Property: What do we own?

I read an interesting article today in The American Thinker. It asks a question, “Do we own ourselves?” Now, many people would consider this a rhetorical question. “Of course we ourselves,” they’d say. It’s obvious.

Personally, I agree with them. But not all do. Statists, as Mark Levin and others like to call them, don’t—and they have historical examples to prove their point. The examples they use, people as subjects (UK), as citizens (FR), as serfs (RU), as peons (MX/SP), are examples that drove us and our forefathers, to create this nation, the United States.

Those who would agree with me—those who believe we own ourselves, have historical examples, historical heritages to support our views as well. We have our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Bible and the Talmud document Man’s relationship with God—a personal relationship, not a collective one. If we concede ownership of ourselves to anyone, it is to God, not a secular state.

Timothy Birdnow, writing in The American Thinker, has an article in the most recent issue that demonstrates the divergence of views on people as property. Too many believe the Civil War and the 13th Amendment, Article I, ended slavery. That Amendment may have ended “legal” slavery, but not the philosophy nor the concept of people as property supported by centuries of European thought and writings from Rousseau to Marx to Benito Mussolini, to more modern writers of the Progressive movement.

The Individual as Property

By Timothy Birdnow, May 1, 2013

What is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the State? America was founded on principles found in the Bible and in the writings of 17th century philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke pointed out in his First Treatise on Government:

Though the Earth… be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.

So, all men have first and foremost the right to own themselves.

This is of critical importance because it is this most fundamental principle that the modern Left and Right part company over. Liberals do not believe this basic assertion, preferring to believe that we as a collective own each other. This distinction is absolutely critical, because it informs our beliefs in terms of actions.

The English Philosophers Hobbes and Hume argued that property was a creation of the State, and were not held in high regard by the Founders of the United States. If property is a creation of the State, then one can argue that the State has sovereignty over the individual.

As in communism and fascism, the entire undercurrent of modern liberalism is anti-individualism. Even the Anarchists, though they may seem to be radical individualists, ultimately seek the collectivization of property as a means to grant themselves the individualism they seem to believe in — making them as statist as any other leftist branch. Without property rights one cannot have individual rights.

It is no surprise that the general degradation of property rights should coincide with the rise of statism and the devaluing of the individual. Either we own property — including ourselves – or we do not.

Rousseau, Marx, Mussolini all disdained the concept of personal ownership or personal sovereignty. To them and modern progressives, the individual must be subordinate to the state. 

This is the concept that allows Mayor Bloomberg to issue his edicts to govern our personal lives, what we eat, how much, what we do, and may or may not own. Bloomberg believes he can issue those orders because the “citizens” of New York City are property of the state, in this case New York City. The City (State), therefore, can impose its collective will on their property, the residents of the city.

A more recent example was the Siege of Boston and pillaging of personal rights from the residents of Watertown. In their search for the Marathon Bombers, the State, ignored the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the residents of Watertown because as property of the state, those residents had no rights not allowed by the state. History shows us that what the state has given, the state can take away. View those photos of people being rousted from their homes at gunpoint, look at them being forced from their homes, hands raised, helpless before armed troops.

Do we own ourselves or do we not? The progressives say no. That is why they wish to disarm us. An armed populace has the ability to resist the state’s effort to make us their property.

I invite you to read Birdnow’s article. It does invoke thought.

It’s Monday!!

It’s the start of another week and the nation staggers on under the growing burden of socialism.

We had a prime example of the cultural changes had has happened of the last fifty years.  Last night was the first installation of The Bible miniseries created by the star of the old “Touched by an Angel” TV series, Roma Downey and her husband.

All I can say is, “What a disappointment!”

First, according to the series, the Bible starts with Noah. Then it jumps to Abraham, Moses and Joshua, skipping all the events in between. It does show Moses dealing with Egypt and the Ten Plagues, receiving the Ten Commandments but skips how the Israelites came to Egypt. It skips the Golden Calf and the forty years wandering in the desert; the next scene is Joshua before the walls of Jericho. That event drops the marching around the walls and the blowing of trumpets.

It’s Bible Lite!

Now, contrast the portions about Moses in this miniseries with Cecil B. DeMille’s epic, The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brenner as the Pharaoh. DeMille’s version was an epic with all the pomp and majesty of the wondrous epic history. The Ten Commandments included actual Bible quotes from Exodus, narrated personally by DeMille. This new series played loose with Biblical text. For instance, when Abraham takes Isaac up the mountain for the sacrifice, the Bible says God provided a ram. In the movie, it’s a lamb. Minor? Yes, but if small liberties are being taken with Biblical text, what other liberties will be taken in future episodes. A scene of Lot leaving Sodom has, as labeled by the Christian Science Monitor, ninja angels!


Of all the issues we expect from Obamacare, the damage done to our culture is the worse. Obamacare coarsens our view and attitudes of  personal care. We have a prime example from that heart of liberalism, California.

Elderly woman dies after nurse refuses to do CPR

Updated 4:41 pm, Saturday, March 2, 2013

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (AP) — An elderly woman being cared for at a Bakersfield retirement facility died after a nurse at the facility refused to perform CPR on the woman after she collapsed, authorities said.

When the 87-year-old resident of Glenwood Gardens collapsed at the facility around 11 a.m. Tuesday, a staff member called 911 but refused to give the woman CPR, Bakersfield television station ABC23 ( ) reported Friday.

In refusing the 911 dispatcher’s insistence that she perform CPR, the nurse can be heard telling the dispatcher that it was against the retirement facility’s policy to perform CPR.

During the exchange between the nurse and the dispatcher, the dispatcher can be heard saying “I don’t understand why you’re not willing to help this patient.”

An ambulance arrived several minutes after the call and took the woman to a hospital, where she was later pronounced dead. She has been identified as Lorraine Bayless, a resident of the home’s independent facility, which is separate from the skilled and assisted nursing facility.

The retirement facility released a statement extending its condolences to the family and said its “practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives.”


There has been numerous articles over the last month about huge ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security. According to some, the purchases have totaled well over a billion rounds in the last two years.  Some critics claim those figures are too large, others say the numbers are understated. 

With all that controversy comes this item in the news. DHS is buying light armored vehicles designed to be IED resistant.

IED resistant? Here in the US. Why? Are they suspecting an armed uprising? Should we rename the DHS to the Department of Internal Security?

No doubt, there will be more articles that the transfer of these “surplus” vehicles from the Army to DHS is just coincidental. On the other hand, what justification is there for these transfers?

What does DHS need with 2,700 armored vehicles?

Rick Moran, March 4, 2013.

More to the point; why isn’t anyone in Congress asking?

You see a story like this – and the one about a billion bullets bought by the government – and you wonder why no one in Congress has bothered to look into it. I am totally unconvinced there are any dark designs by DHS on American citizens or our democracy. But this seems a colossal waste of money – if true – and isn’t ferreting out waste like this what we are paying those jamokes on Capitol Hill for?

Jim Hoft:

Modern Survival Blog reported:

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

Although I’ve seen and read several online blurbs about this vehicle of late, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself.

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (, a division within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

DHS even released a video on their newly purchased MRAPs.
Via Pat Dollard:
Put down the tin foil hat and pick up your green eyeshades. Ask your congressmen to find out first and foremost if this is true, and secondly, to ask DHS what the hell they need 2700 armored cars for.

And they better have a damn good reason to spend that kind of money when budgets are so tight.