Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Friday, October 24, 2014

We Want You

Libertarian thinker, former Republican congressman from the State of Texas, and two time presidential candidate, Ron Paul, issued a scary warning to all Americans this week:

Democrats and Republicans think that we are slaves. They want you.

Prominent authoritarian figures from both statist political parties are beating the statist drum once again for government imposed national service. 

Democrat Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and current Arizona Republican Senator, John McCain, are both calling for federal legislation which would force some citizens to either serve two years of their lives in the military or perform other mandatory government directed community service.

Statists of every stripe believe that people – especially young people – have a moral obligation to give something back to society. Mr. Paul correctly points out that giving the government power to decide our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism.

We know that the government already has the power to determine our legal obligations. So if Uncle Sam can ultimately turn what it believes to be our moral obligations into legal obligations surely liberty for all will be tossed out the window.

Mandatory national service is not just anti-liberty, it’s un-American observes Mr. Paul. Statists don’t believe that individuals have “inalienable rights.” They think our rights are gifts from the government, and as such can be taken from us at the will of Congress.

Ron Paul is absolutely right, and I applaud him for warning us, but somehow he neglected to mention what the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution has to say about this. Not that Constitutional rights matter all that much to statists like Robert Reich and John McCain.  

The 13th Amendment provides in no uncertain terms: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The highest law of the land says that no one, including government thugs, may enslave anyone or force anyone into involuntary servitude unless the person has been duly convicted, i.e., by due process of law, of a crime. One might be tempted to think that this constitutionally enshrined law of the land settles the matter, but not so fast. 

Sadly, however, our so-called “inalienable rights” – particularly the rights guaranteed by the 13th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War in 1865 -- have been ignored time and time again by government statists since then.  Uncle Sam got away with the forced conscription of young men on a mass scale in WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

That was government imposed involuntary servitude, slavery if you will, by any definition, and many thousands of those hapless victims of government statism paid the ultimate price for it with their lives. All of it was rubber stamped legitimate by the United States Supreme Court; no conviction of a crime by due process of law necessary.

Today, millions of American school aged children in their formative years and their parents are still forced to participate whether they like it or not in government mandated compulsory education schemes in which the government decides when they must attend, how they will be indoctrinated, and to whom they must pledge their allegiance. These kids haven’t been convicted of any crime.

If the government can conscript people into forced national service – involuntary servitude -- for the benefit of the state regardless of the 13th Amendment prohibitions, then there is no limit to what it can to for the purpose of enslaving us all.


Uncle Sam is beckoning once more: “We want you.” 

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Pornophobia

Bestselling author and lawyer, John Grisham, found it necessary to apologize to the terminally neurotic American public this week for speaking logically and rationally about child porn.

“We have prisons now filled with guys my age, 60-year-old white men, in prison, who've never harmed anybody (and) would never touch a child," said Grisham. "But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons and went too far and got into child porn. ... They deserve some type of punishment, but 10 years in prison?” "There's so many of them now, sex offenders ... that they put them in the same prison, like they're a bunch of perverts or something."

"I have no sympathy for a real pedophile, he continued; “but so many of these guys don't deserve harsh prison sentences. A friend of mine, this was 10 years ago, was drinking, and his drinking was out of control. And he went to a website, and it was labeled, 16-year-old wannabe hookers or something, some stupid website. And it said 16-year-old girls. So he went there and downloaded some stuff… It was 16-year-old girls that look 30. ... He shouldn't have done it. It was stupid. But it wasn't 10-year-old boys, and he didn't touch anything."

That “stupid” website offering pictures of naked 16-year-old girls online was a sting operation concocted by the authorities solely to capture “sex offenders.” Grisham’s friend was arrested, convicted of a “sex crime” and sent to prison for three years.

As you might imagine, the reaction to his comments by the irrational segment of the public was tumultuous to say the least. Some people said they won’t read his books anymore; others burned his books; still others declared they were disgusted and called him an imbecile. Facing this huge onslaught of potential damage to his writing career, Grisham caved in completely and apologized profusely to the frenzied mob.

Of course, that wasn’t nearly enough for those in the crowd still indignantly foaming at the mouth. "You clearly said in the interview that people (like your drunk friend) who look at child porn don't deserve severe punishment," cried one. "Not sure how you can backtrack that statement."

To me that statement says it all. There are actually people in the United States of America – pornophobics -- who think that a person who merely looks at online images of child porn should be punished severely.

Mind you, this isn’t about pedophiles, child molesters and rapists, the ones who actually abuse kids and clearly deserve severe punishment; no argument about that. This is about innocent human beings, normal people who have never in their whole lives ever harmed or thought about harming a child. Grisham was absolutely right about that and no apology was necessary.

The legal authorities who created that website were actually guilty themselves of manufacturing and distributing child pornography. They were doing far more than just looking at child porn. They were making it and offering it online. They literally had to commit the “crime” themselves in order to ensnare others for committing the “crime.”

The pornophobics are out to get normal innocent people for committing imaginary “crimes.” A seminary student, a prison guard and a law enforcement official, for example were among 55 people arrested during another sting by police in Brazil for the “crime” of merely looking at child porn online.

Police located suspects from all walks of life in Portugal, Italy, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela. “There is no profile of the criminal,” admitted a Federal Police Inspector. “As it is a very hidden crime, anybody can be the perpetrator.” Other suspects included a computer technician, a martial arts instructor, health care workers and a math teacher.

Anybody can be a perpetrator! What does that tell you? We’re talking about normal people here. We’re not talking about sex criminals. A 14-year-old girl who takes an erotic selfie and sends it to her 15-year-old boyfriend will be charged with the “crime” of manufacturing and distributing child pornography, a felony. Her boyfriend will be charged with the “crime” of possessing child pornography, a felony.

The Islamic State savages can make a video depicting the beheading of a child and distribute it online for the enjoyment of all takers, including the mainstream news media. No one will be deemed guilty of a crime for downloading the horrific and disgusting video to their hard drive and possessing it. Personally, I don’t have the stomach to look at that kind of thing, but those who do want to look at it have a First Amendment constitutional right to do so.

Yes, in the U.S.A. we have a First Amendment right to look at and possess disgusting books, movies and videos of all types and kinds, including porn magazines and videos. People can look at and possess pictures and videos of babies having their heads chopped off, children being tortured, whipped, spanked or otherwise severely abused, and no one can claim that the “crime” of looking at or possessing the material was committed.

So, all of this neurotic irrational rage and overreaction to instances of normal people looking at child porn images on the Internet is not at all about child abuse. It’s not about committing any real crime or harming kids in any way. No, it’s really about SEX.  It’s about mobs of irrational people who suffer with neurotic hang-ups about other people thinking about sex.

They get all worked up and angry, wanting to severely punish normal people for the thought “crime” of looking at images of nude children, but don’t mind at all if the same normal people are looking at images of kids getting whipped, tortured, beheaded or otherwise abused.

To put it bluntly, laws meting out severe punishment for merely looking at images of child porn are unconstitutional. If the mob doesn’t like my saying so, they need not buy my book. I’m not a coward like John Grisham. I don’t care what they think. I’m not the one suffering from Pornophobia.  


Thursday, October 16, 2014

In Defense of Religion

Those of you who are familiar with this blog know that I’m not a fan of religion. Throughout world history religion has caused a lot more harm to human civilization than good. I would, however, tend to be a lot less critical of it if only the religious folks would stop trying, with the assistance of government, to impose their superstitions upon everyone. That is by far what causes most of the harm.

I am a big fan of the Bill of Rights – especially the First Amendment. Religious Americans have a fundamental First Amendment constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. Non-religious Americans enjoy a fundamental First Amendment constitutional right of freedom from government established religion. The First Amendment protects everyone’s right to believe and express our beliefs as we choose without government interference.

That’s why I’m particularly appalled and outraged over the fact that a Democratic Mayor and city officials in Houston Texas are demanding and subpoenaing church pastors to turn over their sermons, notes and communications with church members to the government so that the city can determine which of them are preaching critically of city government policies.

The Houston city council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill” allowing males and females the right to use each other’s public restrooms. Concerned citizens responded by collecting an overwhelming number of signatures to put a repeal of the law on the ballot.

The Mayor and city council defied and rejected lawful certification of the referendum petition. Supporters of the referendum filed a lawsuit. The city responded by subpoenaing area church pastors and demanding to see what they’ve been preaching from the pulpit about the controversy, as well as about homosexuality, gender identity, and the Mayor, who is openly gay. Ministers failing to comply are being threatened with punishment for contempt of court.

“The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.” claim attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty law firm.  

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” declared Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.” The actions by Houston’s mayor are “obscene” and “should not be tolerated” Perkins added. “This is a shot across the bow of the church.”

Ironically, this is the very same Tony Perkins who constantly demands that the U.S. government tear down the wall of separation between church and state. He and his followers want a government God. But when it comes to his and their First Amendment rights he sings a different tune.

Perkins and the pastor’s are hopeless hypocrites for sure, but in this instance they’re absolutely right. The City of Huston and the Mayor are clearly violating their First Amendment constitutional rights. Their actions won’t stand in the face of the law… in defense of religion.








Monday, October 13, 2014

Go in Peace

I like Mike Huckabee. He’s a nice man; intelligent; personable; likeable; kind and articulate. He’d be a great next door neighbor or friend.

But as a politician in the changing atmosphere of today’s American politics he displays one major flaw – religious extremism. He wants to impose his religion on us. Americans, however, in ever greater numbers nowadays are finally beginning to move away from the influence of religion in politics, which means that Huckabee and all the other fervent Bible thumpers in the GOP are left behind.

They are no longer good for the Republican Party. The GOP has been losing presidential elections because of them. By the time a good candidate gets wrung through the primary process, making promises to and running the gauntlet of ultra-right-wing religious extremists, he’s no longer viable in a general presidential election. He’ll get beaten by less than mediocre Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Let’s face it. They have lost the argument on condemning homosexuality. And for the most part they’ve lost the argument on stifling women’s reproductive rights; teaching religion in the public schools; eliminating pornography from the Internet; and establishing God’s commandments as the law of the land.

What politician in his or her right mind today, for example, would advocate segregation of the races like George Wallace did in the 1960’s, and expect to win an election? Wallace had a considerable following back then but the racists in America lost that argument.

It is no longer fashionable in the U.S.A. to run a political campaign on racist politics. It was a losing strategy then just like religious extremism and discrimination against gays is a losing strategy today.

Mike Huckabee is not happy with that fact. He’s threatening to leave the GOP if they abandon religious extremism – especially ardent opposition to gay marriage -- as a core part of the platform.

“If the Republicans want to lose guys like me — and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people — go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and why you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either… Because at that point, you lose me,” Huckabee declared on the American Family Association radio show. “I’m gone. I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

“I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction they guarantee they’re gonna lose every election in the future,” he continued. “Guarantee it.” 
“And I don’t understand why they want to lose… Because a lot of Republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on either the left coast or those who live up in the bubbles of New York and Washington, are convinced that if we don’t capitulate on the same sex marriage issue and if we don’t raise the white flag of surrender, and just accept it as inevitable, we’ll be losers... I tell you, it’s the absolute opposite of that.” Huckabee wrongly concluded.
It’s too bad that Mike Huckabee is so blinded by his religion that he simply can’t see the writing on the political wall.  Gay marriage is here to stay. Equal treatment for homosexuals is here to stay. Reproductive rights for women are here to stay whether he likes it or not. 
The argument is over. The religious extremists have lost. It’s well past the right time to focus the GOP on issues that actually resonate with the American people – like liberty -- and stop trying to impose religion on us.
After all, who are the conservative religious folks going to vote for in presidential elections if the GOP finally stops harping on and on in their losing battle against gays and abortion? Will they vote for the Democrats and socialism? Of course they won’t – never in a million years. The reasonable ones will certainly still vote for Republicans because Republicans, (putting their religion aside) still have better ideas, ideas that will benefit all Americans, than Democrats.
Moreover, I’m certain that the Republican Party could easily attract many more conservative Democrats, Libertarians and Independents if only they would for once stop moralizing about the Lord and start presenting sound practical ideas which will bring the nation out of the morass of socialism, fiscal irresponsibility and debt.
Republicans should call Huckabee’s bluff about leaving the party to become an independent, or better yet, a third party. He can call it the Theocrat party. Then he can maintain his stand against gays and women. And then he’ll find himself and the rest of his Bible thumping followers even more marginalized then they are now. How many votes does he think the Theocrats would get in today’s political atmosphere?
So go ahead, Mike Huckabee; and take the likes of Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Sara Palin, Allan Keyes, and Ted Cruz right along with you. The Republican Party would love to keep you but doesn’t need you. Sadly, you and your followers have become an anchor.
Go in peace.





Friday, October 10, 2014

Cops: Preachers and Predators

The police are out of control in America today. Cops have become predators. They’re running amok. SWAT teams are swooping down haphazardly upon innocent citizens; smashing down doors; murdering pets; shooting first and asking questions later; tasing people in the back; tazing people without reasonable cause; tasing 8-yeaar-old kids; literally tasing some people to death.

Cops are stopping and frisking ‘suspects’ without probable cause; conducting warrantless searches of homes and motor vehicles; aggressively tear gassing peaceful protesters; arresting and handcuffing elementary school children; responding to the slightest questioning of their authority often with lethal violence … the list goes on and on.

Police rarely exercise restraint today like they mostly did in the past. Today they employ violence against passive resisters, old women and kids. Cops no longer regard their jobs as protecting and serving the people. They’ve become government thugs with short tempers, badges, and guns.

Just last week, cops in Tallahassee Florida shot a 61 year old woman in the back with a Taser as she was slowly walking away from them. She collapsed face down, incapacitated to the pavement. She might have been killed as others have for the “crime” of talking back to cops.

And when the cops aren’t acting as government predators, some of them believe they have the right to be government preachers – cops for Jesus.

That’s right. I’m not making this stuff up. Last August an Indiana woman motorist was pulled over by a cop for a traffic stop whereupon the officer used the situation as an opportunity to interrogate his captive as to whether she had accepted Jesus Christ as her savior.  

Indiana state trooper, Brian Hamilton, apparently believes that he has authority from God to use his police car and badge to make traffic stops and proselytize his Christian faith to his hapless victims. While his police cruiser lights are flashing in the background, he enjoys asking them about their faith. Then he hands them religious materials to remind them, among other things, to “realize you’re a sinner.”

A spokesman for the police department said that there is no specific policy that addresses distributing religious materials. Never-mind the fact that Officer Hamilton’s conduct violates both the First and Fourth Amendment rights of motorists caught in his trap, if there’s no policy addressing it, in his mind that means that the cops patrolling the Indiana highways have the authority to preach the Christian gospel while on the job.  

"I have people pass out religious material all the time. Mormons come to my door all the time, and it doesn't offend me," explains Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana. "[This case] might not be the most persuasive time to talk to someone about their faith, but I don't think that a police officer is prohibited from doing something like that."


There you have it. The American Family Association thinks it’s perfectly proper for cops to be preachers as well as predators in the service of God and government Authority

Monday, October 6, 2014

Clergy Violate Ninth Commandment

God reportedly hates liars. So says the Holy Bible. And His Ninth Commandment specifically prohibits bearing false witness. So one would not expect a member of the clergy to lie, mislead, or obfuscate the truth, right?

Wrong. Lying, misleading and obfuscating the truth occur routinely when clergy talk about the IRS denying them their First Amendment rights.
I witnessed a bishop on Fox News Channel today who claimed that the IRS is coming after churches to take away their freedom of speech. The IRS will come after us if we preach politics from the pulpit, he whined. The government won’t let us tell our congregations what candidates to vote for. If we do they’ll come after us, he added.
This bishop of the church knows that’s not the truth. He knows that the IRS has no power to deny churches and clergy their fundamental right to free speech and free exercise of their religion as protected by the First Amendment.
The U.S. government may not deny churches and clergy the right to preach about anything they want, including politics, what political candidates to vote for, and what political issues to support or oppose. No government agent will “come after” him or his church if he preaches politics from the pulpit.
So what he said to the millions of people in the TV audience was flatly untrue.
He enjoys a constitutional right to preach politics just exactly the same as any other individual or group of individuals in the United States of America.  That’s the whole truth. The church, clergy and this bishop know for certain then that the issue is not about First Amendment rights.
No, it’s about paying taxes.
The Constitution affirms their right to preach politics but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to enjoy tax exempt status. The bishop didn’t want to talk about that and consequently the subject was never brought up. He wants us to believe it’s all about freedom of speech – and nothing to do with taxes.
I pay my taxes. You pay your taxes. Every American pays taxes, except that some individuals, non-profit and religious organizations, including clergy, enjoy tax exempt status by federal statute. We the people decided that they should enjoy that status because of the so-called selfless benefits they provide to society by their activities.
But the law also specifies that if they engage overtly in poetical activities, such as telling their members who to vote for in elections and the like, then they are not entitled to tax exempt status. If they want to engage in politics they have to pay their taxes just like everyone else.
In short, We the People decided that Churches and clergy should best stick to preaching religion to their congregations and refrain from preaching politics from the pulpit if they want to continue to enjoy their generous exemption from paying the tax man.  It’s not that they can’t preach politics. Of course they can. That’s their First Amendment Constitutional right. But if they do they’ll have to start paying tax like the rest of us tax slaves.
That’s the truth.
The bishop violated God’s ninth commandment.



Friday, October 3, 2014

US Still Persecuting Cuba

I’m still baffled by this simple question: Why does the United States government, my nation, allow me to go to North Korea, China, Vietnam, Iran, and other such places which aren’t exactly bastions of freedom, but Why Can’t I Go to Cuba? Why Can’t I Go to Cuba? – Part 2

Why has the United States been relentlessly persecuting the tiny nation of Cuba for the last 52 years? Why don’t we have diplomatic relations with Cuba? Why can’t Americans do business with Cuba? Why can’t I buy Cuban cigars or Cuban rum from Cubans? Why can’t I take my vacation in Cuba?

Cuba is not and never has been an enemy of the United States. The government of Cuba has never presented a threat to the U.S.A. The people of Cuba don’t hate America and Americans. They want to be our friends, our trading partners, our good neighbors. They want to buy our goods and sell us their goods.

The vast majority of Americans would welcome an end to our persecution of Cuba. It is only a tiny minority of Cuban exiles who insist that the U.S. continue punishing Cuba for going communist in 1959. That’s the irony of the situation.

It is Cuban expats who want our government to continue persecuting Cuba and their fellow Cubans, not mainstream Americans who want to renew relations.  The Cuban people have their fellow Cubans to blame for their suffering. There is no longer any reason for the embargo if indeed there ever was a logical reason.

Recently the Cuban government denounced the “systematic worsening” of the U.S. economic embargo on Cubans, which they estimate has cost its citizens more than $1.1 trillion since it was imposed more than a half century ago. The Cuban people are suffering for no good reason because of the spiteful mentality of exiled Cubans in the U.S.

The embargo is a "genocidal and vile act ... (with) an extraterritorial dimension," given that the United States is trying to impose it on developing countries, Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno told the United Nations last month. He emphasized that the "extraterritorial character" of laws associated with the embargo "have a direct impact" on foreign trade and the promotion of foreign investment in the country.

The damage to Cuban foreign trade between April 2013 and June 2014 amounted to $3.9 billion. Without the embargo, Cuba could have earned $205.8 million selling products such as rum and cigars to U.S. consumers. Plenty of U.S. customers want those products.

The damage inflicted on tourism alone during that time has deprived innocent Cubans of at least $2 billion in revenue due to the impediments on traveling to the island imposed on U.S. citizens. Moreover, the embargo creates an obstacle to Cuba's being able to provide basic and free services to its population, including education and health care.

U.S. persecution is also depriving innocent Cubans of basic services available to most of the world. They have difficulties, for example, in accessing the Internet on the island because United States prevents companies providing broadband services from operating normally in Cuba. 


Enough already! My country should stop persecuting Cuba.