Fight the good fight...

Who Invented the Ipod

2008-06-01T16:09:00.002-06:00

A few days ago I began a new internet marketing technique I've heard alot about before. The idea is to target one keyword-phrase and to marketing your entire website around that. In a month, you get the top result in the search engines, then move on to the next keyword phrase. The website I put together is called who invented the ipod. I'll post later if it works. :P

Shaun Connell dot Com

2007-09-04T16:21:00.000-06:00

I did it. I finally got www.shaunconnell.com. =) I'm making it a blog -- soon to add regular pages.

Reason, philosophy, capitalism, political theory.

End Gun Control

2007-07-09T12:11:00.000-06:00

I am currently working on a lamish website. It's basically a pro-gun library. I'll be posting short, informal and poorly done essays on the issue. :P
www.endguncontrol.org

www.Internet-Website-Money.com

2007-05-10T17:01:00.000-06:00

Hello all,

I have recently launched www.Internet-Website-Money.com, a website which reviews all of the online business opportunities, and mixes them with a dose of reality. We divide every "money-making offer" into two basic categories:

1. Scams
2. Real Opportunities

Clever, huh?

We've moved!

2007-02-08T18:06:00.000-06:00

I've moved to the columns page of the Rebirth of Freedom Foundation's website. :)

The Foundation: The Rebirth of Freedom Foundation, America's first exclusively youth-oriented think tank, was launched today. Run completely by youth, the foundation will be issuing many forms of publications - all from the perspective of limited government.

Periodical Publications: The foundation will be issuing monthly policy analysis papers, political columns, a discussion board, along with a specialized research-engine that searches created specifically for policy researchers.

The Staff: The Rebirth of Freedom Foundation's staff includes homeschool students, high-school students, young college students, nationally ranked debaters, nationally ranked speakers, leaders of other politically oriented organizations and others from all across America.

The Purpose: The purpose of the foundation is to educate the youth of America in the ways of limited government, returning once again to the ideals which America was founded upon: Liberty, justice and empowerment of the individual.

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

2007-01-21T22:02:00.000-06:00

It amazes me to no end how our culture portrays Jesus. Is He portrayed as the physical incarnation of Truth Himself, with a righteous glory? As One who violently cleaned "house" for His father? As One who challenged the "genealogy" of His ignorant and cowardly opponents? As the one who commanded His followers to purchase weapons for defense, and explained to them that strong men can better defend their homes? As the One who will ride His white horse and with sword in hand and devour the wicked? The One who will condemn the ungodly to eternal damnation in Hell? No. Culture shows Him as the complete opposite.

If culture was an indicator of the character of Christ, He would not have been a Warrior of holiness for His own sake. Instead, He would have been an almost "girly man." A pacifist. Rather than having been a Righteous God on earth, both loving and just, He would have been a ... hippy. Jesus the Flower-Boy. The man of lopsided character.

Sorry, the records we have of Him give an entirely different character sketch. No, He wasn't a hippy. Rather than showing Christ a pacifist in all situations, it shows Him violently resisting in all circumstances, save one -- and that being during a the implementation of his fundamental reason for even coming to earth: to be murdered by mankind for mankind.

Yes, that's right. Jesus was sometimes a pacifist, though less often than not. He often violently responded, and responds now, to the actions of others. Christ was the perfect paradox. The perfect example of "a time for everything."

Jesus: The Temple Cleanser

Towards the beginning of his ministry Jesus unleashed His anger on the hypocrites and greed-filled men within the temple. Not only does He kick them out, He "drives" them out with a whip. Let me say that again. Jesus made a physical whip. And then physically drove them out. Jesus wasn't acting as a pansy. He didn't throw himself in front of the money changers, or at their feet, begging them to leave. He didn't hold protests out in the park. He didn't starve himself making peace signs. He made a whip, rode up on His Harley, and whipped them out. Well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. The actual historical account is as follows, recorded in John 2:

13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Jesus used a whip. On people. That's violence by the man that culture paints as a complete pacifist. Once again, culture got it wrong, because Jesus ain't a hippy.

Jesus: The Gun-Rights Activists

It was nearly time. Christ was already betrayed. He had but a few more hours before a mob would take Him, a man would condemn Him, and mere mortals would mockingly puncture His body and murder Him. But strangely, He turns to His disciples and tells them to purchase swords. Yes, to purchase metal instruments of killing and destruction, just moments before being killed without resisting. Why? As commentator Matthew Henry explains, “The swords were to protect themselves from assassins and robbers.” Even without the historical commentation, the historical record itself is sufficiently obvious:

"35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

This isn't the only reference Christ makes to being armed. Far from it. Christ is even going to use an iron sword to rule all of the nations on earth with, as recorded in Rev.2:27, 12:5, 19:15, and Psalm 2:9. Jesus isn't afraid of weapons. He's even commanded his disciples to posses them. Jesus ain't a hippy.

Jesus: The Lamb

Just hours after requiring His followers to arm themselves, Christ told Peter to "put away his sword", when Peter attempted to defend Christ. Put away the sword? But Christ had just told him to purchase it for defense against robbers and assassins! What on earth (pun intended) was He thinking? After the Peter incident, Christ acknowledged that He could have sent legions of angels to devour His enemies? Why did He not? The answer is, once again, clear by Isaiah 53:

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
       and carried our sorrows,
       yet we considered him stricken by God,
       smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
       yet he did not open his mouth;
       he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
       and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
       so he did not open his mouth.

Christ's purpose for coming to earth was to die a slow and obscene death. To be humbled above all others, for us. For us. It was the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate love, the ultimate action. In order to die, He had to have even the most basic right stripped from Him: the right to defend oneself. It was love incarnated.

Truly the Bible is right: God is love. The beauty found in this idea can never be said enough, nor in a sufficiently adequate manner. It can never be fully explained, it can never be fully understood. We can never fully understand it because of its inherent magnificence.

Ah, what's my point? Am I trying to convince the world that Jesus was usually a violent man? That Jesus was not always meek? That Jesus was not always loving? No, of course I'm not. It is the greatest of all tragedies that men attempt to apply one idea to God, one concept, rather than trying to view Him as utter completeness that He is. We try to see Him as being only merciful. Or only non-violent. Or for some, as only violent. I have news (albeit 2,000-year-old news): God is love -- God is justice. God is non-violent -- God is violent. God is the most beautiful paradox imaginable, or even unimaginable.

God is God.

PolicySearch: The Researchers Best Friend

2007-01-04T09:13:00.000-06:00

I just created a search engine using Google technology. Rather than searching every site and page on the internet, PolicySearch ignores non-credentialed pages and searches through all (somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 websites) of the major think tanks (the Cato Institute, the Brookings Institute, etc), several major newspapers and magazines (the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc) and encyclopedias (Wikipedia, for example).

You get all the benefits of Google -- just without having to wade through the spam. Check PolicySearch out. :)

PolicySearch.googlepages.com

The Minimum Wage Myth

2006-12-30T01:54:00.000-06:00

I just received a raise. Before you congratulate me, let me first say that I didn't want the raise. At least not the way I received it.

My state just hiked the minimum wage by about a dollar. The reasoning was to economically "help" the lower class people of my state. Namely people like me who are on minimum-wage jobs. This seems to be a general attitude about the minimum wage laws...that it helps the poor. Take from those greedy businessmen and give to the starving lower class.

Unfortunately, business owners, unlike the Hollywood cliché, aren’t rolling in cash. Most business owners are small business owners. They have a mom-and-pop store and are just trying to barely scrape by. Like most Americans, they are struggling to make ends meet.

When the minimum wage laws are hiked, these mom and pop stores suddenly have more costs. They aren’t magicians. They can’t print more money like the government can. They have to get the extra-money to fund the new costs somehow...and it’s the “somehow” that debunks the minimum wage myth. There are two basic ways that businesses are able to offset the new costs imposed by a minimum-wage tax-hike.

1. Businesses raise prices

The increased minimum wage means increased expenditures. One way of fixing the balance is not to cut costs, but to increase income. One way of doing that is by “slightly” increasing prices. With slightly increasing prices, consumers endure the brunt of the negative impact of the minimum wage laws. Guess what economic class is harmed the most? That’s right, the poor.

The poor are harmed most with the slightly increased prices because when all the dimes and nickels add up the ratio of their paycheck is much higher. So the poor are harmed by a law passed by our government to help the poor. Ironic isn’t it? Government usually is.

The second affect of higher prices is the fact that the people have more money. Basically, they have more dollars, but the dollar has lost some of it’s buying power. Economists have a name for this. Inflation. Inflation has an incredibly large number of harmful economic impacts, from weakening the buying ability of people’s savings, to the undermining of a fixed exchange rate in international trade, along with others.

End Result 1: Poor harmed with higher prices.

End Result 2: Inflation increased

2. Businesses lay employees off

Strictly economically speaking, employees are a cost to a business. They “cost” money. Decreasing this cost is a way to offset the new costs of the minimum wage. It’s a way to counteract what the economic strain which government has done. To decrease the cost…the only option is to fire workers somewhere near the bottom of the totem pole.

More specifically, when it comes down to choosing who keeps their job and who is laid off, business managers inevitably are going to choose the already disadvantaged, for business purposes.

As Lawrence W. Reed explains:

“The minimum wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled, and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work).” [1]

Why on earth would the minimum wage harm blacks more than whites? The answer can be found in the how the minimum-wage works. A minimum wage law can be interpreted two ways.

Interpretation A: The minimum wage is a restriction on businesses. It’s function stops businesses from taking advantage of impoverished people who are willing to take an extremely low paying job. Interpretation A is often the only interpretation which is considered when looking at minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, we should be able to see that there is another interpretation.

Interpretation B: The minimum wage is a restriction on employees. Its function is to restrict employees so that employees are not able to underbid other applicants for a job in a competitive situation.

White South African labor unions supported minimum wage laws to harm black job applicants. By putting a minimum wage on the blacks, the blacks could no longer underbid their white counterparts, meaning that the blacks where the ones who suffered because of the racism. A similar end result happened here in the US with the first minimum wage law. That’s why an estimated 500,000 blacks lost their jobs.

The Cato Institute analyzed the effects of the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage, in a review entitled “Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage” The result of the study? The people who were affected by the minimum wage lost jobs. Unemployment.

“As is true with age, when we divide the population on the basis of education, ethnic group, or marital status, we find that the group with the highest percentage of low-wage workers is also the group in which employment shows the greatest drop.” [2]

These facts are hard to argue with. As a matter of fact, a 2003 poll indicated that 46% of economists agreed that “a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.” 28% agreed partly, and only 27% disagreed.[3] That’s almost a 2-to-1 ratio of economists who say that minimum wage laws end up increasing unemployment.

I only wish we could have such consensus on other things.

End Result: Unemployment increased.

Given the extremely limited options small-businesses have for acquiring the money to pay for the wage increases the result is nothing but disastrous. Unfortunately, the truth gets lost somewhere in a pile of statistics, as it is a lot of economic issues.

Every time the minimum wage is increased, our buying power is decreased. Every time prices go up, someone has to change their lifestyle – for the worse. We must remember that every time the unemployment rate goes up to any extent at all, someone’s life has been turned upside-down. Poverty is increased. This isn't just about statistics anymore -- this is about real situations. Real lives being turned inside out.

Poverty puts people in seemingly hopeless situations. Economic strain can and has caused relationship strains which have escalated into divorces, aggravated alcoholism, brought about drug addictions, encouraged suicide, etc. These are real harms against real people…unsuspecting victims of political law which doesn’t take into account reality.

Something’s gotta give.

[1] Lawrence W. Reed, Great Myths of the Great Depression Mackinac, Center for Public Policy, 1998

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

[2] Donald Deere, Kevin M. Murphy, Finis Welch Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage The Cato Review of Business & Government 1995 Vol. 18 No. 1

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

[3] Dan Fuller, Doris Geide-Stevenson, Consensus Among Economists: Revisited Journal of Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2003, 369-387

http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eeconed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf

2006-12-06T10:29:00.000-06:00

The most amazing thing about the “war on drugs” is the fact that many from both the conservative and liberal arenas agree with it. They shouldn’t. The ban of “drugs” has utterly failed and should be abolished for the following reasons:

1. The ban is an over-extension of state jurisdiction

It is not the States responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. You want to do crack? Go ahead. You want to eat lots and lots of chocolate cake? Go ahead. This is America, where you can pig out, even when it hurts you. That’s part of liberty – the ability to make decisions which can burn you.

2. The ban destroys lives

Sure drugs can destroy a lot of lives. But making the drugs illegal makes it worse. A crack fix should cost five bucks for a day. Now it costs hundreds in some places. When someone is addicted to something, the price of it is of no consequence to their decision to consume it. They are addicted. This is a leading cause of homelessness – the ban has destroyed everything they had.

3. The ban violates liberty

I am a firm believer in liberty, as I am sure other people are. What is liberty? Jefferson defined it when he said:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Remember, it is wrong to violate one’s liberty when one has not violated the rights of others. For example, I should not be able to come to your house stuff you in the washing machine and leave you there. You should not be randomly arrested and forced into prison for no reason. The reasoning for this moral prohibition is found in the concept of liberty.

It is a blatant violation of liberty to lock someone up in a cage (read: send to prison) because they smoked a joint. That is ridiculous, it is of a totalitarian nature, and should be rejected because of the immorality of it and of its complete un-American nature. To lock someone up in a cage when they have not encroached upon no one else is morally bankrupt.

4. The ban is a double-standard

Double-standards will exist until we ban alcohol, sharpies, tobacco, chocolate cake, and sugar. There is no reason to lock someone up in a cage because they tried pot when we wouldn't do it to them if they tried alcohol. The only reason that people think that “illegal drugs are different” is because they have become indoctrinated by their culture. The reason? They aren't different. And we have no reason to think otherwise.

If we shouldn’t ban sharpies, we shouldn’t ban other substances. If we shouldn’t ban cake, we shouldn’t ban other substances. If we shouldn’t ban tobacco, we shouldn’t ban other substances. If we shouldn’t ban alcohol, we shouldn’t ban other substances. If we shouldn’t… continue ad infinitum.

Real people are infringed upon by this policy that we call “The War on Drugs.” Real lives have been destroyed. Morality has been violated. The policy is bankrupt; the policy must be ended.

Why They Gave

2006-03-21T12:39:00.000-06:00

If I could convince you of but one thing, it would be to have the same amount of passion as those who have come before us. Those who did not shut their eyes and ignore the truth, but acted instead. Those who gave it all, as much as they could, to combat human suffering, to battle tyranny, and to lift the standard of liberty to a new level. This entry is dedicated to their existence and their cause.

Arnold von Winkelried who gave it all, that the battle might be won; that the cause might go on.

The students at the Tiananmen Square who knew, without being told, that something was wrong.

Hans and Sophie Scholl, youth who would not give up, even to the end. "Long Live Freedom."

What am I trying to convey? I want to reflect the spark in their eyes, the passion of their hearts, the understanding they had for the Cause.

Here are their stories...

Arnold von Winkelried was a soldier who was fighting to defend his small homeland, Switzerland, from the iron fist of an invasion by Austria. The Swiss were famous for their use of the "pike" a very long spear type of a weapon used in a defensive manner. The Swiss would line up, and turn into a wall of glistening points. Austria, learning from previous engagements as to what the Swiss would do, dismounted from their horses, and used lances in the way the Swiss used their pikes. In the conflict which ensued in the Battle of Sempach the Swiss could not breach the Austrian line. A Swiss soldier by the name of Arnold von Winkelried went on the record as saying, "I will open a passage into the line; protect, dear countrymen and confederates, my wife and children." Arnold then through himself onto the lances of the enemy, creating a hole in the line, and leading to a successful defense. He willingly gave his life, that others might be free.

Above: Arnold von Winkelried threw himself into the wall of spears to create a gap. He gave his life that others might be free.

The Tiananmen Square Conflict. The youth of China in Spring and Summer of 1989 could stay quiet it no longer. They were traditionally the conscience of their nation, and they knew that it was their role to speak out when something must be said. Thousands of students marched to Tiananmen Square, and began to petition the communist government. They called for reforms which included the freedom of the press. They spoke freely, and passionately, and critically of their government. At the climax of their protests, the tyrannical government of China snapped. They militarily took Tiananmen Square, and attacked the unarmed youth, by shooting, and crushing them under the treads of tanks. Three-thousand youth died, and 30,000 were wounded. Many knew this would be the outcome, and many were willing to face it. The world watched in horror as a young man stood in front of a line of tanks. He would have died, if his friends had not pushed him out of the way.

Above: A chinese young adult stands in the path of a tyranical government.

Does the youth of America have the guts to do that?

Hans and Sophie Scholl. While most of the nation trembled in terror in Nazi Germany, two young adults spoke out. Their names were Hans and Sophie Scholl, two young adults, brother and sister. They knew that the price of freedom is sometimes giving up everything. With this in mind, they published a series of essays which denounced Adolph Hitler and his Nazi tyrants, and called for the overthrow of tyrannical government.

Eventually Hans and Sophie were caught, and they were told that what they did was illegal, and unpatriotic. During their mock-trial, they both knew that they were going to be exterminated, because they dared defy the State. Sophie shocked the judges during the trial by saying, “Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don’t dare to express themselves as we did.” The judges, hearing this, proclaimed them guilty as charged. They were going to die. While marching to their deaths Hans slowed, stopped, looked back, raised his fist, and yelled out in a defiant tone, “LONG LIVE FREEDOM!”

And then proudly walked to his fate.

Above: Hans (front right) and Sophie (center) Scholl.

What made them do this? What made them willing to speak, to protest, to die? Was it their selfishness? Their desire to live independently, and do as they pleased? No. It cannot be that, as you cannot reap the rewards of your labor if you do not live to see the harvest. What was the reason? What was this passion? The answer should be clear to us as Christians. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", John 15:13. The power behind those who sacrifice, is not because of selfishness, it's not because they love themselves; it's because they love others. The love of liberty is the love of others.

The Spirit of Vladimir

2006-03-20T13:48:00.000-06:00

I'm going to slowly move all of my entries from my old site (loverofliberty.modblog.com) to here. Here is the first "move":

The Spirit of Vladimir
Written by Shaun Connell

As Vladimir rose from his seat he surveyed the faces of all those gathered. Cold hearts, chained spirits, dead souls. That’s all he could see. He wondered if he was alone in the room, or if some kindred spirit existed elsewhere. No, he was probably the only one. No one else understood; no one else even cared.

A hush fell over the courtroom as Vladimir cleared his throat before he began to speak. Speaking in front of people. Vladimir didn’t like that. He was more of quite person, liked to keep to himself. He would have been happy if he could have just lived on his small farm, cared for his own life, living in oblivion of the rest of the world. No, that was not to be his fate. He was charged with treason to the State. To his knowledge, he hadn’t said nor done anything to deserve the charges. Perhaps it was just destiny. But what was to be his fate? He knew what it was. It gave him courage to have the same fate as so many before him.

He begins.

"They call me a traitor because I have fallen in love… in love with an idea. They call me a traitor, because I can see. I can see the world where the people are free. They call me traitor, because I understand. I understand that I must be willing to take a stand. They call me a traitor because I love liberty more than this government. If these things make someone a traitor, then I plead guilty to most extreme degree.

I suppose I’m alone here. I suppose there is no one here who is not of a dead soul, or who understands the meaning behind these words I speak. I suppose I’m the only one. Even so, I cannot hide what I believe. Maybe someone here, maybe someone who hears… maybe someone will hear: I love liberty. When I am found guilty of treason I have no doubt that my life will be taken by the State, or that I will be imprisoned for the remainder of it. Up until that point they may try to keep me from speaking what I know to be true, they may place me in chains, they may put me into a prison, they may do all these things, yes, but they can never take away my love of liberty. My love is my own.

Someday, I will die, but the idea that I love will not die with me. Someday no one will ever remember me, but the truth of the idea I hold in my heart will be as true and vibrant as ever. Someday everyone here will fade away, but truth will remain. I have been told by my captors that the day that I die, liberty will die also. I know that this isn’t true. Throughout the ages, throughout even this nation’s history, there have always been “traitors” to the State, and there always will be. There will always be those who love the idea that government is based upon more than the government itself. There will always be those who do not wish to be slaves, do not wish to be subjects, who just wish to be the masters of government, on an equal ground with all other men. There will always be those who love that word which has more truth in it than the State can understand, they love “liberty”. We will always live; you may try to stomp us out, but we live on, you kill us physically, individually, but we live on, you put us in chains, but we continue on, you try to stop us, but you only push us forward, hear my words: we shall be victorious! No, not this day, no, not this trial. I shall pass away, but liberty shall stand forever!

Remember this: when you meet us, the traitors, look deeply into our eyes. Look for a spark, look for life. You will not see this spark often, you only see the eyes of dead souls. We shall never die, we will haunt the tyrannical State to it’s grave, yes, to it’s grave. We will live, the State will die! Liberty lives, tyranny dies!

If anything is to be remembered of us, if any words are to be thought of when we come to mind, make it but three words. We loved liberty!”

-------

Vladimir was found guilty, yes. He was put to death, yes. He died, yes. His body has returned to the dirt, yes. But his spirit still lives on.

I finally did it.

2006-03-14T20:29:00.000-06:00

I did it. This is my new blog. :-)

My name is Shaun Connell, and I'm a Christian Libertarian gun-fanatic. That's just a fancy name for someone who is a 50-50 mix between non-fiscal conservative and a libertarian. :-)

If you read this, please comment, so I can get a good idea of the amount of traffic, please. :-)