Robin, I think rather than moral destruction being the goal, it is more a step towards the goal. Human beings are moral creatures and when their morality is destroyed they become little more than animals. The mass of humanity will be turned into a herd of animals that can be milked, sheared, and led to slaughter at will. That is the progressive goal.

Slaves are inherently depraved; especially those who are enslaved spiritually.

Morality cannot be programmed because morality is a product of free will. A man is moral only to the degree that he is free.

With every right comes responsibility. Rights can only be secure to a virtuous people. If the right of self defense is denied on the basis of culture or maturity, then why not every other right as well? The same case that can be made for gun control is also made for speech control and thought control. If people are so juvenile that they can't be trusted to defend themselves properly, why should anyone expect them to be able to speak responsibly in public? Why should the irresponsible be allowed to decide what they should have for dinner? In the end, when the State trains all of its citizens to irresponsible behavior, the State will decide every aspect of their lives. The State will decide what you can own, where you can go, what you can eat, and any other petty decision you make in your life will be predetermined by the State. People behave as they are expected. If you treat a man like a child he will behave like one. Treat him like a man, and he will be responsible. A black man can decide to act responsibly just as easily as a white man. The black man and the white man, or any other color man, just need to decide for themselves, today I will be responsible and I will demand my rights...ALL OF THEM.

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."...H.G. Wells. It's not jealousy that makes me morally indignant about a eugenicist who would breed human beings like cattle and murder his neighbors who weren't blue ribbon specimens.

If Socialism lasts more than four hours, call your doctor.

Why do so many people spy on their neighbors and turn them in for little infractions? Because many people hate their neighbors' guts. Their dogs bark too loudly, too early in the morning. They yell and scream. They park their cars so they take up the whole street. They have junk in the yard. They wear ugly Hawaiian shirts. Any of a thousand reasons will piss your neighbors off, and many will stab you in the back for it. It's passive/aggressive behavior because that's what they can get away with, when what they really want to do is punch you in the nose.

You know, just the other day I was worried that my neighbor might hurt himself so went into his house and threw away a bunch of clutter that he could have tripped over; then I went through his refrigerator and cupboards and threw away unhealthy food; then I gathered up all his guns and sharp knives that he could hurt himself with, and took them all away; then I left him a note telling how he should treat his children better. I was so concerned about him I just HAD to do something. It's not lack of concern that causes war, it's not minding your own business. Good fences make good neighbors.

Do you really think a Gandhian peaceful revolution could still work Archer? For a revolution of that kind to work, the government powers that be must still have some shred of conscience and morality. I'm afraid we are very close to passing that point; the point where the government agents answer they are just following orders while they're breaking bones and rounding up the usual suspects to be hauled off to some shiny, new detention facility where they're held indefinitely. Perhaps the only thing left then is the John Galt approach. Allow the takers to starve and then pick up the pieces later.

Dick, Ben Franklin and I know what democracy is. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Of course, after lunch comes dinner and the lamb is already gone. There aren't many lambs left in Europe and they certainly aren't armed. I expect those contented Scandinavians are about to become much less satisfied in the near future when the wolves start getting fleeced.

The whole "living Constitution" argument is one of those ingenious rationalizations. The words of a contract-the Constitution-represent real, fixed ideas. Those ideas can be amended by the parties to the contract but they cannot evolve into wholly new concepts on their own. That takes the work of corrupt jurists who so conveniently find penumbra and emanations to explain away a desired predetermined outcome. The whole system is corrupt and not to be trusted.

It is the preoccupation with those pesky things called hunger and the elements that prevent most people from living freely and nobly. They are slaves to their needs. People who are merely surviving are neither free nor particularly noble. People who have the opportunity to accumulate wealth are able to free themselves from their bellies and the cold to be free and have the time to think of nobility and those around them.

Government begins with a man who is strong enough to force his will on other people and gives himself a title of King. The only difference between government and organized crime is that government has bestowed on itself the right to determine what is "legal."

A counterfeited truth? Wouldn't that be otherwise known as a LIE?

gtheo: It is curious how rich leftist liberals never seem to get their wealth "redistributed." From tax cheat Charlie Wrangle to tax cheat Tim Geithner, the whole string of them seem to have the magical (D) behind their names.

There's no need for torture anymore. They don't even bother to pretend a law is constitutional now. I'm afraid we are no longer a republic (nor even a democracy for that matter): most people just haven't noticed yet.

What a quaint concept; that the government ought to be limited to what the law authorizes. Now we are hearing the call for a global tax on financial transactions to hand over to the dictators of the world who say they will feed their poor while blue helmeted UN thugs look on (with the occasional child rape of course). Soon all the world will look like Zimbabwe. Oh, Brave New World...

How many farmers are there in the federal government, and why do they think they know how to grow crops? Why do the federales think they know what kind of food we need to eat and how much? I really get tired of a fat ass like Michele O telling me to eat my veggies while Barack is smoking cigs and chowing down on Kobe beef and ice cream. Arrogance and nothing but...or is that butt.

You certainly won't hear those words pass a judges lips in front of a jury. I, however, make it a point when I'm on jury duty to print out quotes from case law and supreme court decisions, etc., and leave them buried in the magazine pile in the jury room. They get cleared away pretty quickly, but I always have more. I'm sure it would be good for at least a couple of days in the county lockup if they ever figured out who was doing it.

Habeus corpus...didn't we used to have a right like that? Imagine that; actually having to produce evidence in order to jail someone. Of course it's more convenient and efficient not to have to bother with it. Come to think of it, juries are quite a bother too. For that matter trials take up way too much time. Just trust the judge. He'll know what to do.

May they shine on!

King Alfred of Wessex, known as one of the great lawgivers of English history, was asked what is justice. His reply was that I know it when I see it. Everyone knows what justice is and they know right from wrong. We each have a conscience to guide us in the proper application of natural law, all we have to do is listen to it no matter how badly a judge wants us to ignore it. Majority rule in no way guarantees justice. It only does so if the individuals who make up the majority listen to their consciences.

If anything needs to be on trial it is the law, and shortly after that those who pass unjust laws need to be on trial as well. Finally, judges who mislead juries in their duties and obligations need to be tried.

I remember reading years ago about a trial in New Zealand where a sheep farmer was accused of stealing his neighbors sheep. The jury deliberated and found the man not guilty but he has to give the sheep back. The judge refused the verdict and sent them to deliberate again. The jury came back with a verdict of not guilty and he can keep the sheep.

You vill turn over your firearms schnell. Ve vill protect you, citizen. Hitler won his election. Saddam Hussein repeatedly won elections. Hugo Chavez has won several, even with Jimmy Carter's stamp of approval for "fairness." I suppose if 51% vote to march Waffler off to a concentration camp that would be fine with him. It's "fair" after all.