The Moral Liberal - Latest Comments

Re: Turkish Charter Schools in America

████████████ — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:05:32 -0000

@micheal I look forward to your rebuttle !!

Re: Turkish Charter Schools in America

████████████ — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:05:10 -0000

Micheal is a Gulen Cult part of there Cult like behavior is to come to the comment boards to throw out misinformation. There only two American schools in Turkey vs the 133 Gulen Charter Schools in America Furthermore American tax dollars pay for these schools and in Turkey the two schools are private. The Gulen Movement is not an Islamic movement but it is a cult obseesed with money and power. They move through the shadows and shun the light of truthfulness as to who they really are and there connections to Imam GUlen and to the schools. I regards to Iamam statement as a muslim cannot be a terrorist he also said, You Must move through the arterie of a system..." and Goddmn America !! Godam the west " Google Gulen Shout and roar for that speech. He is also noted for placing a fatwa on the Kurdish peoople which resulted in the deaths of 30 children and a woman in Au. who was beaten half to death by two men Gulen cult members. So when reading these comment be advised that Gulen CUlt members take American sounding synonyms to attack the article. They have also slandered and harrasseed americn teachers who came forword with there stories. They have threatened to sue paents and teachers who have came forward. They have harrassed employers of activisthey lie, bribe conceil decieve cheat and fraud every step they take. Including and up to skewing test scores to pay themselves with your tax dollars while cheating your kids out of an education.

Re: Top public-interest attorney refuses to recognize Obama as president

Chilidawg — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:34:20 -0000

Didn't a court find Larry Klayman to be guilty of inappropriate sexual behavior with his own children? Wasn't Larry fined and made to pay $74,000 in back child support to his ex-wife? I guess he can add "pedo" and "deadbeat dad" to "top public interest attorney."

Re: Turkish Charter Schools in America

micheal — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:46:11 -0000

there are hundreds if not thousands of american schools all over the world including in Turkey...
nothing wrong with educating people - with so many schools all over the US, surely there would have been tens if not hundreds of cases where parents complaining about jihadist agenda or even remotely anti US behavior...
these schools are fine, i know many friends and families who send their kids or are involved in these schools in one way or another and they are far better than some of the other opportunistic endeavors who only think of money or have fundamentalist agendas- theres no religious classes anyway - how are they supposed to be religious... we need more moderate Muslim leader like this guy- i think it was him who said "A Muslim cannot be a terrorist and a terrorist cannot be a Muslim..." after 9/11... there is far worse imams out there...

Re: Obama’s Executive Disarmament Confirms Tea Party Can Not Go Away

Steve Farrell — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:51:23 -0000

Agreed.

Re: The Lesson in the Betrayal of Sarah Palin

Steve Farrell — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:47:59 -0000

Sodakhic: Thanks!

Re: The Newtown Tragedy: Complex Causes Require Thoughtful Analysis and Responses

Steve Farrell — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:44:19 -0000

Thank you Charlie!

Re: The Newtown Tragedy: Complex Causes Require Thoughtful Analysis and Responses

Charlie — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:50:11 -0000

Thank you for this rare, measured, balanced and thoughtful analysis. It does not matter if I entirely agree: what is important is that the article has the above qualities.

Re: The Lesson in the Betrayal of Sarah Palin

sodakhic — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:40:35 -0000

Excellent comments, Lloyd. You and Sarah are true patriots.

Re: Obama’s Executive Disarmament Confirms Tea Party Can Not Go Away

Jay C. — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:36:48 -0000

Sadly, we have become a nation of cowards, particularly our elected leaders. Advice to the Tea Party: Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

Re: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

Steve Farrell — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0000

Hello Timmerman! I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! Actually, I'm swamped here, but will get back with you ... hopefully soon! Thanks for your patience! :)

Re: Attacks on 2nd Amendment – Cause for Concern? — T.F. Stern

Jay C. — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:25:00 -0000

Almost 29 years ago a nervous young man raised his right hand and swore an oath that he would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And paraphrasing, I also swore that I would obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me.
No longer bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in my heart of hearts, I am still bound by the beginning of my enlistment oath, as I expect millions of other former airmen, soldiers, marines, and sailors are. And while I have a deep respect for the Office of the President, I learned through my formative years in the military that true respect is earned, of honor and integrity. My lack of respect for our president and his officers is a void simply based on our leaders lack of honor and integrity. Unfortunately that void increases exponentially by the day.
Our Constitution was assaulted this week and I smell a storm a brewin’. To me its simple. The Second Amendment is the guardian of the Constitution, the badass, the bouncer in a biker bar. Abolish the Second Amendment and the other Amendments will fall as easy as signing an Executive Order.
I intend to live up to my oath, though I’m just not sure how. Tell me friends, I’m interested, what will you do?

Re: Iran Pursues Sham Trial Against American Pastor in One Week

Aaron — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:30:56 -0000

Here is another practical way to help. You can sign this Whitehouse.gov petition to bring your concern directly to the awareness of the administration. Time is running out for Saeed, take a quick moment, and simply click to show your concern.

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Re: White House Has No Statement on Trial of American Citizen in Iran

Aaron — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:19:49 -0000

Here is a tangible action that can be taken to bring this to the attention of the President. This is a petition on whitehouse.gov:

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Re: Biden Proposals Include Framework for Gun Registry and Confiscation

Laser Guy — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:33:24 -0000

Perhaps all Americans should read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences", then make friends with someone that owns a pig farm!

Re: Biden Proposals Include Framework for Gun Registry and Confiscation

Brandon — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:24:06 -0000

Reading this liberal garbage makes me so angry I could vomit.

Re: Con-Con Fight: Front and Center in Your State Legislature

Nick Dranias — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:18:57 -0000

I hope your readers will visit www.compactforamerica.org and learn the truth about the initiative. There are numerous educational videos fully explaining the entire Initiative--including a great "Frequently Asked Questions" video that addresses and refutes all of the criticisms made by the JBS in the above article.

But it must be emphasized that the JBS has failed to give a full or fair accounting of the safeguards built into the Compact for America--safeguards that the author of the above JBS piece never criticized or faulted for a lack of robustness in our many email discussions last year. Here's a summary of what was said in those conversations with Mr. Wolverton, which apparently he has deliberately refused to reveal to his readership.
The Compact for America was actually designed to set in place every conceivable and reasonably possible safeguard necessary to target the state-origination of constitutional amendments to a specific goal; that is, ratifying a Balanced Budget Amendment. For JBS' feared runaway convention to happen despite the numerous safeguards built into the Compact for America, ALL of the following events would somehow have to take place:

Unlike event #1. Delegates from 50 states show up at Convention, including at least 38 governors representing at least 38 compacting states. The supermajority of governor-delegates who are bound to the Compact for America under state and federal law somehow refuse or fail to vote the Compact rules and limited agenda into place, presumably because at least 14 Compact State governor-delegates defect to join the non-member states in opposing the same. This defection somehow happens despite the fact that these are all the same governors who previously signed into law (just a few months earlier) the Compact, who enjoy no official gubernatorial powers while they are at the Convention under the Compact, and who know that the Lt. Governor of their state (typically a political rival) then holds their powers.

Unlikely Event #2. The Compact Commission, which has the power to relocate the Convention as needed to ensure it proceeds under the rules and limited agenda specified in the Compact, stands down and does not exercise its power relocate Convention to ensure it follows the rules and limited agenda specified in the Compact.

Unlikely Event #3. At least 14 governor-delegates from the Compact States, who are bound to vote into place the Compact's rules and limited agenda under state and federal law, join the delegates from non-member states to vote in an wide open agenda and rules that violate the Compact knowing that the ratification referral contained in the counterpart Congressional Omnibus Resolution will thereby be rendered inoperative.

Unlikely Event #4. Attorney generals from at least 38 compacting states, all of whom are bound to enforce the Compact's rules and limited agenda under state and federal law(the obligation of which is guaranteed to each Compacting State under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause), either stand down or fail to secure an injunction as required under the Compact to block further proceedings or recall delegates under state law, federal law, and the Constitution's Contracts Clause in the federal and state district courts for Texas.

Unlikely Event #5. The Convention in violation of state and federal law (the obligation of which is guaranteed to each Compacting State under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause) emerges with one or more proposed amendments that are different than the CFA's Balanced Budget Amendment.

Unlikely Event #6. Attorney generals from at least 38 compacting states, all of whom are bound to enforce the Compact's rules and limited agenda under under state and federal law (the obligation of which is guaranteed to each Compacting State under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause), again either stand down or fail to secure an injunction under the Compact to block ratification referral of the rogue amendment in the federal and state district courts for Texas.

Unlikely Event #7. The same Congress that called the Convention in accordance with the Compact for America (just a few months ago) elects not to regard the rogue proposed amendments as void ab initio, as required by the Compact for America under state and federal law, and instead refers the amendment(s) out for ratification.

Unlikely Event #8. All non-compacting states ratify the amendment.

Unlikely Event #9. Fewer than 13 of the compacting states stay true to the Compact's binding obligation to refuse to ratify anything other than the CFA's BBA in violation of state and federal law (the obligation of which is guaranteed to each Compacting State under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause).

Unlikely Event #10. Attorney generals in at least 38 compacting states, all of whom are bound to enforce the Compact's provisions under state and federal law (the obligation of which is guaranteed to each Compacting State under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause), yet again either stand down or fail to secure injunction to block ratification in at least 13 compacting states.

Unlikely Event #11. The process and end result is somehow accepted peacefully by the American people as legitimate and the nation yields.

To fret about the foregoing extremely unlikely, if not politically impossible, events, while holding out hope for nullification or culture change to save our nation is completely unrealistic and illogical. The possibility of such a lawless process actually succeeding in the evasion of the Compact for America's safeguards AND the end result being accepted by the American people logically precludes the possibility of freedom-friendly "culture change" much less "nullification." Our country would already be lost. So no reasonable person can really believe the Compact for America's numerous safeguards will be violated and the country can still be saved at the same time. The JBS critique is self-refuting. It is absurd to think that the same elected state officials who apparently will violate and ignore all manner of state and federal law set out in the Compact and the people who tolerate such behavior will be valiant enough to stand up to the federal leviathan.

The bottom line is, whether we like it or not, the power to amend the constitution exists. Choosing not to use that power is unilateral disarmament that will do nothing to stop the bad guys from using the power. Cultural change is important, but it does not make sense to focus everything on the hope for cultural change while the opponents of liberty play the entire political field. Freedom lovers need to learn to play three dimensional chess, not checkers. This is especially true because the Constitution we have today is not the Constitution the founders gave us. It makes zero sense to surrender to the constitutional status quo.

Re: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

MichaelM — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:07:05 -0000

Professor Dolhenty was unable to free himself from the false alternative that dis-integrates intellect from its object. Rand, on the other hand, recognized them as distinct but inseparable

Consider this passage from Rand's book, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology":

"Prof. E: Would it be fair to say that a concept qua concept is not a concrete but an integration of concretes, but qua existent it is a concrete integration, a specific mental entity in a particular mind?

AR: That's right. But I kept saying, incidentally, that we can call them "mental entities" only metaphorically or for convenience. It is a "something." For instance, before you have a certain concept, that particular something doesn't exist in your mind. When you have formed the concept of "concept," that is a mental something; it isn't a nothing. But anything pertaining to the content of a mind always has to be treated metaphysically not as a separate existent, but only with this precondition, in effect: that it is a mental state, a mental concrete, a mental something. Actually, "mental something" is the nearest to an exact identification. Because "entity" does imply a physical thing. Nevertheless, since "something" is too vague a term, one can use the word "entity," but only to say that it is a mental something as distinguished from other mental somethings (or from nothing). But it isn't an entity in the primary, Aristotelian sense in which a primary substance exists.

We have to agree here on the terminology, because we are dealing with a very difficult subject for which no clear definitions have been established. I personally would like to have a new word for it, but I am against neologisms. Therefore I think the term "mental unit" or "mental entity" can be used, provided we understand by that: "a mental something." (pp.157-158)

I too am not a philosopher with detailed knowledge of the no doubt varied versions of Materialism, but I have been an avid subscriber to the philosophy of Objectivism long enough (45 years) to be fully aware of the monumental consequences of being philosophically in line with one or the other of that false dichotomy. One can see in Dolhenty's piece his failure to make the case for Objectivism = Materialism. Otherwise, why introduce a third alternative?

Objectivism does not hold that, in his words, "the intellect and ideas are material existents, along with everything else in the universe" if that means physical existents independent of the organ (brain) in and with which they are generated. Ideas are not made of matter and matter is all that exists in the most fundamental metaphysical context. That does not mean, however, that ideas do not exist. As Rand says above, "they are not nothing, they are something." They have an identity qua existent.

Obviously, ideas are the consequence of self initiated alterations in the physical makeup of, condition of, or relationship among the material components of a brain. Altogether they constitute at any given moment the "state" of the brain that is, effectively, our "mind." So our mind and its contents, our ideas, are "something" with an identity distinct from the physical organ (which keeps Objectivism from being Materialism), but not existentially separable from it (which keeps Objectivism from becoming Idealism). Idealism and Materialism are variants of Subjectivism, and the only alternative to that is Objectivism.

-------------

Re rights and criminals, keep in mind this quote from Objectivist Craig Biddle:

"… one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action."

That is to say that the inalienability of rights is strictly contextual. What one authorizes a government to do with a criminal is less about what one may do and more about what one would like to happen to oneself if incarcerated by mistake. In an Objectivist society, justice would lean heavily towards the goal of restitution to the victim and restoration to whatever extent is possible of the victim's status prior to the crime as well as repayment of the costs involved in achieving such justice.

Re: Islamists threaten France following troops deployed to Mali, Somalia

Pat Henry — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:16:03 -0000

The Moral Liberal.. Nothing moral about being liberal, only stupidity.

Re: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

trimmerman — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:30:10 -0000

Steve: Please do keep in touch. What to do about criminals is a big question that needs to be answered. We are not "there" yet. We need to take care of the rights of honest, hard working people first. The solutions to "social" problems should work themselves out as a matter of course then.

Re: Islamists threaten France following troops deployed to Mali, Somalia

Steve Farrell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:56:07 -0000

Christian, thank you! I will pass your comment on to Jim Kouri. Best, Steve Farrell, Editor In Chief

Re: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

Steve Farrell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:53:59 -0000

Timmerman:

Thank you for your polite and informative reply to Dr. Dolhenty's piece! I'm not a philosopher, but I will get back with you with my as to my first two instances of becoming acquainted with the teachings of Ayn Rand, both from a lecture and Q. and A. session we had in a University class, and my reading of one of her novels later on in life. It was gut instinct, I confess, and based on my lifelong understanding of political philosophy alone. Dr. Dolhenty, unfortunately is no longer with us to give us more depth on this - well, I think he has, but I have to sift through his materials to find it - so I cannot at this time answer for him. I'll get back, and again I thank you. I can say that Dr. Dolhenty, of course, believes in the rights you outlined, as do I, except, in the instance (and I suppose you'd agree) where guilt is proven, and justice must be served for a violation of another's rights.

Best, Steve

Re: Islamists threaten France following troops deployed to Mali, Somalia

Christiaan Vromans — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:45:15 -0000

The foreign legion in itself is not a special force. But has a number of special force capable components. Just thought that fact should be clarified.

Re: Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

trimmerman — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 07:17:43 -0000

I am going to have to take you to school a little. Objectivist view of the universe is Aristotle's three axioms. 1-A=A, existence exists. 2-existence exists, therefore I perceive it. this is the acknowledgment of consciousness. 3-the law of identity. everything is something.
Objectivism is about individual rights. The right to own private property in all forms. The right to pursue a profit and keep the proceeds. The right to form contracts. The right to be free from being victimized with physical force, especially force and threats of force from government. There should be no involuntary taxation. For a persons survival, they require the rights to the products of our mind. The right to produce these products, the right to sell and keep the proceeds. That is what each of us needs to live. If it is taken against our will, we will not survive.

Re: Alabama Supreme Court Rules “Child” Applies to Preborn

MrEveryman — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:32:15 -0000

Thank you Steve Farrell for your explanation. Some of the Scripture you quote I often use to support a Pro-Choice view. A Pro-Choice view is preserved from antiquity in most Jewish, Armenian Christian and, other eastern Christian understandings of Scripture on this subject. In Luke, John the Baptist was old enough to react to his mother's excitement. There is no record of a reaction from Jesus, nor one possible at that stage of development. Elizabeth, not her baby, was filled with the Holy Ghost. This indeed was a wonderful event. To my knowledge, God does not violate or go against the rules He set the universe up with. The verses show differences in the development of the two children. It does not say or show that the children have souls yet. The Holy Spirit still has work to do. Let me explain Jeremiah 15. Eternal Existence, God, knows us before we join with flesh because we are a part of Him. We are formed in the womb from material, mud if you will, and, ensoulment takes place at birth. God shapes and endows us and the crowning touch is a soul, part of Him, at birth. When we die we go back to God. Acts 17 verifies that God determines life. He also gave humans control of life on Earth in Genesis 1:28. We have not done what we should do as shepherds or managers. Exodus 21:22-25 indicates human mismanagement causing a miscarriage. As long as there is no other harm to the woman (She is not raped.) the judges determine the punishment to be paid. If there is mischief to the woman, the punishment is harm for harm, life for life. According to the Constitution, as I read it, inalienable rights are acquired or endowed at birth along with Constitutional protection, not before. I think that is where we differ. Rights and protections in the U.S. start at birth. Moses started them one month after children were born because of the high mortality rate. The New Testament book of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. In Matthew 10:28 Jesus uses the term "naphsha" or soul. The term is only used in reference to a person who has been born. Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the term "naphsha" is never applied to a human as it is being formed in the womb. The crowning completion for John the Baptist, Jesus and, all people in the Bible and under the Constitution is not their conception but the birthdays we celebrate.