On the BorderLine » About

Mr. Jefferson

Chris — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:32:45 +0000

Bubba Effect

Chris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:15:50 +0000

Who is “Bubba?”

According to Glen Beck, Bubba is rural man who is:

* self-reliant down to making his own bio fuel
* uses the Internet to educate himself and communicate with other “Bubbas”
* reads, believes in and is willing to defend the Constitution
* owns guns and is prepared to use them if provoked
* is community minded and does not trust the federal government

Is North America preparing for civil war? On U.S. Soil.

Coming Gun Grab

Chris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:15:03 +0000

Today’s Revolutionary Minute

Chris — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:38:15 +0000

You cannot legislate the poor into wealth and freedom by legislating the rich out of wealth and freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving anything. Remember, the government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation.

Nick Vujicic’s Inspiration

Chris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:00:01 +0000

Here is some required viewing if you’ve ever felt you were a victim of any kind, have been wronged in any way, or have some tough decisions and tasks ahead of you.

You would not be human to say everything you try works the first time around, but having the inspiration to get back up and go again is something we all need to do. I can almost be sure, it wasn’t government that made Nick Vujicic the inspiration he is today. Enjoy!

Wisconsin Hero

Chris — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:15:21 +0000

PITTSBURGH (AP) A Wisconsin man who lunged in front of a train to save a 3-year-old from certain death and a New York man who twice entered a burning building to rescue two little girls were among 19 people awarded Carnegie medals Monday for their courage.

Merlin Harn, 40, and his wife were driving by a railroad track on Sept. 1, 2007, in their hometown of Menasha, Wis., when they saw an unattended 3-year-old boy wandering on the tracks.

Before police arrived, the crossing lights, bells and whistles went off. Harn ran to the boy, grabbed him under the arms and carried him to safety seconds before the train passed them, its emergency brake activated.

See Story

Lest we forget…

cub — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:00:18 +0000

To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator’s, or a democratic mob’s, whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute — by right.

Man requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, derive.

Children of the State… Redux

Redux — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:07:09 +0000

Originally posted by In The Know Feb 2005

Throughout history, rulers and court intellectuals have aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations. The model was set out by Plato in The Republic and was constructed most faithfully in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany…. One can see how irresistible a vehicle the schools would be to any social engineer. They represent a unique opportunity to mold future citizens early in life, to instill in them the proper reverence for the ruling culture, and to prepare them to be obedient and obeisant taxpayers and soldiers.

Plato’s model for his own utopian Republic was ancient Sparta, in which children were taken from their parents during infancy and molded into soldiers for the militaristic Spartan society. Thus, Plato’s utopian blueprint specified that “no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent,” and the society was to be based upon a “community of property and a community of families.”

Prussia also adopted Plato’s totalitarian model of government education. Europe’s first national system of education was set up by King Frederick William I of Prussia in 1717. His son, Frederick the Great, following in his father’s footsteps, said, ‘The prince is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the whole community.’” This principle was insinuated into every aspect of the Prussian school system. Following Prussia’s defeat at the hands of Napoleon in 1806, Frederick William III tightened the grip of the Prussian system even further. He instituted certification of teachers and abolished semi-religious private schools…. Children aged 7 to 14 years had to attend school. Parents could be fined or have their children taken away if the children did not attend. Private schools could exist only as long as they kept to the standards of the government’s schools.

Award-winning teacher and educational commentator John Taylor Gatto writes, “A small number of very passionate American ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century; fell in love with the order, obedience, and efficiency of its education system; and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to these shores.” This admiration for the Prussian system was not based on its ability to impart knowledge or to develop intellectual skills; rather, it was that system’s success in creating “obedient and subordinate graduates, properly respectful of arbitrary orders.”

American public school advocates “imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children ‘to obedience, subordination, and collective life.’… Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented ’subjects’ and school days were divided into fixed periods ’so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.’ Third, the state was posited as the true parent of children.”

But the “parenthood” of the state ultimately rests upon coercion — something that was clearly understood by advocates of the “Prussianization” of American education.

Gatto pointed out that in the name of fostering collective order, the statist school system is destroying community: “[I]t destroys communities by relegating the training of children to the hands of certified experts — and by doing so it ensures our children cannot grow up fully human” — becoming instead mindless automatons programmed by the state’s change agents. Rather than instilling in youngsters an appreciation for individual liberty, the system has brought to life “the ancient pharaonic dream of Egypt: compulsory subordination for all…. Schools teach exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well: how to be a good Egyptian and remain in your place in the pyramid.”

The future of education, and of America as a free society, depends on the liberation of the American family from the grip of the public school. Regardless of motives, the people who foisted state education on us have committed a grave offense…. Using a variety of strategies, we must reclaim the right to raise our children and to help them educate themselves. In a fundamental sense, that is the American way.” There is no more important task than to build “a wall of separation … between school and state” and restore a system of “family-based learning” in which children can develop their God-given abilities as free individuals.

Why isn’t the Declaration of Independence studied in schools?

Chris — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:30:56 +0000

The following quotes are pieces of the Declaration of Independence. The first from paragraph two.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This means that it is faith and religion that is granting the power and not political or government means. A government school couldn’t/wouldn’t have that being taught. Agian we have:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

See Thou Shall Not
Spirit’s Corner
Principles of Liberty

Next we have:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This section also goes completely against the nature of government education. It says that the government derives it’s powers from the consent of the governed. It is men that should determine what the government should do not the government telling the men. That would be you and me (individuals). The government is not a means to an end. Government is a creation of man and God did not direct man to honor government.

So those two simple concepts, religion and limited government is why you will never see an honest in depth study of the Declaration of Independence at a government school. These concepts, religion and limited government, are contrary and do not fit with the collectivist nature of government run schools. And finally:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

These men gave their lives at this point to the cause. These were brave men. I urge you to read the links above and learn about the Declaration of Independence and what it was that created this great nation we call the United States.

The State

Chris — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:45:59 +0000

To contribute to society, one needs to do the utmost for themselves as a prerequisite to do any real service for anyone else. Sounds a bit selfish or greedy you may say. The modern day prevailing ideology for economic and social woes has evolved into a blind faith in a political panacea as a solution for all of society’s ills. The word “panacea” was derived from the ancient Greek god of healing, Panacea. As Ronald Reagan so aptly voiced, “Government is not the solution, it is the problem.” As it describes a classic dichotomy; how can government heal itself? Well it can’t. The enlarging role of government intrusion into our daily lives has transformed the United States government far from the intentions of the founding fathers. Even as late as 1960, then President Kennedy proclaimed, “Ask not what the country can do for you, but of what you can do for the country.”

My, how we have fallen away from the ideals connoted in that famous saying. The modern government or State’s intrusionist role has now become mainstream. One can’t watch or read any news, without hearing or reading about some social or economic ills without having the State in the end, be the solution. In a democracy, the majority rules so theoretically it only takes 51% of people to enact legislation. Thank god we are living in a republic, not a democracy. We however have eroded the liberty we as citizens have enjoyed over the last centuries through machinations and twisting of various interpretations of the constitution by the legislative and the judicial branches of our state and federal governments. It is not a far reach to now call our government “socialist”.

The State is the legal apparatus perverted, forever seeking out the means of its own support and finding it in the form of interest groups yearning for special privilege. For example, unions are a component of the state. National legislation grants certain privileges and immunities to unions which are denied to other organizations and individuals. We have the local government forcing us to fund a failing government school system with the threat of taking away our home. We have property owners being told what, where, how big, they can erect buildings on their own property. We have helmet and seat-belt laws.. We have ordinances telling us to mow our grass. We have the state telling us how much to pay an employee. We have the state telling us who we have to employ. We have the state telling us what we can sell and at what price. We have the state telling parents that “they” (a.k.a. government run schools) know better than them, how and what topics to indoctrinate their children with. Alas, the state has created more than 100 federal regulatory agencies in fields ranging from trade to communications, from nuclear energy to product safety, and from medicines to employment opportunity. We have laws even telling us what we can say or do, even if it conflicts with our religious beliefs. All of these examples and more are products of statism, state intervention in personal, social or economic matters. What is the hallmark of Socialism? It’s the state.

Carry On!!!

Press Release — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:35:24 +0000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation’s history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation’s capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Deborah Charles)

Quotes from the Majority Opinion

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

the most natural reading of keep Arms in the Second Amendment is to have weapons.

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. 307 U. S., at 179.

Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

In sum, we hold that the Districts ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

On the question of the Second Amendments application to the States: 23 With respect to Cruikshanks continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Carry On

Investment in Public Education – Redux

Redux — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:41:17 +0000

Here is an old post from 3 years ago by Henry Patrick.

Last night was graduation for Hudson High School Seniors. After reading the insert in last Thursday’s paper which highlighted the individuals graduating and a summary of their accomplishments and future plan, the concept of taxpayer investment in public education once again stirred in my brain. So there is no misconception here, what I am about to discuss is in no way a judgment or criticism of the individual. In addition one must remember that this year’s graduating seniors irregardless where in the world they may live still lack experience and knowledge. To criticize their immediate paths would be most unfair. Using the history of our own lives as an indicator, most of this year’s seniors will not find life’s calling for another decade.

For years now the teachers union and other collectivist have brow-beaten the public with the mantra that the resources allocated to public education is a great investment. We as a nation receive great benefits from the education provided by our public schools. Now certainly an educated public is preferred to one which is not. However, that by no means should imply that all our resources need to be diverted to this one segment of society. I will not waste time discussing this concept since it has been visited many times on this blog. The question at hand is the notion of investment and how we value and ultimately prioritize it?

It is pure fallacy to regard government spending as being analogous to investment. This topic has been covered previously as to how individuals derive savings, necessary in providing resources for investments, by sacrificing leisure in exchange for labor and income. Government makes no such sacrifice and is able to substitute the ability to tax in the place of savings. Individuals invest in order to make additions to personal wealth without directly sacrificing more leisure time. It is the old adage of letting your money work for you. Additions to wealth permit the individual, as in the words of Von Mises, to further remove uneasiness. Like any other human action, investment has risk associated with it to the point where all savings could be lost. The prioritizing of investment options, if an investment is to be made at all, is based on a risk-reward matrix which takes in to account the many variables in the life of an individual. Risk could be minimized but not entirely eliminated if an individual had the resources to invest in a wide variety of options. For instance the risk of stocks could be reduced if one were to invest in every stock. Even this method would not eliminate risk if say one was to invest during an extended downward market. Besides this method may not provide the optimal return and one could effectively receive more benefit and reduced risk by a more targeted approach. Since investments are made in money terms, our calculation in determining priority of investment options is based on the anticipated money return. It is utter foolishness to refer to the spending of money in which there is no monetary return as an investment.

This brings us back to the collectivist concept of investing in education and the class of 2005. If we truly are making an investment in public education, currently at a cost of $11,000 a student or $143,000 for 13 years, then we the public should have a future claim on the earnings of today’s students. The historical return for the S&P 500 over time has been roughly 12% a year. A $143,000 investment over forty years in the S&P would return approximately 4.5 million dollars plus our initial investment of $143,000. Comparatively a return of 4% a year on Treasury Notes would yield a total return of about $560,000 plus our initial investment over forty years. The point here being is if public education is an investment how do the returns compare to other options. How many students will return to society more than the rate of return for the S&P 500 or conversely how many will yield less than Treasury Notes. And are the resources being devoted to public education the best use of our capital. You might find this exercise preposterous comparing stocks and bonds to education of our youth. You would be quite right since public education is an expense where the benefits go to the individual which bears little to none of the risk. Looking at this year’s graduating class one then must ask the question [this is the part where I do not mean to judge the ignorance of youth]: Do we really need to invest [using the collectivist terminology] $143,000 to produce a bartender, or a mechanic, or a plumber, or a cosmetologist, or a social worker, or a massage therapist, or etc. If a parent were forced to pay for their children’s education would they consider $11,000 a year for such ambitions as a bargain and good investment? I dare speculate they would not. So why then should the rest of us be forced to?

Memorial Day

Chris — Mon, 26 May 2008 07:16:40 +0000

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 – 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis’ birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.

Remember those that gave their lives for your freedoms.

About AninCONvenientGuiltTrip.com

Chris — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:27:10 +0000

We are a web marketing firm. I don’t pretend to be a scientist (I don’t even play one on TV) but I am a rather intelligent person and have a lot of common sense.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that we can’t (or wont) do anything to effect Global Warming (Global Climate Change) however we can spend billions if not trillions of dollars acting like we are going to.

If you believe we can (or will) be able to affect Global Climate change (Global Warming) please send me an email and tell me how.

People are not going to stop living. However if we allow the AL Gores of the world to continue on this crusade we may be taxed to death. The cost of not fighting this Global Warming Crusade may cause total economic collapse. The costs of goods and services will sky rocket and we may no longer be capable of affording the simple cost of living.

AninCONvenientGuiltTrip.com

Ethanol Links

Chris — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:31:34 +0000

I’ve been aware that there’s been many searches going on regarding Ethanol these past few days. Here is an excerpt from a previous post and some links that will get you to some of those past posts. Feel free to add any additional.

Those of us here "On The Borderline" have been advocating against ethanol for years and have even delved into some research of our own. See The Cost of Oil and Corn Ethanol, Part I The Cost of Oil and Corn Ethanol, Part II and other posts where "ethanol" was a major topic.

Here Ethanol 1 and Ethanol 2.

On the BorderLine » About

Mr. Jefferson

You might like these.

Bubba Effect

You might like these.

Coming Gun Grab

You might like these.

Today’s Revolutionary Minute

You might like these.

Nick Vujicic’s Inspiration

You might like these.

Wisconsin Hero

You might like these.

Lest we forget…

You might like these.

Children of the State… Redux

You might like these.

Why isn’t the Declaration of Independence studied in schools?

You might like these.

The State

You might like these.

Carry On!!!

You might like these.

Investment in Public Education – Redux

You might like these.

Memorial Day

You might like these.

About AninCONvenientGuiltTrip.com

You might like these.

Ethanol Links

You might like these.