what is in his self-interest, and his means of discovery is his rational mind. Just as man may make errors in thinking, so he may make errors in what is rationally in his best interest; however, the process is self-correcting for the same reason all false ideas and principle are self- correcting when using reason.

If reality is non-contradictory, if truth is possible to man via reason, and if a rational ethical framework exists, then by life’s standard men can live harmoniously amongst one another so long as they secure their right to act on their rational judgment.

Rights are the proper ethics for man brought into a social/political context. It is their individual requirement of life, but translated into conditions that involve other men. Men act to secure rights because their wellbeing requires that their rights be secured. The means to secure rights is banding together in self-defense — i.e., instituting a government amongst men.

Rights are unalienable and will remain unalienable because man’s interests will always require that they are un-obstructed in a social/political context. The initiation of force against other men works directly against their ability to act in their rational self-interest and it forces them to act or not to act regardless of what their judgment may conclude. Securing rights prevents the initiation of force, thus allowing men to peacefully reason with one another to achieve common goals. This is the natural harmony between rational men.

Men may make errors in thinking and act to violate another’s rights. If this were not the case, then self- defense would have never been conceived in the minds of men. The police exist to neutralize violators of rights domestically, the courts exist bring those who succeed in violating rights to justice, and the military exists to neutralize the violators of their citizen’s rights that reign from foreign forces.

It is important to note at this point, when comparing the two alternatives, that neither set of ideas are original; some of them can be dated as far back as Plato. These philosophical frameworks, however, when assimilated by a society guides that society in a noticeable direction for better or for worse. For example, the classical Greek civilization was driven by Aristotle’s metaphysics (objective reality) and epistemology (reason), which lead to enlightenment and grand achievements in math, science, and art. During the dark ages in Europe, however, Plato’s metaphysics (man’s mind is disconnected from actual reality so who knows what reality truly is) and epistemology (uncertainty or revelation) ruled that society’s beliefs, which lead towards darkness and deterioration. In the 1400s Thomas Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle’s epistemology into European society; it resulted in the renaissance, which I like to think of as the rebirth of reason, and all the natural consequences that go with such a belief — enlightenment and achievement. Our society at present is at this critical juncture again: it’s either going to be Aristotle, the enlightenment and achievement, or Plato, darkness and deterioration.

This brings us back to the main point — America’s fate and the choice you hold. The choice before you, my fellow Americans, lies in this: will you learn from history and move towards enlightenment and achievement or are you willing to surrender the fate of America to those who think that “economies collapse despite the best-laid plans”?
More Obama quotes that supports conclusions reached in this paper regarding the pilosphy he follows can be found here.

[1] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 56
[2] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 92
[3] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 97
[4] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pgs. 17 and 18
[5] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pgs. 86-87
[6] The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, ©October 17, 2006, pg. 36

Question: Why does anyone need a philosophy?

Answer:  “You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions—or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 5)

Everyone has a philosophy, even if we cannot express it in words.

We either act as if our eternal salvation depends on following the mandates of scripture, or we don’t. We feel the need to believe in something and search for understanding, or we adopt the cynical view that the search is useless. We all have some sense of what is right, and what is wrong. We can see ourselves as noble beings worthy of happiness or as guilty transgressors against the environment, social justice, or God. We will all decide often what it is that constitutes our duty. We think we know art when we see it. And we adopt political principles and support politicians and parties.
All of these are philosophical issues.
[Read More Here]