The article you can find by clicking here is all about the attempts of some physicians in Utah to take away the freedom to use the drive-thru on "bad air days." The justification? You guessed it. The environment. Check out the article for yourself, but I'll leave you with this quote from the article...
Dr. Howie Garber, who is also with the physician's group, said, "I think it serves a purpose to get people to shut off their cars more often and to get them to think about making a small personal sacrifice."
News flash, DOCTOR Garber: If you force someone to participate in an act, that act cannot be a sacrifice because it was forced. Sacrifices, by their very nature, are voluntary. This is what those who lean towards socialism (perhaps without realizing it?) don't understand. They are the same people that point to the Book of Acts (chapters 2 and 4) as endorsements of socialism. Problem? The people in Acts did what they did voluntarily - not because the government made them.
The only thing that will be sacrificed if people like Garber have their way is freedom.
Off to McDonald's to exercise my freedom while I still have it,
Jason
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
America: The Land Where the Rights of Fish Supercede the Rights of People
Folks this has got to be one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Apparently the environmentalist lobby has successfully won a court order to shut down 100% of the water that irrigates Central California's San Joaquin Valley. If you don't know, that's a huge farmland where about 80,000 people are employed and from whence much of our food in America comes. Long story short, the water has been cut off, the farms are dying, and our food is about to start coming from China. Click here to watch the story.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
In America, You are Free to Share Your Beliefs.... Or Are You?
When I first heard about this a while back, I wanted to title the whole thing, "Palin II: The Sequel." Most people know how the media hammered and assassinated Sarah Palin and her family during the 2008 Presidential campaign because of her beliefs. The next chapter in this drama comes out of California, where Miss California too literal hell for simply answering a question about her beliefs. You can read a summary of the story here.
Be careful about disagreeing with the vocal minority in this country, folks. You are certainly FREE to do so, but if you so, you'll be called names, your family will be attacked, and you'll be ridiculed on the late night talk shows forever. It's too bad that so many people in this country pay so much attention to uneducated radicals like Perez Hilton and the media moguls that fund him, but that's the way it is in our country right now. The media pushes and publicizes their radically liberal view on the American public, representing their position as the "normal" or "mainstream" one. May God give our country the discernment to see the deception they continually manufacture.
Happy Weekend,
Jason Epps
Be careful about disagreeing with the vocal minority in this country, folks. You are certainly FREE to do so, but if you so, you'll be called names, your family will be attacked, and you'll be ridiculed on the late night talk shows forever. It's too bad that so many people in this country pay so much attention to uneducated radicals like Perez Hilton and the media moguls that fund him, but that's the way it is in our country right now. The media pushes and publicizes their radically liberal view on the American public, representing their position as the "normal" or "mainstream" one. May God give our country the discernment to see the deception they continually manufacture.
Happy Weekend,
Jason Epps
Friday, June 5, 2009
Obama, GM, and the Future of American Freedom
Recently, I asked a friend of mine to email his thoughts to me concerning the recent news that the U.S. government will now own the controlling interest (60%) in General Motors - what used the be the largest private company in the U.S. I've decided to post my friend's email in its entirety, but since he didn't know I was planning on doing this, I'll refrain from giving his name. I'll offer my comments at the end.
Hey Jason,
The U.S. government, under Obama, is making an enormously broad and deep push for socialism.usa. The Government takeover of GM is a clear symptom of that fact. Why does this have the potential to compromise our freedom in the future? I suppose that I could come up with as long a list as you'd like. Just let your mind run with the implications that this nobody, Obama, was quickly swept into the most powerful office in the nation, has granted himself apparently unlimited power to intrude into private companies, fire their employees and take over the 'helm' at those companies.
At an auto company, Obama's position will allow him to ram green hell down the throats of American drivers. What will Obama do with a similar position of power in other industries? We know he'll push his agenda against the will of the poeple like he's been doing since he took office. Everything Obama has done since he took office has been done by decree or forced through so quickly that even the democrat senators passing his bills admit to not reading the content of a bill before voting for it. Talk about blind faith. What will Obama do with a similar position of power in the American banking industry? How much control could he exert over the average American's life there? How about healthcare?
I think the day has come that our America has been infiltrated by its mortal enemies. The enemies of liberty that Americans have defeated outside our nation's gates in generations past have now gathered within. I don't know if it's possible to stop such a fall from liberty into tyranny. Government has been handing out unearned benefits like crack and lots of people are addicted. They will vote socialist to keep getting their jack. I don't know if it's possible to save the American culture from the complete destruction the educational system means it. They have our nation's kids five days a week, eight hours a day. What can we do about that?
I think these quotes are very relevant applied to today's liberal political class:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. — Marcus Cicero, speaking to Caesar, Crassus, Pompey and the Roman Senate.
A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. - Thomas Jefferson
These articles contain some great insight into the Government takeover of GM and are more focused on your topic that my ranting:
GM: Government Motors
Little Green Cars
Obama Motor Co.
Obama's 21% approval
I hope these resources can help you put together the post you were thinking of. Just ask if you desire additional insight on any particular area :-)
This is the end of my friend's email. Is this truly, as he suggest, a rant? Or is there more substance to the email than he gives himself credit for? In my opinion, there's very simple problem here: The larger the government grows, the more power it has. The more power it has, the less freedoms its people enjoy. The government now owns the world's largest automobile manufacturer. If you can't see a problem here, it may be helpful for you to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."
The only place I'll take issue with my friend's email is in the following quote:
"I don't know if it's possible to save the American culture from the complete destruction the educational system means it. They have our nation's kids five days a week, eight hours a day. What can we do about that?"
Here's my response: People who believe in the values that made this country what it is need to start speaking up. Most freedom-advocates are content to sit on their fat butts and complain about how crappy the world is without ever lifting a finger to do anything about it. Meanwhile, those who would move us toward socialism, indoctrinate our children in their philosophy or relativistic morality and sexuality, and take away our freedoms display an unswerving passion and commitment to their cause. They raise millions to elect their own politicians, they blackball those in the media who disagree with them, they hold protests in our capitol cities, and demand that their positions be recognized as the superior ones. What are we doing about it? Do you think all this will simply go away? My disagreement with my friend is this: I believe America can be saved. I believe we can get back on the right course. For it to happen, though, is going to take a movement of people who are not content to just watch Hannity, listen to Rush, and gripe about how bad things are. It's going to take people who will stand up and make their voices even louder than that vocal minority that continues to derail our country. I believe we have it in us. Let's hope for our sake that we do. If we don't, you can say "bye-bye" to freedom and the America dream, and "hello" to oppression and government domination. Strong words? Possibly. But don't say you were never warned.
For Freedom, and for America,
Jason Epps
Hey Jason,
The U.S. government, under Obama, is making an enormously broad and deep push for socialism.usa. The Government takeover of GM is a clear symptom of that fact. Why does this have the potential to compromise our freedom in the future? I suppose that I could come up with as long a list as you'd like. Just let your mind run with the implications that this nobody, Obama, was quickly swept into the most powerful office in the nation, has granted himself apparently unlimited power to intrude into private companies, fire their employees and take over the 'helm' at those companies.
At an auto company, Obama's position will allow him to ram green hell down the throats of American drivers. What will Obama do with a similar position of power in other industries? We know he'll push his agenda against the will of the poeple like he's been doing since he took office. Everything Obama has done since he took office has been done by decree or forced through so quickly that even the democrat senators passing his bills admit to not reading the content of a bill before voting for it. Talk about blind faith. What will Obama do with a similar position of power in the American banking industry? How much control could he exert over the average American's life there? How about healthcare?
I think the day has come that our America has been infiltrated by its mortal enemies. The enemies of liberty that Americans have defeated outside our nation's gates in generations past have now gathered within. I don't know if it's possible to stop such a fall from liberty into tyranny. Government has been handing out unearned benefits like crack and lots of people are addicted. They will vote socialist to keep getting their jack. I don't know if it's possible to save the American culture from the complete destruction the educational system means it. They have our nation's kids five days a week, eight hours a day. What can we do about that?
I think these quotes are very relevant applied to today's liberal political class:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. — Marcus Cicero, speaking to Caesar, Crassus, Pompey and the Roman Senate.
A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. - Thomas Jefferson
These articles contain some great insight into the Government takeover of GM and are more focused on your topic that my ranting:
GM: Government Motors
Little Green Cars
Obama Motor Co.
Obama's 21% approval
I hope these resources can help you put together the post you were thinking of. Just ask if you desire additional insight on any particular area :-)
This is the end of my friend's email. Is this truly, as he suggest, a rant? Or is there more substance to the email than he gives himself credit for? In my opinion, there's very simple problem here: The larger the government grows, the more power it has. The more power it has, the less freedoms its people enjoy. The government now owns the world's largest automobile manufacturer. If you can't see a problem here, it may be helpful for you to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."
The only place I'll take issue with my friend's email is in the following quote:
"I don't know if it's possible to save the American culture from the complete destruction the educational system means it. They have our nation's kids five days a week, eight hours a day. What can we do about that?"
Here's my response: People who believe in the values that made this country what it is need to start speaking up. Most freedom-advocates are content to sit on their fat butts and complain about how crappy the world is without ever lifting a finger to do anything about it. Meanwhile, those who would move us toward socialism, indoctrinate our children in their philosophy or relativistic morality and sexuality, and take away our freedoms display an unswerving passion and commitment to their cause. They raise millions to elect their own politicians, they blackball those in the media who disagree with them, they hold protests in our capitol cities, and demand that their positions be recognized as the superior ones. What are we doing about it? Do you think all this will simply go away? My disagreement with my friend is this: I believe America can be saved. I believe we can get back on the right course. For it to happen, though, is going to take a movement of people who are not content to just watch Hannity, listen to Rush, and gripe about how bad things are. It's going to take people who will stand up and make their voices even louder than that vocal minority that continues to derail our country. I believe we have it in us. Let's hope for our sake that we do. If we don't, you can say "bye-bye" to freedom and the America dream, and "hello" to oppression and government domination. Strong words? Possibly. But don't say you were never warned.
For Freedom, and for America,
Jason Epps
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Will New U.S. Cyber-Czar Threaten Internet Freedom and Privacy?
This past Friday, President Obama announced he would be creating a new post: "cyber-security coordinator." Citing constant attacks on military networks, Obama says this position is key to maintaining the technological advances that enable the U.S. to maintain military dominance.
Obama also promised that these efforts "will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans." (Click here to view CNN's write-up of the story)
Obama and his team should be applauded in their efforts to maintain military cyber-security. Surely this is a key ingredient to our national security. However, am I the only person who sees how this Czar and his department (which will, of course, make the government even bigger - which goes to prove my old theory...) could be used down the road to do exactly that which Obama has promised not to do? This may sound a bit speculative, but never underestimate the government's desire to seize power under the guise of "national security." This is exactly what happened with Social Security, if you recall. Roosevelt promised that the Social Security Card/# would never be used as a national identity card. However, under the guide of "security," that's exactly what it has now become.
Can you envision a day when the government builds a huge mechanism capable of monitoring private Internet traffic, never to make use of it until it has the proper excuse/justification for doing so? For example, let's say that terrorists were suspected of using private networks to somehow infiltrate military networks. Can you hear the press release now? "Our cyber-security infrastructure was never intended to compromise the privacy and freedom of American citizens, but these are difficult times, and sacrifices must be made in order to secure our nation from terrorists." You may laugh at my speculation, but you may not be laughing in ten years after Obama is out of office and another administration has decided to expand upon his cyber-security structure "in the interests of national security."
You heard it here first.
Jason Epps
Obama also promised that these efforts "will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans." (Click here to view CNN's write-up of the story)
Obama and his team should be applauded in their efforts to maintain military cyber-security. Surely this is a key ingredient to our national security. However, am I the only person who sees how this Czar and his department (which will, of course, make the government even bigger - which goes to prove my old theory...) could be used down the road to do exactly that which Obama has promised not to do? This may sound a bit speculative, but never underestimate the government's desire to seize power under the guise of "national security." This is exactly what happened with Social Security, if you recall. Roosevelt promised that the Social Security Card/# would never be used as a national identity card. However, under the guide of "security," that's exactly what it has now become.
Can you envision a day when the government builds a huge mechanism capable of monitoring private Internet traffic, never to make use of it until it has the proper excuse/justification for doing so? For example, let's say that terrorists were suspected of using private networks to somehow infiltrate military networks. Can you hear the press release now? "Our cyber-security infrastructure was never intended to compromise the privacy and freedom of American citizens, but these are difficult times, and sacrifices must be made in order to secure our nation from terrorists." You may laugh at my speculation, but you may not be laughing in ten years after Obama is out of office and another administration has decided to expand upon his cyber-security structure "in the interests of national security."
You heard it here first.
Jason Epps
Is Your Country Really "Free" if the Government Can Take Your Land for Whatever Reason They Deem Appropriate?
Greetings,
No real American would downplay the bravery demonstrated by the passengers and crew of United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. If you recall, Flight 93 was the 757 that was likely on a collision course with the White House or the Capitol, but was instead crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. I couldn't be more proud of people like Todd Beamer and others who refused to yield to the will of such evil.
Recently, the government, in an effort to honor Beamer and the other passengers and crew of Flight 93, have made plans for a massive Flight 93 memorial in Somerset County, Pennsylvania (Click here to read CNN's account of the story). However, in order for their plans to proceed, the government must take the land that belongs to people like Tim Lambert and Randy and Lisa Musser. Sure, they plan on paying these families "fair market value" ("fair" being, of course, defined by the government) for the land, but no choice whatsoever is being given to them concerning whether or not they wish to sell. "Eminent Domain" says the government can seize private lands after paying the owner "fair market value," and this is exactly what the government intends to do - even with land that is obviously not needed for the memorial.
Now, it seems entirely appropriate that the government initiate a memorial to the people who died on Flight 93. Who would argue with that? However, doesn't it seem a bit ironic that the very value ("freedom") that those people died defending is now being compromised in their names? It would seem that the government's actions in this case are more disrespectful that they would have been had they done nothing at all, but that is a separate issue.
The issue at hand is this: The government of a free nation should exist to protect the rights of private citizens to own and control land. The government should not have the power, except in extreme cases where our national security is under threat, to seize any privately owned lands. However, this is exactly what we see happening not only in Pennsylvania, but all over the country as manifested in "property taxes." For example, if your family owns and lives on a piece of property that is completely paid for, you are expected to pay "property taxes." If you refuse to pay the government this "property tax," guess what? They seize your land. If this is the case, then can you really say that you ever owned the land in the first place? I understand the need for taxation, and I am certainly not advocating the abolition of taxes! However, I am advocating the abolition of a system that promotes the opposite of freedom.
If a person works his/her entire life in order to own land, the government should have no claim on that land. Even if the government wishes to memorialize heroes or even if the government desires more tax income, the government should be denied this right. If the government does have a claim on that land, the the original landowner's freedom is proven to be nothing more than a facade - just a powerful buzzword that politicians and propagandists can use to manipulate the masses that continue to feed them their daily ration of power.
Think on this, today, my friends: Is America as free as you think it is when our government ultimately controls private property? Better think hard on that one.
For Freedom, and for America,
Jason Epps
No real American would downplay the bravery demonstrated by the passengers and crew of United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. If you recall, Flight 93 was the 757 that was likely on a collision course with the White House or the Capitol, but was instead crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. I couldn't be more proud of people like Todd Beamer and others who refused to yield to the will of such evil.
Recently, the government, in an effort to honor Beamer and the other passengers and crew of Flight 93, have made plans for a massive Flight 93 memorial in Somerset County, Pennsylvania (Click here to read CNN's account of the story). However, in order for their plans to proceed, the government must take the land that belongs to people like Tim Lambert and Randy and Lisa Musser. Sure, they plan on paying these families "fair market value" ("fair" being, of course, defined by the government) for the land, but no choice whatsoever is being given to them concerning whether or not they wish to sell. "Eminent Domain" says the government can seize private lands after paying the owner "fair market value," and this is exactly what the government intends to do - even with land that is obviously not needed for the memorial.
Now, it seems entirely appropriate that the government initiate a memorial to the people who died on Flight 93. Who would argue with that? However, doesn't it seem a bit ironic that the very value ("freedom") that those people died defending is now being compromised in their names? It would seem that the government's actions in this case are more disrespectful that they would have been had they done nothing at all, but that is a separate issue.
The issue at hand is this: The government of a free nation should exist to protect the rights of private citizens to own and control land. The government should not have the power, except in extreme cases where our national security is under threat, to seize any privately owned lands. However, this is exactly what we see happening not only in Pennsylvania, but all over the country as manifested in "property taxes." For example, if your family owns and lives on a piece of property that is completely paid for, you are expected to pay "property taxes." If you refuse to pay the government this "property tax," guess what? They seize your land. If this is the case, then can you really say that you ever owned the land in the first place? I understand the need for taxation, and I am certainly not advocating the abolition of taxes! However, I am advocating the abolition of a system that promotes the opposite of freedom.
If a person works his/her entire life in order to own land, the government should have no claim on that land. Even if the government wishes to memorialize heroes or even if the government desires more tax income, the government should be denied this right. If the government does have a claim on that land, the the original landowner's freedom is proven to be nothing more than a facade - just a powerful buzzword that politicians and propagandists can use to manipulate the masses that continue to feed them their daily ration of power.
Think on this, today, my friends: Is America as free as you think it is when our government ultimately controls private property? Better think hard on that one.
For Freedom, and for America,
Jason Epps
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
