The Democrats are objecting to the inclusion of a question on the coming census that asks whether or not a person is a U.S. citizen.  The objection — at least as stated by Democrat leadership — is that the question might ‘scare’ illegals into not filling out the census form at all.  But why is this a concern?  Well, the answer is actually easy:

The only reason the Democrats want every illegal counted is because they are trying to subvert our system of government.

Now, I understand that many people will object to my assertion, but I am not wrong — and I can prove it.

First, the Democrats have stated that they are fighting this question on the census because they do not want to scare illegals away from answering the census.  Why would this be a problem?  If they are here illegally, government officials should be interested in deporting them, not protecting them.  Well, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the Democrats do not want to deport illegals, but they do want to count them on the census.  Now, lets be honest with ourselves: why would elected officials want to ignore their sworn duty to deport illegals while — at the same time — fight to count every illegal in the census?  The answer is:

They want to use illegals to change the face of elected representation in the State and Federal government!

I know this sounds like a ‘conspiracy,’ but that is because it is.  But it is an open conspiracy and the proof is right in front of all who seek to see it.  The first thing we need to do is recognize that it is the Progressives who are doing this — most notably the Left-Wing (i.e. Communist) branch of the Progressive movement.  This is the ‘open borders’ cabal.  Once we accept this, their plan is easy to see and understand.  It goes like this:

1 — Import as many poor, third-world refugees and illegals as possible.

[NOTE: Obama imported a great many immigrants from the Middle East, many of whom are Muslim and, therefore, at odds with the American system of government.  But the Obama Administration also used tax payer money to advertise for and assist illegals from Central America in entering the United States while, at the same time, publicly pretending to be fighting the very thing they were funding.  Look into it.  Beck and the Blaze covered this years ago, and they had the proof.]

2 — Distribute them to the politically ‘red’ (i.e. ‘Conservative’) parts of the United States.

3 — Openly fight to protect these poor refugees and illegals to convince them that the Left-Wing Progressives (i.e. Democrats) are their friends.

4 — Reinforce this effort by giving these poor immigrants and illegals as many welfare benefits as possible.  Not only will this make these people dependent upon the government, it has the added benefit of making all Americans who object to giving their tax money to illegals appear to be ‘anti-immigrant.’

5 — Give illegals the right to vote in U.S. elections.

6 — Make sure illegals are counted in the census for the purpose of changing the political map.  By forcing new groups of people who are all but certain to vote Democrat onto areas of the United States that traditionally vote Republican, the political map is turned from ‘red’ (Republican) to ‘purple’ (politically divided), or even ‘blue’ (Democrat).

7 — Eradicate or go around the Electoral College so as to incorporate as many votes by these poor, dependent immigrants and illegals as possible.

8 — Get your political allies in the schools, entertainment and news media to support your efforts and ridicule/destroy all those who try to stop you.

9 — Once the system has been nationally gerrymandered in this fashion and the Democrat Party has power of all State and Federal government apparatus, make it so that no opposition can ever defeat a Democrat again.

And thus, you have a One-Party system that, if this succeeds, will be Communist in nature and the United States will finally have been destroyed — at which point, the entire world will be plummeted into tyrannical darkness.

Now, before anyone suggests that I am a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ let me once again point you to actual current events.  I would ask you to look, carefully.  Is there evidence to support each and every point of my outline above?  I am convinced that a serious look at what we see happening will force the honest person to say, ‘Yes!’  Each and every point in my outline has been or is currently being executed — and by people within our own government.  Dear reader, that is called subversion and it is illegal!  These people should be charged, prosecuted and jailed!

Well, I doubt anyone in government will care to do anything about this, mostly because they all think they can somehow benefit if and when it succeeds.  Nor do I think the average American will care, if they even believe it.  The only ones who will see the truth in this post and accept it are those who still seek Truth and embrace the rule of law.  Sadly, they — like true Christians — are becoming as rare as gold in this land.

For as much as I hear people trying to do so, I have never heard anyone explain the real difference between Capitalism and Socialism.  If you understand what these two things are, the difference is actually quite easy to understand.  If you have a few short minutes, I’ll prove it.

Capitalism is an economic* system — not a system of government. 

As a system designed to facilitate a free and efficient exchange of goods and services, Capitalism is neutral.  It is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’: neither ‘greedy’ nor ‘altruistic.’  How it manifests itself is entirely up to the nature of the people who use it, as well as those who write the laws of the society within which the Capitalist system must operate.  But this is the key point: Capitalism does not make the laws, therefore, it is governed, it cannot ‘force.’

Socialism is a system of government — not an economic* system.

Socialism is also a system, but it is a tyrannical system of government.  It is tyrannical because it assumes authority over every aspect of society.  But also because it is not based upon voluntary participation.  On the contrary.  Because Socialism is predicated upon the enslavement of those who produce for the benefit of those who consume, it must always be forced upon a society.  By definition, this is tyranny.  It makes no difference whether it is forced on society by revolution or by popular vote, Socialism is still tyranny.  In the case of ‘Democratic Socialism,’ it is, the tyranny of the masses.  But this is the key point: Socialism makes the laws, therefore, it does the governing, the ‘forcing.’

Let’s clear up the primary objection that I am sure will come from what I just wrote.  If you look up the definition of ‘Capitalism,’ it will usually say that ‘Capitalism’ is a political system.  IT IS NOT!  That idea has been inserted into the definition by people who are anti-Capitalist.  How do I know this is true?  Look up the definition of a legal system.  If you use a credible source, you are going to find that the definition of ‘Political System’ will tie it to the actual government.  Capitalism is not the government.  It is a means of exchanging goods and services, not for making laws and regulating a nation’s legal affairs.  This means that Capitalism is not a political system.  Never has been and never will be.

So, this is the primary difference between Capitalism and Socialism: one is a market system, the other is a system of government.  The first — Capitalism — is neutral, and can be ‘greedy’ nor ‘altruistic,’ and is most often a mixture of both as this is the nature of humanity.  The other — Socialism — is a system of government and it is always tyrannical.  Capitalism never dictates to government, but Socialism is government — pure government — and it always dictates.  The two simply are not the same thing — not even close.  Therefore, any comparison between the two is a false comparison — a fallacy.  It is as wrong to compare them as it is to compare a driver to the traffic laws (and yes, the driver is to traffic laws as Capitalism is to the government: the driver can obey the laws or not, but has little to no control over the laws).

• NOTE: I am using ‘economic’ here in terms of our modern understanding (i.e. a system by which goods and services are exchanged for currency).  However, this has not always been what the word, ‘economic,’ meant.  It was once understood to mean a system of management by laws and regulations/rules.  The term started to take on our more modern meaning when it was used by the earliest Socialist political thinkers in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.  If you realize that they are Socialists, and that Socialism is a system of centralized planning for every aspect of society, then it is easy to see how the word was co-opted to mean the rules, laws and regulations by which the nation governs the exchange of goods and services.  The point here is, while we may call Capitalism an economic system today, it is not a system of governance.  It does not make laws, it operates under and within them.  Socialism may also be called an economic system, but it does make laws — the very laws that govern the exchange of goods and services. This means that, once again, we have lost a clear understanding of the difference between Capitalism and Socialism because we have lost a clear understanding of our language.  But then, that was by the Socialists’ design. 

Is America still a ‘Free’ nation?  By that, I mean, are individual Americans still ‘Free?’  I have several friends who firmly believe we are still ‘Free.’  I just wish I could share their optimism.  Sadly, however, I am too bound by the constraints of logic and personal experience to accept their illusion as Truth.  America is not now and has not been ‘Free’ for some time, and I can prove it.

First, we need to understand that ‘Free’ has many meanings, so we need to start by settling on how we are going to define ‘Free.’  Fortunately, I have already handled this issue in a previous post, “What is ‘Freedom?‘”  In that post, I define freedom this way:

So, what, then, does ‘Freedom, mean?  Well, for the purpose of this blog, Natural Law and its relationship to liberty, unless otherwise stated, ‘Freedom’ will mean:

A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty.

Or, to put it another way, we could define ‘Free’ or ‘Freedom’ as a lack of external restraint on our individual free will.

OK, now that we have our definition of ‘Freedom,’ let’s apply this definition to the average American and use it to determine whether or not that average American is still ‘Free.’  Contrary to what you might suspect, this is going to take a lot less time and effort than you might think.

We have many anti-vargancy laws in this nation.  This means it is illegal for you to live without a visible home or means of support.  However, we also have laws that require a person to pay for the privilege of owning a home.  We call it property taxes and, even if you rent, you still have to pay the same privilege.  Your landlord just incorporates your tax into your rent.  You can’t even live on another’s property without permission.  It’s called trespassing and squatting, and there are laws against both.  Taken all together, this means you cannot legally live in the United States without some form of government permission.  But you are ‘free’ to break those laws.  You’re just going to go to jail if and when you get caught.

But set this aside.  Suppose you manage to find a legal way to live without having to break any laws.  You still cannot feed yourself without government permission.  If you try to buy food, you are using a system entirely controlled by the government.  The money you use is controlled by the government.  It used to be legal to have independent systems of currency, but not anymore.  And you still face taxes, which is a form of paying for the privilege of being able to use that government money, as well as the privilege of buying your food.  So what if we try to live off the land?  Well, in many places, the government has made that illegal, as well.  In fact, the government has even made it illegal to collect rain water.  And if you try to hunt or fish without paying for your license,…  Well, that is also a violation of the law.  So, yes, you are ‘free’ to break the law, but you are going to jail when you get caught.

This is all we need to decide whether or not Americans are free.  If, after reading my last two paragraphs, you still think you are ‘Free,’ then the only ‘Freedom’ you have is the choice of breaking the law.  But guess what?  That is not ‘Freedom!’  Remember, true ‘Freedom’ means a lack of any external control or restraint on the exercise of your will.  Well, if every choice you make forces you to break a law, then the freedom of choice of has actually been taken away from you. This is the condition of every American today: either we live the way the government tells us to live, or we break the law.  Either way, we are forced to live immorally.  So, if you call that ‘Freedom,’…  Well, OK, but you are defining the term in a way totally foreign to any dictionary definition I have read so far.

The simple answer to the question of whether or not modern Americans are free is no!  We are not free, and we have not been free for a long time now.  It’s just that too few of us realize this Truth — and it is the Truth!  The problem is that the loss of our freedom has happened so gradually, and the cage that was built around us is so big and comfortable, virtually no one realizes what has happened to them.  But that was the point.  If they had tried to take our freedom quickly, or they had tried to take away our luxuries, we would have revolted.  And, because Americans are still very well armed, they may have failed in their attempts to take over. So they did it slowly, ‘progressively,’ until now, every last ‘Right’ and ‘Liberty’ supposedly protected under the Bill of Rights has been taken away, ‘sensibly restrained’ or is in mortal danger of being trampled into the ground.  Anyone who doubts the Truth of this assertion should just search for ‘violations of the Bill of Rights.’  If you do so, you will learn why I will not entertain any discussion about how we are still ‘Free.’

If you do a search for violations of the Bill of Rights, you are going to get so many returns listing examples of violations that have actually happened that it will be impossible to make a rational argument that Americans are still free.  This is not because ‘B3A says so,’ but because the definitions of ‘Free’ and ‘Freedom’ say so.  Which then means that anyone who wants to claim Americans are still free will be forced to make an irrational argument.  However, because irrational arguments violate Natural Law, they are not entertained on this board.  Therefore, I am not going to entertain any argument that says Americans are still free.  That is because those are the rules I set for this board when I started it: disagree all you want, but only in so much as you do so using the rules of logic.  That means no irrational argument!  Therefore, I do not want to hear anyone trying to argue that Americans are still ‘Free’ unless and until they first win their argument for re-defining the meaning of the word, ‘free.’

Oh!  One last warning to anyone who actually attempts to re-define ‘Free.’  You might actually succeed, but you still will not be allowed to argue that Americans are still ‘Free’ because you will still be making an irrational argument.  If you do not understand why this is True, it is because you will have built your argument for ‘Free’ Americans upon the fallacy of ‘equivocation.’  And, since we should all know that an argument built on a fallacious foundation is — by definition — irrational, then we should all understand that it violates the rules of this board.  🙂

ADDITIONAL READING

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness  by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein  

 — This book describes how the government consciously puts choices before you that are designed to get you to do what the government wants you to do without you ever realizing it.  The system is insidious, and it id designed to allow the people forcing your decisions to tell themselves they did not coerce you; that you still had a choice in the matter.  But it is the hangman’s choice: do you want to be dropped or strung up?  Either way, you’re still going to hang, but the hangman gets to remain guilt free because you still chose to hang yourself.  BTW: Sunstein was a key player in the Obama Administration.

You can also read any number of books by Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda.  He created the ‘science’ of convincing people to do what the government wanted them to do without the masses realizing they are being consciously manipulated.

And for some real fun, read, “Tragedy and Hope,” by Caroll Quigley.

— Quigley claims to have lived ‘inside’ the system that controls us all, and that the current political system is actually one Party pretending to be two.  In this way, they can always present you with the illusion that your vote matters, but, in reality, it doesn’t — which is something President Bush, 43, told Glenn Beck: that it does not matter who we elect anymore, they are all going to do the same thing.

In fact, there are a long list of books — many of them quite scholarly — which illustrate how you and I are manipulated on a daily basis.  Face Book, Google, You Tube and Twitter are very good examples of how you are directed to make decisions that others want you to make.  But the way they do it is — by definition — an outside force, which means you are not making those choices ‘Freely.’  So, as I said before, you and I are not free, and the people pulling the strings know it because they designed the system so that they can make us do their bidding.

I had a conversation about ‘Freedom’ today, and I nearly ended up in a fight with a friend who values the concept of freedom as dearly as myself.  Why did this happen?  Because we were using the same words to discuss two different understandings.  But it got me to thinking:

What — exactly — do we mean by ‘Freedom?’

As is my practice, I am going to start with the definition of ‘Freedom’ from the Websters Dictionary 1828:

Freedom

Now, I want you to stop and re-read those many different definitions — and read them very carefully!  What I want you to see is that the term, ‘Freedom,’ has many different meanings, and some of those meanings actually represent opposing ideas.  Now, I took the liberty of highlighting the definition of ‘Freedom’ that I had in mind in my discussion today by putting them in bold print.  But my friend was using the term, ‘Freedom,’ in a different way.  He was using it to mean freedom of will, as in definition 4.  But look at the meanings given in 6-8 — especially definition 8.

In definition 8, we have this meaning of ‘Freedom:’

License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of decorum; with a plural. Beware of what are called innocent freedoms.

Note the word, ‘license.’  In 1828, this would mean that this idea of ‘Freedom’ could be connected to the idea of ‘license.’  So, why is this important and what does it have to do with ‘Freedom?’  Well, look at definition 2 of ‘license:’

License

1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license

2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.

‘License’ is still connected to the notion of ‘Freedom’ given in definition 8 above, but ‘License’ as understood according to definition 2 in bold text here is connected to another word the Founders constantly warned us against:

Licentious

1. Using license; indulging freedom to excess; unrestrained by law or morality; loose; dissolute; as a licentious man.

2. Exceeding the limits of law or propriety; wanton; unrestrained; as licentious desires. licentious thoughts precede licentious conduct.

OK, if you have been trying to stay with me, I hope you are starting to see what I am trying to show you: that the word, ‘Freedom,’ can mean the lack of any restraint against doing whatever we will, but that this can also mean an excess of acting on our will to the point of lawlessness and immorality.  In one sense, this may be ‘Freedom,’ but looked at from another perspective, ‘Freedom’ can be seen as slavery.  This is why I constantly stress the importance of making sure we clearly define the words we are using because, when we don’t take care to do so, not only can friends who are otherwise on the same side of an issue suddenly find themselves at odds with one another, we can lead to perversions of language and reason such as this:

Arbeit mach frei!

(Work makes you free!)

Now, if you do not recognize that phrase, or the history behind it, you really need to go look it up and cement it in your memory because the same spirit behind its first use is alive and well in the Western world today.

So, what, then, does ‘Freedom, mean?  Well, for the purpose of this blog, Natural Law and its relationship to liberty, unless otherwise stated, ‘Freedom’ will mean:

A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty.

NOTE: This post is meant to be read hand-in-hand with “What Is ‘Freedom?” If you have not already done so, it would be wise to stop and take the time to read the first post on ‘Freedom’ before proceeding to read this post on ‘Liberty.’

‘Liberty.’  This is a big word, and it has many possible meanings — some of which may even contradict each other.  So, before we start trying to decide what it means, let’s start by looking up the definition closest to that understanding held by our Founders:

LIBERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.*

* [Note: the remainder of the Websters 1828 definition of ‘Liberty’ can be found at the bottom of this post.]

At this point, I would ask you to recall our discussion on ‘Freedom.’  If you will remember, we noted how the notion of ‘Freedom’ can be carried to excess; an excess our Founders referred to as ‘Licentiousness.’  Licentiousness is a natural enemy of both ‘Freedom’ as well as ‘Liberty.’  This is because, when one person is free to do whatever they wish, the natural moral failings of human nature will cause all of us to transgress upon the ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ of others.  This is what the Founders understood as ‘The State of Nature: ‘ a condition of general lawlessness in which there is no social order and where each individual is at war with every other individual.  Thus, in this sense, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ can lead to lawlessness, which is the enemy of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ in that it tramples on individual ‘Freedoms’ and ‘Liberties.’  Confused yet? I hope not, because this is important to understand.

You see, it is a paradox: ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ can only exist in their most perfect and complete form when there are absolutely no restraints on what we can do.  If we want to do something, we are ‘Free’ or at ‘Liberty’ to do it without any consequence.  This is the ‘Liberty’ in meaning #1 above.  However, at the same time, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ cannot exist in their most complete and perfect form because they are self-defeating concepts.  It’s a flawed analogy, but it is sort of like having too much fun.  You can never have too much fun, but, by the time you actually have had too much fun, you are generally dead from it.  And this is the problem with ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty:’ the more you have, the less you have.  In order for either to exist, there has to be some sort of restraint on the way we exercise our ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty.’  This leads us to what often appears to be a contradiction in defining ‘Liberty:’ the need for restraint on a thing that is defined — in part — as the lack of restraint.

Here is where most people end up stumbling when trying to understand ‘Liberty.’  They do not see that this restraint must be self-imposed.  If it comes from any source outside of the individual, it is trampling on that individual’s ‘Liberty.’  However, when that restraint comes from within, willingly, it does not represent an absence of ‘Liberty,’ but an act thereof.  You see, just because I can do something, it does not mean I must.  I am free to refrain from doing that thing.  This is ‘Natural Liberty:’ the ability to do whatever we will, but, at the same time, it includes a self-imposed restraint that keeps us from doing anything that would trample on the ‘Liberty’ of another.  This is the meaning of ‘Liberty’ in meaning #2 above.

Finally, we come to the third definition of ‘Liberty.’  If the first two definitions have not caused you to stumble yet, then hold on because this one usually gets people sideways.  This is the notion of ‘Civil Liberty:’ meaning #3 above.  Now, as stated above, ‘Civil Liberty’ only includes those restrictions required to allow the fullest exercise of ‘Natural Liberty’ and ‘Liberty’ in civil society.  But that is where people tend to go off the rails: in determining what is necessary from what isn’t.  The moment people start to assert that things such as guaranteed housing or income, or free healthcare and education are ‘necessary’ in order for a person to be ‘Free,’ then we have jumped from the definition of ‘Liberty’ to that of ‘Tyranny.’  This is because all such things require that people be forced to work against their will for the sake of others.  In other words, these sort of things — things some people like to call ‘positive rights’ — require that some people in society must have their ‘Liberty’ taken away so that others can have their version of ‘Liberty,’ which is — inevitably — just a different form of slavery, most often called indentured servitude or serfdom.

Therefore, for the purposes of this blog, Natural Law and the Social Contract, unless otherwise stated, ‘Liberty’ will be understood as the freedom from external restraint on our individual will, but accompanied by a voluntary internal restraint against exercising our free will in a way that infringes on the ‘liberty’ of others (i.e. adherence to Natural Law, as understood by Locke — not Hobbs).

LIBERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. Liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.

7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.

8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.

9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.

10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.

To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

To set at liberty to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.

To be at liberty to be free from restraint.

Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.

First occurrence in the Bible(KJV): Leviticus 25:10

Leviticus 25:10   1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) — The ‘Founders’ Bible

¹⁰ And ye shall hallow that year, even the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty in the land to all the ^[a]inhabitants thereof: it shall be the Jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his ^[b]possession, and every man shall return unto his family.

Now — for extra credit — tell us why Leviticus 25: 10 is significant to the American Founding and the notion of ‘Liberty.’