Category Archives: Guest Columns

Guest Column: Religion and Conscience are Intertwined

Posted on by
Reply

Religious exemptions to vaccines are about the soul’s right to breathe
by Marco Caceres [excerpted from full column here]

a woman in reflectionPeople view and practice religion in different ways. I have always tended to see religion more as a journey of growth in spiritual wisdom—of being open to all prospects for experiencing the creative power of the universe and learning from the teachings of sages, mystics and prophets (both past and present). I have sensed that the journey has been guided by my conscience—that inner still small voice that has often been said to be the highest authority.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts.”1 

In one of his many sermons, 19th century Church of Scotland minister Robert Herbert Story described conscience as the “compass we must steer by.”2 He said that even if it is not pointing due north, “we cannot help it: as long as we believe it to be true, and have no means of checking it, we can be trusted to it.”2

Obey your conscience. Be true to yourself and to God’s voice in you, first and before all else. You might mistake the teaching of Scripture: you could not, if in earnest about it, mistake the teaching of the living voice of God within.2 

The relationship between religion and conscience is closely intertwined. However, I had never previously stopped to reflect just how much until faced with the possibility of losing my religious freedoms as it relates to something as deeply personal as bodily integrity. Spurred on and financed by the pharmaceutical industry, the unceasing lobbying efforts within state legislatures in the United States to eliminate religious exemptions to vaccination and the resultant pushback by American families defending their religious freedoms, has put into clear perspective what is at stake here. Continue reading →

Guest Column: End Collective Bargaining for Public Employees

Posted on by
Reply

The Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) a major cause of underfunded pension systems and an obstacle to solutions

Steve_HarryFull article at Steve Harry’s site, you may have to go to the directory to locate page. (Title of article: “End collective bargaining for public employees”.)

The Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) is the state law that requires local governments and public schools in Michigan to engage in collective bargaining. It never was a good idea, but recently it has been seen – by me, at least – as a major cause of underfunded pension systems and an obstacle to solutions.

I’ve posted several stories here about underfunded pension and retiree heath care systems. The most recent said Lansing’s debt amounts to $16,000 per household and that pension systems in 80 of Michigan’s 100 largest cities are underfunded.

The National Labor Relations Act was passed and signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1935. It does not apply to government employers:

The term “employer” . . .  shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof . . .

Collective bargaining for public sector employees did not come to Michigan until 1965:

In the 1964 election, President Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide, and his coattails helped many other Democratic candidates. Michigan Democrats won large majorities in both houses of the state legislature in the 1964 election, their first majorities in either chamber since 1937-1938, and enactment of a prounion public sector bargaining law was one consequence of those majorities. On July 23, 1965, Governor George Romney, a liberal Republican, signed the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), 1965 PA 379. . . PERA granted bargaining rights to public sector employees [and] defined and prohibited unfair labor practices (ULPs) . . . (source, pages 107-108)

Continue reading →

Guest Column: Only One Libertarian Position on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

There Is Only One Libertarian Position on Immigration
by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 25, 2015 [excerpted from column 8/25/15]

HornbergerEditor’s Note: This is a refreshing principled articulation of the libertarian nonaggression principle applied to national borders. And I agree with it in principle. To use an analogy, forced government retirement programs e.g. Social Security—just as closed borders—are a violation of the nonaggression principle, and must be stopped; the real question in both cases is how. IMHO, Jacob underrates the cultural inundation factor, especially wrt public property such as schools and roads. Also, nobody is sanctioning government-mandated immigration—such as the US creating 10s of thousands of refugees by its support of the Greater Israel Project, then foisting them en masse on American communities.

There is a common perception that there are two alternative libertarian positions on immigration: government-controlled borders and open borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is only one libertarian position on immigration, and that position is open immigration or open borders.

After all, government-controlled borders and open borders are opposite positions. How could opposite positions on immigration both be consistent with libertarianism? That’s just not possible. One is consistent with libertarian principles and the other isn’t. If a position that purports to be libertarian isn’t consistent with libertarian principles, then as Ayn Rand would have said, “Check your premises.”

Why do many libertarians believe in government-controlled borders and oppose open borders?

For the same reason that there are many libertarians who believe in the national-security state, an enormous standing army, and selective foreign interventionism: they came into the libertarian movement as conservatives, owing primarily to an attraction to libertarian free-market economic principles, but unfortunately have been unable to let go of their conservative views on immigration (as well, for some, on foreign policy and other issues). Continue reading →

Guest Column: US Foreign Policy, Palestine-Israel, and BDS

Posted on by
Reply

Platform statement by Jill Stein, Green Party candidate 2016

Green_PartyEditor’s Note: I’m pretty sure the vaunted Libertarian Party platform takes no such stand for common-sense decency in foreign and military policy—certainly not to the extent of implicating Israel for “war crimes and massive human rights violations,” and supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. [BDS seeks to end Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid over the Palestinian people.]

The Greens are holding their national convention in Houston next weekend (August 4-7), and the way I read the tea leaves, they will be on the ballot in 24-30 states. By contrast, I expect the Libertarian Party, currently at 36 states, will achieve ballot status in very close to 50 states. Basically, even though the LP has ‘shot itself in the foot’ in many ways insofar as taking the ethical high road of the nonaggression principle, I’m still leaning toward the LP’s Johnson-Weld ticket… though weakly, esp. every time I hear William Weld open his mouth.

Anyway, Here Goes, I Only Wish an LP Had Written Something Similar

The Jill Stein campaign calls for ending support for governments committing war crimes and massive human rights violations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It supports the BDS movement as a peaceful, nonviolent set of actions organized by civil society across the world aimed to end Israeli apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and systematic human rights abuses. Continue reading →

Guest Column: Liberty Lessons Learned via Trump 2016

Posted on by
Reply

What the liberty minded can take away from Trump’s triumph
by Shane Trejo [full column via The Liberty Conservative]

Image courtesy of Pong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Lessons Learned: What the Liberty Minded Can Take Away from Trump's Triumph ID 100170695

Take some notes, class is in session

I have noticed a troubling trend amongst liberty conservatives that is growing lately. Instead of forging alliances with the anti-establishment Republican grassroots, they are pouting, whining, doing the bidding of the Bill Kristol’s of the world, abandoning ship, taking their ball and going home. They are proving all the worst stereotypes about the liberty minded: that we are marginal, petty, flaky, unreliable, melodramatic and undeserving to enjoy the blessings of freedom.

Although events in the last year have killed morale and bruised many of our egos, there is a silver lining. The Trump phenomenon has harmed our enemies more than it has us. The elite media is reeling, having been out-smarted by a reality TV star. The neocons have never looked more foolish and out of touch. The special interest money machine that fuels Washington D.C. has been neutered by Trump’s garbage machine. When looked at as a case study, there are many lessons that we can learn from Trump’s historic campaign.

Lesson #1: Populist, antiestablishment politics are a gold mine

Donald Trump has proven this once and for all. Nigel Farage has overseas proven it as well. The people are fightin’ mad for a multitude of obvious reasons. We have to embrace this fact, not reject it. The liberty movement is not a cheerleader outfit for the status quo. We want to rock the boat. We want to turn the table on establishment politics. We are not guardians of liberal democracy nor the defenders of equality. We are liberty warriors on march to ultimate victory for a radical, anti-statist cause. Continue reading →

Guest Column: Israel’s Worldwide Role in Repression

Posted on by
Reply

Excerpt of white paper from International Jewish AntiZionist Network
[Full original column here; white paper here.]

“Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act!” — Albert Einstein
“Those who have the privilege to see have the duty to look!” — Brian R. Wright

Israel_Police_State_RoleEditor’s Note: The white paper is a couple of years old, but considering the source—namely a network of respected mainly-Jewish journalists and scholars who question the Zionist foundations, goals, and even the legitimacy of the Israeli state qua self-righteous, ethnic-cleansing operation—it’s amazing to see such a sane perspective persist midst the barrage of largely Zionist-sourced mind control to which ‘the West’ is subjected, 24/7/365. I’d like to also recommend a couple of key books for readers as objective analyses of important history and intentions of these particular ‘Men of the Power Sickness‘ who would rule Palestine and, indeed, the world:

The hyperlinks take the reader to my reviews of what I consider two of the most liberating-via-truth-telling books of the 21st century.

Introduction

This pamphlet focuses on the role of Israel’s government, its military, and related corporations and organizations in a global industry of violence and repression. The states most involved with this industry profit from perpetual war and occupation across the globe while maintaining vastly unequal societies of their own.

Israel exports weapons, technologies, training, and techniques of violence for use by governments and corporations against populations around the world. The expertise on which it relies has been developed through its occupation of Palestine and parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, as well as its repression of and military aggression against the people living there. Continue reading →

Guest Column: FBI Pros Question Decision Not to Charge Hillary Clinton

Posted on by
Reply

If some in the general public were outraged, so were some in the FBI
Excerpt from Sharyl Attkisson column, July 9, 2016

AttkissonThe excerpt below is from Sharyl’s full column referred to by Jon Rappoport in his column, “Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision,” July 13, 2016. Rappoport’s column also contains several important observations about the outrageously corrupt behavior of federal officials in the Hillary email scandal. The quote below is from Jon:

“—You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on felony charges, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your grasp on how the system actually works—”

 This week, FBI Director James Comey testified that Hillary Clinton and her aides had compromised classified information in an extremely careless fashion, exposed it to hostile adversaries, violated public records law, destroyed public documents (some permanently, so that they cannot be forensically recovered) and that Clinton made repeated false statements in public about her actions. But, he concluded, no charges should be filed. Clinton apparently told the FBI she didn’t understand classified markings and all the technology at issue, and that she didn’t know she was doing anything wrong. And the FBI takes her at her word. Continue reading →