Guest Post by Eric Peters
The other day, I wrote about ethanol – the corn-sourced alcohol that’s used as a fuel additive in almost all the “gas” sold in the United States. Air quotes used because the “gas” is actually 10 percent ethanol.
I got replies – mostly favorable, a few not.
Some of the nots touted the virtues of ethanol – and I will freely admit there are some. As I hope the nots would acknowledge ethanol’s downsides.
It’s neither here nor there.
Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that ethanol is the ideal fuel. It’s still an irrelevance… morally speaking.
The issue – whether it’s ethanol or Obamacare or some other “program” – is whether the use of violence (threatened or actual) is morally justifiable. Debating the utilitarian merits (and deficits) of whatever it is we’re talking about sidesteps this fundamental point and by doing that, concedes the field. Or at the very least, keeps the matter open for discussion when it ought to be closed.
Guest Post by John W. Whitehead
“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”—John Lennon
Yes, the government is corrupt.
Yes, the system is broken. By broken, I mean it’s “dysfunctional, gridlocked, and, in general, incapable of doing what needs to be done.”
Yes, the government is out of control and overreaching on almost every front.
Yes, the government’s excesses—pork barrel spending, endless wars, etc.—are pushing the nation to a breaking point.
Yes, many Americans are afraid. Who wouldn’t be afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government?
Yes, the citizenry has little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), invasive surveillance, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.
Yes, in the eyes of the American surveillance state, “we the people” are little more than suspects and criminals to be monitored, policed, prosecuted and imprisoned. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.”
Hat tip Boston Bob
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book:
Here’s how it works:
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult; in it’s fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here’s how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States– Muslim 0.6%
Australia– Muslim 1.5%
Canada– Muslim 1.9%
China– Muslim 1.8%
Italy– Muslim 1.5%
Norway– Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany– Muslim 3.7%
Kingdom– Muslim 2.7%
Spain– Muslim 4%
Thailand– Muslim 4.6%