Friday, December 20, 2013

The Bill of Rights Doesn’t Apply to the States


Rightly or wrongly, one of my favorite articles I wrote for Beards of Fury was “Religion and the Government.” It’s my favorites because I think it was somewhat well written, it defended my point well, and it started a healthy debate, and that’s what I want to address here. One of the biggest points used to discredit my thesis was that the First Amendment does mean the federal government can’t even endorse religion and that, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment applies to the states. Let’s assume that the First Amendment does mean the federal government can’t endorse religion; it still doesn’t mean the First Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Exhibit A is the Blaine Amendment. The Blaine Amendment, which was proposed in 1875, states: “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.” For reference, the Fourteenth Amendment passed in 1866. If the Fourteenth Amendment meant the Bill of Rights applied to the states why was this amendment proposed?

Now, some people will say, “It’s the Due Process Clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. I’ll let Lawrence Vance provide Exhibit B. Go ahead Mr. Vance: “If the Fourteenth Amendment ‘incorporates’ the Fifth Amendment, then why did the framers of the Amendment find it necessary to repeat verbatim the ‘due process [sic]’ clause of the Fifth Amendment?”

Finally, some say, “No, it’s the Privileges and Immunities Clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.” Well, enter Exhibit C and Mr. Vance one more time: “The ‘privileges or immunities [sic]’ of the Fourteenth Amendment couldn’t possibly be a reference to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights for the simple reason that it had a history of contrary usage before the Fourteenth Amendment was ever thought of; the privileges and immunities preceded the Bill of Rights.”

So, the bottom line is that the First Amendment, no matter what it says, applies only to the federal government.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

What Rob and James Think About A&E Suspending Phil From "Duck Dynasty"

 
Bearders and beardettes, we received a great question from a fellow bearder asking us our opinion concerning A&E suspending Duck Dynasty cast member Phil for his recent comments during a GQ interview - well, here is what we think, feel free to leave your comments!

To the Members of BoF:

First off we do not agree with what Phil said. BoF is a group for everyone and anyone... who supports beards, the idea of a three party system, and freedom. Now, that being said, Phil certainly has the right as an American, and an individual human being to feel whichever way he wants.

On the same token, A&E is a privately owned television channel (half owned by the Hearst Corporation and half owned by the Disney-ABC Television Group), and so its private owners have a right to suspend any employee for whatever reason. Who knows what is in the contracts the Duck Dynasty people signed with A&E?

So, to us, is freedom of speech a factor in this case? No, it is not. A&E has an image they want to keep, and whether or not one likes Phil being suspended, they have a right to do it. Charlie Sheen was never late for the filming of any episode of “Two and a Half Men,” but he was still fired by CBS for his out of work antics. Military members who get in trouble out in town also get in trouble with their command because they are supposed to uphold a certain image.

In the end, this might totally bite A&E in the ass. While the owners of the channel have the right to do what they want, viewers also have the right to protest and hurt the show’s ratings. Prior to this, A&E apparently had asked the family not to mention God or pray during the show, and the family threatened to find another channel to air it, so it will be interesting to see what happens now. In Hollywood, money talks, and Duck Dynasty is a huge ratings draw for A&E.

Beard on,

Rob & James

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Must Read Books: Economics


"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Do you know who said that? My hero, Murray Newton Rothbard, said that. What's he really saying? This: "Hey. I get it; maybe you decided to not learn about economics because, after all, it's boring. But, Jesus, H. Christ, who the fuck do you think you are trying to explain to everybody how an economy should run if you never took the time to properly learn it?" Well, I'm here to tell you economics is not boring, and you should learn it because it effects your life. All you need is the correct literature, and I know three must read books on the subject.

First on the list is Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. This is the book to start with in you economic journey. It's a simple read, it's not long, and it's "the quickest was to learn how to think like an economist." I'm talking about an excellent economist. The book starts off with the lesson: Frederick Bastiat's broken window fallacy, and then puts that lesson into real world situations like rent control, minimum wage, the military, and savings.

Next on the list is the man himself, Murray Rothbard and his Man, Economy and State. Grounded in the Austrian School of Economics, Rothbard builds upon his teacher Ludwig von Mises and shows us that economics is nothing more than humans acting, seeking means to achieve ends. Because he's from the Austrian school, there's no complicated math; just stone cold logic. Like Hazlitt, it's simple to read. How simple? Rothbard uses the creation of a ham sandwich to explain complicated principles!

Finally, there's Mises' Human Action. This is the book that made it clear economics wasn't about complicated mathematical formulas, but "human wants and desires." Praxeology, the study of human action, is introduced in this treatise, and from there, Mises takes you on a trip of logic inducing economic concepts. This book was published before Man, Economy, and State; however, Rothbard is an easier read, and reading him before Mises will make reading Human Action easier. Like Rothbard, Mises is one of my heroes. In fact, because of this cat I always remembered my ex-girlfriend's birthday because she was born on the same day as Mises.

There's the list. The list won't make economics boring or complicated. And you won't be ignorant. And, seeing it's Christmas, (yea, I say Christmas; sue me), they make great gifts. Now, you, your family, and your friends won't be ignorant.

Religion and the Government


Do you know what I can't believe I have to do? I can't believe I have to do two things; defend the Constitution, and defend religion, and it's all because of an article I saw about a cross that sits on government land in San Diego that must come down because it's "unconstitutional." As an anarcho-capitalist, I can't believe I have to defend the Constitution, the very thing that was created specifically to create a bigger, more powerful government, (a different topic for a different day). As an atheist, (more of a deist), I can't believe I have to defend religion. However, since we have the Constitution and religion is mixed with politics, I figure we use the Constitution as intended, even when it comes to religion. That means, per the Constitution, governments can display religious symbols all they want.

First of all, the people who claim this is a victory for religious freedom say the government can't endorse religion. Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Oh, that's right, it doesn't say that. It says the government can't establish a religion. Just look at the dictionary: "endorse" means "to support;" "establish" means "to create." The government can't create a national religion and have you support it through taxation; just like the Church of England did to the colonists. Man, did the British do them dirty!

Secondly, the people who still claim this is a victory for religious freedom base it on the constitutional grounds of the wall of separation between church and state. Yes, that phrase that's found in Article...oh, what a minute, that's not in the fucking Constitution either. That phrase was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. What had happened was, after TJ was elected president, the Baptists wrote Jefferson that, while they do enjoy religious freedom in Connecticut, the state legislature, run by Quakers, is giving them this right, and they feared they could be forced to join a state church. The Baptists tried to appeal to TJ's firm stance on religious freedom when they wrote: "...we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states..." Translated: "We know the president can't make laws, (my how the times have changed, huh?), and that congress can't override state laws, but can you do something about this?" The reply: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Translation: "I feel for you dog, but, like the First Amendment says, I, nor congress, can get involved with religion." Jefferson was saying the federal government stays out of religion, not religion stays out of the federal government; people constantly take this out of context.

And finally, there's this: "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." What's this? That's the preamble to the Bill of Rights? Never seen it before? I'm sorry you had such shitty teachers. Or, maybe, you should've went to class that one day. In a nutshell, the preamble to the Bill of Rights says these first ten amendments, to make those bastard anti-federalists happy, will prove the federal government will not abuse natural rights. That's right, the First Amendment, and the whole establishment clause, applies only to the federal government. That's why the Danbury Baptists wrote "...the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state..." They knew if Connecticut wanted to establish a state church, the federal government couldn't so squadoosh about it. And this cross in San Diego? Put on local government land which means the First Amendment's establishment clause wouldn't apply to the state anyway.

So, there's my defense. Religious symbols can be proudly displayed on local, and federal government property. The only thing the federal government can't do is create a national church and make people support it through taxation and commit to its services, (by the way, James Madison said just that in his 1789 speech before congress on debating the Bill of Rights; it's not my fault y'all don't know history). And this atheist, Constitution hater, used the Constitution to prove it.

As a side note, if my points seemed to ramble on, it's because it's late, and I'm drunk. I will have no recollection of having written this come tomorrow morning. However, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right, more or less.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Karl Marx: Great Beard, Bad Ideas


Karl Marx is known for two things, having a great beard and creating the theory of Marxism.  While one is a great achievement that should be commended the other was a rather out of reach idea that led to many of the worst and most oppressive government regimes in history. Of course our bearded friend didn't mean for it to end up that way but like many good willed, yet misguided ideas, they become a nightmare…much like the idea of using Cylons (robots) as a form of labor in Battlestar Galactica. The outcome can be catastrophic.  

To understand why Marxism led to these corrupt and oppressive regimes you have to look at the definition. Now this is where many leftists will say "Nuh uh, you don't know what it means" since that is usually their defense but this IS the definition and it explains so much.  Let's use the always-trusted Merriam-Webster.  "Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially :  a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. A classless society." That right there says it all.  A society in which there are no classes, everyone is equal.  No poor people? That sounds just as amazing and just as believable as living in the Peppermint Forest from Candy Land. It is almost impossible to have a classless society where nobody answers to anybody else.  The moment you let the government redistribute wealth and control production and commerce you just set up government officials as the ruling class. It leads to them being very rich and the regular workingman being very poor. It's why people in North Korea are starving and resort to eating grass. It's why people from Cuba will risk their lives on rickety boats to get to Florida, no matter what Michael "Ton-O-Chins" Moore says about their healthcare system.  They aren't coming because they want to check out the lines at Disney World. 
Now, I've heard people make the argument that the original Native Americans had a system of sharing and giving to the common cause of the tribe but those were basically large extended families with a hunter/gatherer system and bartering.  These weren't nations made up of hundreds of millions of people that drive cars and play Xbox.  Who is going to make your Xbox under a classless society? Someone making that Xbox is working for a boss and they are working for someone else.  If everyone was set at an equal income, who is going to decide to create these products and put all the effort into them?  There is no incentive for it.  If you are trading rabbit furs for someone's corn and squash crop you are basically equals but if you want to have a society with massive production then someone is going to be working for someone else, plain and simple.  A classless society on a scale of a nation like America is a complete fantasy. 

It is impossible for the government to make people equal.  The only person that can raise someone up out of his or her current station is the individual. No matter how much the government assists or gives them handouts it is ultimately up the individual to do something.  A government can't make all of its people rich but it sure as hell can make many of them poor.  The examples I stated above along with Communist China and the USSR are great examples.  The average person lived in squalor while the government officials lived like nobility, the very opposite of a classless society.  The private sector has its issues with corruption but can you think of anybody more corrupt than a politician?  Giving them too much power is like giving a fox the key to the henhouse or your Snapchat access to Anthony Weiner.  You end up with socialist nations such as Venezuela under Hugo Chavez that through government owned media, shut down his critics and political opponents.  People will praise socialism in European nations, but remember that these nations are still kept in check by not having complete state ownership of everything and while they're touted as great by those on the left they still are not even close to being classless societies. They still have their poor and their very rich.

Basically our good buddy Karl was a dreamer.  He wanted everybody to be equal but he didn't understand human nature.  He probably should have just been satisfied with growing and maintaining a great beard and left the political theories and thought to others because you're more likely to be ruled by Lord Licorice than live in a classless society.





Thursday, December 12, 2013

Heigh-ho, the Derry-o, Chicago Farming Here I Go

 
The other night at work a friend told me something that I thought was a joke, Louis Farrakhan is a farmer, well, at least in the eyes of the government. I sat there waiting for the punch line, but alas, the real joke is on us, the tax payers, because Louis Farrakhan and 929 other entities in the city of Chicago are getting federal subsidies for their "farms." These so-called farms are not out in the areas surrounding the windy city...they are smack dab in the middle of the damned thing. Seriously, are you fucking kidding me Ghost Rider?

No, Ghost Rider is not kidding - he never kids.

After a quick search I found several articles about this, including one from The Blaze. According to a report titled "Farm Subsidies and the Bog Dogs," released by the government watchdog group Open the Books, and based on information and data received from the US Department of Agriculture and through the Freedom of Information Act, we really do have farms in Chicago! However, if you were to check out the addresses of the farms, you would find mansions and office buildings where dirt, vegetables and tractors are supposed to be. And how much has gone to these farms? Sadly, it isn't chicken feed. Between 2008 and 2011 our great government, which is now spying on us, forcing us to get health care and targeting those who speak out against its policies, has given fake farmers like Louis Farrakhan about $6.2 million.

I am stressing the fact that Louis Farrakhan, (Louie to me, because we are tight as George Michael's pants), is part of this because (1) his existence and what he has said over the years about people of the Jewish faith make me want to support abortion and (2) the farm his group, "Three Years Economic Savings, Inc., supposedly runs is at his home address where only hate grows...not corn. The piece of cow pie received almost $104,000 between 2008 and 2011. Out of the 930 groups that received farm subsidies in the city of Chicago, Farrakhan's group was the 12th highest recipient with almost $104,000 in government finding. Louie, where are my beets man?

The sad part about all of this is that the shitbags who are cheating the system are hurting real farmers with real problems, who could really use the money. Hopefully, now that this scam has come to light, it will be corrected. HA! I am sure Eric Holder is writing a very stern letter to Louie and company as we speak.

In the end, maybe the real reason I find myself extremely pissed off about this is not due to what I see as fraud committed by Louie and the 929 other groups, or the tax dollars wasted on them, but due to me not capitalizing on a great opportunity! Do you know how many peppers I have grown in tote boxes on the patio outside my apartment?  Probably more than Louie, so I have missed out on three years of government funding. Dammit!

However, perhaps all is not lost, and I can find an apartment rooftop in Chicago and start a farm that will rival Pepperidge Farm. Then Louie and I can go down to the local farmers market and sell our bullshit together!

Sunday, December 8, 2013

It's Christmas, Not Xmas


Ah, it's that time of year again. The time for mall parking lots to be filled to the brim, music channels to play "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer," gifts to be bought, and people to get all politically correct (PC). Yep, it's Christmas, the holiday where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, and quite frankly, I find myself getting more and more pissed off each year over how much our society has become filled with pussies.

Why? Well, one can hardly call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree without someone correcting them and calling it a "Holiday tree." No, douchebag; it's a Christmas tree. School districts are cancelling Christmas concerts, Christmas toy drives and have changed the lyrics to classic Christmas songs have been altered, all in the hopes of not offending people. Well, in a country where almost 80% of its citizens affiliate themselves with a Christian religion, who do the PC police really think they have a better chance of offending? Normally, when the odds are 80/20, betters take the 80%, but not here. To get off the Christmas topic for a second, this past Easter season, the managers of my apartment complex sent out a flyer announcing they would be having an egg hunt for the kids, and that there would be an "oversized bunny there." Are you fucking kidding me? (Maybe I should have put that in quotes, because I think that's how I started off an email to the front office of where I live). "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, if it's an oversized rabbit, it's a fucking Easter bunny." (There. That one gets quotations because I know I wrote that in the email). We came to the agreement that I won't be getting any further flyers stuck in my door announcing the presence of any more PC holiday figures.

Now, I am not saying that "Happy holidays" is not an inappropriate greeting during this season. Those of the Jewish faith celebrate Chanukah, and then there is Kwanza, so I get "Happy holidays," - to an extent. If you don't know the holiday someone celebrates, it is fine to wish them and their family "Happy holidays," however; when you know what a person celebrates, don't be afraid to say "Christmas," or whatever holiday the individual observes.  One of my best friends is a priest and he told me he was at a Hallmark store once buying a Christmas gift for a relative. He was in his normal priest clothes, with Roman collar, and when he checked out the cashier said "Happy holidays." Someone who does not care would not have said anything. My friend? He cares, and he responded with something to the extent of "If you cannot tell what I celebrate by the clothes I wear, that's sad." And it is.

In New York City right now atheists paid for a billboard to read "Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody," and "Christ" has an "X" going through it. Well, since in Old English, "Christmas," means "Christ's mass," it is pretty apparent that in order to have Christmas, one must have Christ. People can have a day to give gifts to others, but that's not Christmas. That's a day.

Do atheists have the right to put up ignorant billboards? Of course. Just like Rev. Phelps and his inbred Westboro Baptist Church congregation have the right to incite everyone and their mothers with what they do, atheists can do the same. That is what is great about our country. We have rights that not everyone else in the world enjoys. I would love to see atheists operate in places like Iran during Ramadan. They would probably find it hard to hold picket signs with stubs where their hands use to be.

Do some believe that Christians took pagan symbols and made them their own, (i.e. Christmas trees)? Sure, but quite frankly I don't give a shit. This isn't an article debating such things, history is written by the winners, and the last I checked, Frodo and company defeated the Witch-king - so deal with it. In the end, I just want people to be comfortable in saying "Merry Christmas," singing Christmas songs without worrying about offending anyone and being jolly.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Saturday, December 7, 2013

My Gedankenexperiment

 
You know what I fucking hate? I hate it when people say this to me: "We have to spend to grow the economy; that's how an economy grows." You don't understand, I really, really, really, really, really hate hearing that statement. Spending money makes an economy grow? I'm sure people will say, "But, of course," and then back it up with spending creates demand, and blah, blah, blah. If spending grows the economy, then let's have a thought experiment.

Let's say 101 people are traveling, by plane, with an enormous supply of paper and a printing press. They're on their way to show the United States government a new, great way to print more money. As luck would have it, the plane crashes on a deserted island and all of the people, paper, and printing press survive the crash.

One of the people decides that they will form a new country with a benevolent government with economic equality for all, where poverty and greed no longer exist. The person is elected president of the new government and their first act as president is to give everybody else a job in the new government; their second act is to print enough money, (they call it Islanders), to give all 101 people $300,000.00.

Well, the people have the money to spend, so, there's that demand, but how are they going to buy food, beverages, clothes, houses, medical care, or vehicles? An intelligent person might say, "Trade with another country for those things." Sounds great! One problem. The only money these people have is their currency, and no other country would accept it if that country cannot purchase on invest anything in this new country.

Is this a tough thought experiment? Not at all. The super intelligent person will realize that these people have to produce something first in order to demand something else. If they do that, then they can trade with each other as well as foreign countries. So, no, it's not spending that creates demand that grows an economy; it's production that creates demand that grows an economy.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

For Our Ukrainian Followers...


This is a quick one, and is directed toward our Ukrainian followers, (because we actually have quite a few): where do you stand concerning the protests going on in your country right now? Are you pro the current government which leans toward Russian support, or do you side with the opposition and side with the European Union? As an American, I am totally ignorant with this whole issue, although judging a book by its cover, I could probably pick a side. However, since we have a following of Ukrainian bearders, I want to provide you a place to get your point across. Feel free to make comments in the comment section below. This is just an off the cuff post, so I want to see if it goes anywhere.