Please take the time to listen to this primer on diet. It is succinct, and accurate, and may very well save your life, or that of a loved one.
DIet is critical and there is a lot of bad info out there. (doctors and the press are the main sources of bad info) This is not bad info….it is some of the best that I have come across.
Basing one’s morality around legality is no way to live.
One of the greatest evils that I see Christians constantly doing is supporting any sort of evil that you can imagine “because it is the law”. Well I have news for you, writing words on paper can not turn evil into good. The biggest offenders that I see are the thugs in blue. They like the guards at Auschwitz are “order followers” that have not yet seen a “law” that they will not enforce.
One of my favorite sayings comes from the now defunct web-comic A Softer World. “It was a sweet day when I realized,” reads the comic, “legal and illegal had nothing to do with right and wrong.”
I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately. I wish I could say it was because I had faced some grand moral dilemma that had brought me to a greater understanding of the crucial distinctions between when a thing is legal and when a thing is right, or when a thing is illegal and when it is wrong. There are certainly a lot of issues alive in our culture at the moment that seem to turn on those distinctions.
The Difference Between Legal and Right
But my recent thinking about right and wrong, legal and illegal, wasn’t inspired by any of that. Instead, it was inspired by a friend’s casual reference to the popular podcast, My Favorite Murder. I find true crime stuff intriguing, was about to get into the car for a three hour drive, and wanted something to listen to, so I downloaded a few episodes and listened to them in the car.
It’s a fine podcast and a funny one. I like it. The hosts–two comedians–discuss and theorize about a few different murders in every episode, covering everything from the details of the crime, to the investigation, to different theories about unsolved cases. The three-hour car trip flew.
But I felt increasingly uneasy.
For me, listening to this podcast in the way that I was doing it was wrong. So I stopped.
I wasn’t uneasy because I was suddenly worried about potential murderers lurking in every dark corner. I was uneasy because I wasn’t sure that listening to this podcast was right for me. I was driving along safely and happily listening to people talk about some of the worst things that humans have done to each other. I wasn’t doing it to learn anything, or in hopes of making the tragedies less. I wasn’t even doing it in order to practice my Smithian ability to sympathize with the sufferings of others.
I was being entertained. By murder. Real murder.
Somehow, the distinction between reality and the fictional murders in the Marvel Comics Universe that I enjoy so much, or in the mysteries I read so often, began to seem too much for me to treat the one as I treat the other. For me, listening to this podcast in the way that I was doing it was wrong. I didn’t want to be the kind of person who treats tragedy as entertainment.
So I stopped.
It is perfectly legal to listen to My Favorite Murder. It should be. And I can imagine all kinds of people with all kinds of good reasons for listening to it that would make me nod and agree that it’s the right thing for them to do. I’d object loudly if any Helen Lovejoys read this column as a reason to condemn the podcast and petition to have it taken off the air.
But unlike laws—which ought to be thin enough and general enough to apply to (as close as possible) all of us (as often as possible) all of the time–moral reasoning about what is right and wrong, should be thick and specific. It should be contextual—about the time and circumstance and the people involved—in a way that laws should not be.
That’s why, when I found myself in a real life enactment of the classic philosophical conundrum of the “trolley problem” recently, it was easy to decide what to do. I was headed pell mell down hill at top speed on my bike. A family—Mom, two elementary school kids, and Dad with a baby in a baby carrier—were headed down another hill, equally pell mell, right for me.
You can’t make a law for that kind of situation.
Of course I hit my brakes, ditched my bike, and crashed onto the asphalt. Because, for me, taking that damage myself was the right thing to do, rather than risk injuring the family headed towards me. It wasn’t a question of calculating the costs the family would experience if I hit them, and contrasting that with the benefit I would accumulate from avoiding a severe case of road rash and a spectacular set of bruises.
It wasn’t right to hit them. So I did my best not to.
You can’t make a law for that kind of situation. It’s too clunky. And it probably would have been legal for me to hit them, anyway. But it would not have been right.
Right and wrong aren’t inflexible rules; they are responses to the world as we move through it.
Sometimes, maybe most times, all you can do is do the best that you can, in the given circumstances, to make the kind of decision that allows you to be the person you can live with being. That’s why I’m never impressed when a public figure—caught doing something shady—reminds us that he or she hasn’t done anything illegal. It may well be true, but mere legality is a lousy way to be a human being.
Much of human life, possibly most of human life, and almost certainly the most important parts of human life, are not usefully discussed in terms of what is legal and illegal. We know that. That’s why we write books like Les Miserables and make movies like Loving. Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal and illegal. They are complicated and personal. Right and wrong aren’t inflexible rules; they are responses to the world as we move through it and to people as we interact with them.
Sarah Skwire is the Literary Editor of FEE.org and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network. Email
Our lack of Constitutional knowledge means that believing in protecting the rights of minorities does not actually protect them when they are outvoted.
This may be one of the most important ideas that you are presented with this year. Knowledge is the answer to the dilemma that the country finds itself. Americans are currently one of the most dumbed down populations on the face of the earth. In that vein I ask you to take a look this 8 hour Constitution Class presented by Michael Badnarik: Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik
The United Nations “war on drugs” exemplifies the tyranny of the majority better than anything else that I can think of at this time. We have also had a devastating and continueing war on firearms that was made possible by the tyranny of the majority. The criminals over at BATF have played not a small part in this continueing trampling of our rights by the majority.
Constitution Day—September 17—marks the anniversary of its 1787 signing. Students will be taught about it…but not because of its importance. It is now a mandatory topic for every educational institution receiving federal aid. However, what won’t be taught is the irony of that requirement, which originated from the man then-described as the Senate’s leading Constitutional scholar, while clearly conflicting with the Constitution.
In 2004, Senator Robert Byrd (D.-WV) added this requirement to a pork-filled spending bill that was blatantly inconsistent with Americans’ general welfare. It also clearly overstepped the 10th Amendment’s restriction of the federal government to only its enumerated powers.
His “solution” aside, Byrd was correct about Americans’ inadequate Constitutional knowledge. As one National Constitution Center poll concluded, only one in six of us claimed detailed knowledge of the Constitution—despite the fact that two-thirds said it was “absolutely essential” to have.
Lack of Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing
In other words, Americans know too little about our Constitution to maintain the freedoms it was designed to protect. Instead, our ignorance leads us to sacrificing rights out of undue deference to majority rule.
Alexander Hamilton asserted that “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.”
America’s Constitution did not endorse majority rule. Our founders did believe in voting to select who should be entrusted with the power of government, but the more important and prior question they addressed was: “What powers do the people delegate to the federal government to exercise on their behalf?” That is why so much of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is devoted to what the government is not allowed to do, regardless of majority sentiment. As Jefferson said, our founders fought not for democracy, but for a government “tied down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
In fact, our founders had a great distrust of majority rule. Alexander Hamilton asserted that “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.” James Madison said “democracies…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Thomas Jefferson warned that “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for,” and that “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
That is why the Constitution contains multiple non-majority rules to protect Americans against federal abuses, such as presidential veto power and the super-majorities required to change the Constitution. Its defense is the rationale for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how many congressional votes they received.
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote.”
Despite our founders’ antipathy toward pure majority rule, many today feel that our founders’ opposition to unlimited democracy can be squared with political determination of everything by adding the phrase, “also protecting the rights of the minority.” However, as Ayn Rand put it, “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” Consequently, our lack of Constitutional knowledge means that believing in protecting the rights of minorities does not actually protect them when they are outvoted.
The unwise habit of deference to political majorities results in those rights being steamrollered whenever more than 50% vote to do so.
Since Americans don’t clearly understand their Constitutional rights against government abuse, the unwise habit of deference to political majorities results in those rights being steamrollered whenever more than 50% vote to do so. Examples are plentiful because—despite the Constitution’s imposition of strictly limited, enumerated federal powers—there is no area it does not now reach, if not dominate. And with our protections eroding, majority voting controls more and more of what our founders thought they had made off-limits to political determination.
Sadly, as we can’t effectively defend what we are only vaguely aware of, American inattention to the highest law of the land puts our most essential rights and liberties at risk. We may think we have inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence asserts. But those rights are protected by the Constitution only if we know what they are and we remember that the federal government was not granted power to take them away based on any simple majority vote. Unless we once again take our rights as seriously as our founders and vigorously defend the Constitutional safeguards that maintain them—even against majority pressures—the system of self-government our founders left us will continue to erode. But when we don’t even recognize the irony of a federal mandate to promote understanding of the Constitution, especially when it is inconsistent with the Constitution, we are unprepared to do anything to effectively preserve its protections against government abuse.
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. His recent books include Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013). He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
NSA and CIA at the top of the shadow government apparatus
Believe t or not not everything that Mr Shipp has to say has already been released by others. What he does is connect the dots, and present it all in one place.
A CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, has emerged from the wolves den to expose the deep state and the shadow government which he calls two entirely separate entities.
“The shadow government controls the deep state and manipulates our elected government behind the scenes,” Shipp warned in a recent talk at a Geoengineeringwatch.org conference.
Shipp had a series of slides explaining how the deep state and shadow government functions as well as the horrific crimes they are committing against U.S. citizens.
Some of the revelations the former CIA anti-terrorism counter intelligence officer revealed included that “Google Earth was set up through the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and InQtel.” Indeed he is correct, the CIA and NGA owned the company Google acquired, Keyhole Inc., paying an undisclosed sum for the company to turn its tech into what we now know as Google Earth. Another curious investor in Keyhole Inc. was none other than the venture capital firm In-Q-Tel run by the CIA according to a press release at the time.
Shipp also disclosed that the agency known as the Joint Special Ops Command (JSOC) is the “president’s secret army” which he can use for secret assassinations, overturning governments and things the American people don’t know about.
Kevin Shipp (author of “From The Company Of Shadows“) was a decorated CIA officer who refused to look the other way in regard to government criminality and cover-up. At a very important public awareness event, held by GeoengineeringWatch.org in Northern California, on July 28th, 2017, Mr. Shipp presented a shocking and compelling presentation on numerous, horrific and ongoing government crimes. The total persecution of anyone who dares to tell the truth about rampant government tyranny is also fully exposed. The paradigm we have all known has been built on deception and the dark agendas of the global power structure. The courage Kevin Shipp has shown by doing his best to expose government criminality and tyranny serves as a stellar example to us all.
From the very beginning, Pelter’s case has been dogged with controversy. Were the charges trumped up? Was the evidence falsified? Were witnesses pressured to change their testimony? Many people, including some of today’s greatest legal minds, believe that Peltier is an innocent
Very much worth watching.
$1.99 using your Google Play-store account if you have one.
The FBI framing people and or murdering them was repeated at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Gordon Kahl, Lavoy Finicum, Schaeffer Cox, and too many others to name.
Incident At Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story $1.99:
There is such a thing as a mental depression diet. It’s called the American diet. In response, physicians hand out anti-depressant pills making patients dependent on these pills for the remainder of their lives when their calorie-rich/nutrient poor diet is causing their problems. Where does depression/anxiety emanate from? Not the brain but the intestines, what is now called the gut-brain axis. In a misdirection, mood-altering drugs directly target neurotransmitters in the brain.
Altered gut bacteria early in life, particularly from over-use of antibiotics that literally sterilize the gut, and modern sugar-laden carbohydrate-rich diets by virtue of their generation of low-grade chronic inflammation, increase the risk for a depressed mood and eventually losing one’s mind later in life.
In the mid 1940’s global powers made the decision to intervene in Earth’s climate and life support systems without the knowledge or consent of populations. The weather makers tell us their programs are a form of mitigation for global warming, but is this the truth? Is climate engineering / solar radiation management helping to cool the planet? Or are the ongoing geoengineering operations only temporarily cooling some regions at the cost of further fueling the overall rapid unraveling of Earth’s climate and life support systems? What other covert agendas are being carried out? How dangerous is the highly toxic heavy metal fallout from these programs that is raining down through our breathable air column? “Hacking The Planet: The Climate Engineering Reality” is a condensed hard hitting 40+ minute climate engineering educational documentary. This informational video reveals shocking film footage of the ongoing atmospheric spraying operations in addition to covering the most fundamental facts about the covert global geoengineering / climate intervention programs. Answers to the most frequently asked climate engineering questions are also covered in this production. Will climate engineering save humanity from global warming? Or will man’s attempt to play God with the weather only ensure our common demise?….. Read More
While many in the United States firmly believe that the government just isn’t working, it is. But it’s only working for the powerful and rich elites in the government and the media who have a desire to cling to their oppressive control of others and the money many are willing to allow them to steal.
This is shocking and most Americans, do not yet have a clue as to how close we are to losing what few rights we have remaining. Education is the key, to mitigating bloodshed and violence. Please help spread these articles.
“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, shoot, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
Consider, for example, what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant…. Read More