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

Tuesday, October 30, 2012


More than a decade after the 9/11/01 World Trade Center terrorist attack and George W. Bush’s subsequent creation of the infamous Transportation Security Administration (TSA), it now appears that the vast majority of Americans are OK with the illusion of feeling safe on airplanes at the expense of their loss of liberty.
The USA is now OK with the TSA.
The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights has become completely null and void at American airports, most notably the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures, and now the once coveted First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause is the latest casualty in our statist government’s hysterical war on terror.
Vociferously objecting to TSA thuggery tactics at Nashville International Airport resulted in a jury imposed guilty verdict and criminal conviction for disorderly conduct against a concerned mother who was only trying to protect her 14-year-old daughter from an unreasonably intrusive pat-down molestation body search procedure by the TSA goons.
"Telling a police officer your opinion, even in strong language, to me that's a First Amendment right… She just wanted to stand on principle, because she felt that she had done nothing wrong," said her pro bono defense attorney. "And I admire her for that."
That principle, of course, is the fundamental constitutional right of free speech which the court found is not applicable when directed in an objectionable manner at airport TSA agents in the process of frisking and manhandling frightened 14-year-old girls by force.
This woman’s behavior "prevented others from carrying out their lawful activities," argued the prosecutor, which constitutes disorderly conduct.
No one disputes that the “behavior” for which she was convicted of a crime consisted of nothing more than objecting to the conduct of her TSA tormentors in a loud irritated voice. In her own words she was "irritated, but not arguing." She wasn’t unruly but did yell at the officers.
In other words, the lady was merely exercising her free speech rights vociferously. There was no physical confrontation. There were no threats of violence. It was only angry speech.
The TSA’s response was to two close two security lanes which made a normally one-minute security check a 30-minute ordeal. The prosecutor blamed that on the mother. "The defendant should have been aware that her behavior would prevent others from carrying out their lawful activities," she said.
The lady should have just meekly submitted to the process like a sheep at the shearing house without complaint, without any sign of irritation, and just allowed her rights to be trampled upon according to the prosecutor.
After both went willingly through a metal detector, the woman refused to allow her daughter to also go through a body scan machine, saying she didn't want "someone to see our bodies naked."
That prompted the TSA officer to demand a pat-down search, to which the girl submitted, but which in turn prompted the mother to yell at the officer that that she didn't want anyone "touching her daughter's crotch."
(Hummm … seems reasonable to me.)
Then, despite the fact that the mother was only accompanying her daughter to the gate but not getting on the plane herself, the TSA goons demanded that she also submit to the molestation procedure. Naturally, she refused. "You're not putting your (expletive) hands on me, this is (expletive)," she said.
So the officer arrested the mother. "She gave him no option," argued the D.A., "She put him in that position with her behavior."
The jury agreed. Complaining loudly to the TSA at an airport makes you guilty of a crime they all chimed.
Judge Joe P. Binkley Jr., warned the 42-year-old mother: "to be certain you don't get into any further problems with the law."
The Judge, the jury, and the USA are now OK with the TSA.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Cynical Political Cowards

The Obama Administration’s cynical political cowardice, dishonesty and cover-up of the tragic events in Benghazi Libya on 9/11/12 where a U.S. Ambassador was murdered along with three other Americans during an organized al-Qaida terrorist attack of our U.S. Consulate is beginning to make the infamous 1972 Watergate scandal, which caused the cynical political coward Richard Nixon to resign his office as president in disgrace, look like a jaywalking offense by comparison.
Nixon in 1972, like Obama in 2012, was pulling out all the stops in his election year effort to win a second term in the White House against his much weaker democratic opponent, George McGovern. His election campaign operatives were engaging in dirty tricks one after another.
A group of Republican political goons was caught burglarizing the Washington D.C. Democratic Party headquarters located at the Watergate complex. No one was killed. No one was physically harmed. It was just another Republican Party campaign dirty trick.
Though Nixon himself was probably not personally involved in the Watergate break-in, he never-the-less presided over a cynically political and cowardly cover-up of the facts in which he repeatedly lied to the public, withheld and actually destroyed incriminating evidence connecting his administration with the crime and the criminals. He didn’t want the incident to hurt his reelection chances even though he was way ahead in the polls.
Had Nixon simply had the courage to man up and admit to the whole truth at the beginning, there would have been no scandal, he would have been reelected anyway, and would have no doubt happily served out his second presidential term.
But Richard Nixon then, just like Barack Obama now, and so many other parasitical politicians who think only of themselves and the preservation of their own power at all costs, was a dishonest cynical political coward who, fortunately for the citizens of America, eventually got what he deserved. He will go down in history forever as a national disgrace.
President Obama is facing a much tougher and closer contest now than President Nixon was then. In fact, he’s losing what was once a considerable edge over his challenger with only a matter of days to go before the election. He clearly doesn’t want what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to make things worse for his chances.
So he is showing his true dishonest, cynical political cowardice for the entire world to see.
The President, Vice President, and the rest of the Obama administration deliberately and repeatedly lied, stonewalled, and attempted to cover up their utter incompetence and malfeasance from the outset in the handling of the Benghazi Libya terror attack and its aftermath.
A United States Ambassador and three other Americans lost their lives because of that incompetence.
That Ambassador, Chris Stevens, the facts now reveal, was literally begging for greater security at the consulate long before the terror attack began because there were credible threats against his life and other evidence that danger was imminent.
The Obama administration via Hillary Clinton’s State Department repeatedly denied his pleas for help and support. They left him helpless and twisting in the wind. This happened despite the fact that they owed to Ambassador Stevens a solemn obligation to defend a consulate which is actually sovereign U.S. territory.
When the attack came the President and his administration were sitting safely and comfortably observing “real time” videos, and receiving “real time” emails at the White House situation room informing them exactly what was happening at the Benghazi consulate compound during the entire seven hours or so of the siege.
They knew that at least 20 well armed terrorist fighters were firing mortars and heavy ammunition at the compound; that our Ambassador was huddled in a safe room without security protection waiting and desperately begging for help; and that the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was already taking credit for the attack.
The President and his administration watched all of this going down for seven hours and did absolutely nothing to try to stop the carnage. They ignored Ambassador Steven’s pleas for help and actually repeatedly blocked efforts by some brave Americans to come to his aid.
Two of the Americans killed ignored orders twice from the CIA to "stand down" rather than help. They were able to rescue some of the trapped people at the consulate and take them to a CIA operated annex located about a mile away. The attackers then opened heavy fire on that annex. Again pleas for help were repeatedly denied by U.S. officials and more Americans died.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that The U.S. military did not respond because he thought the attack was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really happening.
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta explained. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
They didn’t know what was going on. They didn’t know what was really happening. They thought it was over. So they sat back on their fat asses and let a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans die like dogs.
President Obama still says he was "not personally aware" of any request for more security by U.S. diplomats in Libya before the Sept. 11 strike on the consulate.
His administration was aware. The State Department was aware.
The Obama administration was aware in “real time” from the beginning of this mess exactly what was happening and when it was happening and who was making it happen. Yet for at least two weeks following the attack they lied about it, claiming that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.
They’re still lying about it.
You see, President Obama had previously told the American people over and over that with the death of bin-Laden al-Qaida is also dead and he didn’t want this al-Qaida terrorist incident to belie that falsehood just days before the election. So he took the cynical coward’s way out. He lied and smugly presided over the rest of his administrations bald faced lies about what happened in Benghazi on 9/11.
And when Republican Party presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had a golden opportunity to nail his rival with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during the last debate, he incredibly played the role of Mr. Meekmop, and let Obama wipe the floor with him, because he wanted to play it safe and not ruin his own chances for the presidential prize.
He should be ashamed.
They both deserve to lose.
They’re all cynical political cowards.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

God Intends Rape Babies

That is the primitive mind set of Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock on the subject of women impregnated during a rape:  "it's something God intended," he proclaimed recently in a televised debate with his Democrat opponent.
It’s the same bizarre conclusion expressed by far too many prominent Republican Party politicians: “God Intends rape babies.” The impregnated victim of a rape should therefore be prohibited by the government authority from choosing to terminate her pregnancy.
His comments come two months after embattled Missouri GOP Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said during a television interview that women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape."
Certainly, if these statist politicians had their way with impregnated women, the fundamental constitutional right of liberty would be denied to them in every such circumstance, including rape, incest, and medical necessity.
During a 2007 GOP presidential primary debate Republican presidential candidate Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortions in the U.S.
No wonder so many American women voters are scared to death at the prospect of electing any Republican politician. These ultra-right-wing religiously oriented morons would not hesitate to squash women’s liberty in a heartbeat given half a chance.
They’re on a mission from God.
That’s what Mourdock was talking about when asked whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” he reasoned. “And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Later, Mourdock explained that he doesn’t believe God intends the rape, but God is the only one who can create life. "Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," he said. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
Now let me see if I have this right. God didn’t intend the rape. He intended only the product of the rape – the pregnancy. But how does he suppose the hapless victim can become impregnated by the rapist as God intended if God did not also intend the rape?  Isn’t the rape necessary in order to fulfill God’s intent? The rapist’s seed is God’s “gift.” It’s God’s gift to her for being raped and sacrificing her liberty and peace of mind for the rest of her life, according to Mourdock and the rest of the Republican Party.
Mourdock is the guy who defeated longtime moderate GOP Sen. Richard Lugar in a bitterly contested GOP primary vote, and is facing Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly in November's election. Lugar was not sufficiently evangelical enough to please Indiana Republican primary voters.
Top Republicans have been flocking to Indiana and falling over each other for the privilege of endorsing this deluded Bible thumping idiot. Mitt Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Vice President Dan Quayle, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all have campaigned for Mourdock, and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is due to campaign for him next week.
The chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, released a statement Wednesday morning supporting Mourdock. "Richard and I, along with millions of Americans – including even Joe Donnelly – believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous," he said.
Rep. Joe Walsh, another tea party-backed Republican running for re-election in Illinois, questioned last week the necessity of allowing abortions if a mother's life is at risk, saying such an exemption to an abortion ban was simply a tool by pro-choice activists.
"This is an issue that opponents of life throw out there to make us look unreasonable," Walsh said. "There's no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology. Health of the mother has been, has become a tool for abortions any time under any reason."
But the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly dispute Walsh’s position: “Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health,” they say on their website. “These inaccurate comments are yet another reason why The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (The College) message to politicians is unequivocal: Get out of our exam rooms.”
Republican Party ultra-right-winger Rick Santorum declared that anyone who thinks Richard Mourdock's comments about rape  are outrageous is just playing "gotcha politics."
Too many Republicans ardently believe and are not afraid to say that:
God intends rape babies.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Multiple Manslaughter Without Criminal Intent

Imagine a local meteorologist in your town being prosecuted by the government authority for the “crime” of failing to accurately predict the severity of the weather at an exact time and precise location because a few people caught in a sudden storm were harmed.
That’s ridiculous, right?
Well, of course it’s ridiculous, but not if the weather forecaster did it in Italy.
Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison for failure to predict with pinpoint accuracy the severity of that 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila.
A misguided Italian regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter, i.e. responsible for the deaths of several people killed in the quake. In addition to their sentences, all have been barred from ever holding public office again. The judge also ordered the defendants to pay court costs and damages.
They gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, said government prosecutors.
The seven defendants -- all prestigious scientists and members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, some of whom are Italy’s most prominent and internationally respected seismologists and geological experts -- were accused of having provided "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors felt ahead of 6 April 2009 quake, Italian media report.
In other words, they honestly thought that it would not be as severe in terms of damages as it actually turned out to be.
There was no intent to harm anyone.
But being honest with good intentions in Italy can make you guilty of manslaughter.
Many smaller tremors had rattled the area in the months before the quake that destroyed much of the historic centre. Then, a 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people.
The Apennines, the belt of mountains that runs down through the centre of Italy, is riddled with faults, and the "Eagle" city of L'Aquila has been hammered time and time again by earthquakes which have caused great damage to buildings and other structures.
So the reality of the matter is that it was not a question of if there would be another quake, but exactly when the next big one would happen. Given the state of earthquake science today it was impossible to predict the timing and precise magnitude of such events with any degree of accuracy.
No scientist today has that power. The best that they can do is to speculate about probabilities in the future and that is what they apparently did in this instance. Scholarly bodies around the world have said it was beyond anyone to predict exactly what would happen in L'Aquila on 6 April 2009.
After the verdict was announced, David Rothery, of the UK's Open University, said earthquakes are "inherently unpredictable." "The best estimate at the time was that the low-level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger quake, but there are no certainties in this game," he said.
The case has alarmed many in the scientific community, who feel science itself has been put on trial. Some have warned that it might set a damaging precedent, deterring experts from sharing their knowledge with the public for fear of being targeted in lawsuits.
"If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled," said Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics at the UK's Royal Berkshire Hospital.
What’s next with the criminal authorities in Italy?
Will lawyers there be prosecuted and imprisoned for failing to accurately predict how a jury will decide a case? Will other professionals be deemed guilty of criminal offences for advice to their clients which turns out to be “inaccurate? “
Most civilized nations I’m aware of observe the doctrine of ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind) as part of their criminal laws, especially in serious felony cases involving the death of a victim.
It simply means that the defendant must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have criminal intent in committing the act for which he is charged. There must be evidence as a necessary element of the crime that the defendant knew that the act was wrong: "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty."
In Italy one can be guilty of multiple manslaughter without criminal intent.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

USA: Mass Murderer of Innocents

The United States of America, under the command of President Barrack Obama, is murdering innocent people, including women and children, in Pakistan on a daily basis.
As many as 80% of U.S. drone casualties are civilians according to Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik, and only an infinitesimally small number of victims are bad guys.
The latest US study claims that only 2 per cent of drone strike casualties in Pakistan are top militants. Estimates on the number of drone strike killings vary from about 2,500 to over 3,000 victims, as many as 174 of whom were children.
Researchers at Stanford and New York University say that the American drone strike policy in Pakistan has not helped Washington achieve its goal of curbing terrorism in the region.
The killing of innocents has actually resulted in the opposite: locals hate the US because of the unceasing fear that death may come from above at any moment.
Malik’s accusations are “a major blow” to US diplomacy in the Pakistan, declared Ahmed Quraishi from PakNationalists Forum. “The Americans have been trying very, very hard to convince Pakistanis the drone attacks are actually for the betterment of the country… but I think… this just totally destroys the position of the US from inside Pakistan.
There is no evidence the drone strikes have helped Pakistan cope with its militant problem, Quraishi continued, but the Pakistani military has historically been very successful in conducting anti-terror operations on its own soil.
Pakistani authorities have repeatedly demanded that Washington cease conducting drone strikes to no avail. They have also urged the US without success to share drone technology with Pakistan, saying Islamabad could put it to better use against terrorism.
Pakistan has no objection to using drones against militants, but that it is the method by which the strikes are made the country disagrees with.
So the Pakistani’s, who are much better suited to hunt down the terrorist militants themselves, have been rebuffed by the U.S. because the Americans want to do the killings. We just don’t care that the innocent civilians we are killing by the day have good reason to hate us.
The intentional killing of 80% innocent civilians in order to get 2% of the hard core bad guys is totally unacceptable by any moral standard.
This is just one of the reasons why so many people of the world hate Americans. They perceive the USA as a mass murderer of innocents.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Mars Menu’s & Musical’s

$Billions of dollars in taxpayer money is considered pocket change in the minds of our feckless government spenders. They never think twice about wasting your money on hundreds of worthless boondoggles year after year. The fact that America is currently $16 trillion in debt never enters their minds.
Why should it? It’s other people’s money.
There exists at least one politician who seems concerned. That would be Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, who compiles a periodical survey of government waste. His yearly “Waste Book” is a list of outrageous government expenditures which the Senator blames on a "let them eat caviar" attitude in Washington -- at a time when "23 million of our fellow Americans do not have good jobs."
The U.S. space agency NASA, for example, is busy flushing about $1 million every year down the government toilet on "the Mars menu." Never mind that there won’t be any manned spaceflights to Mars anytime soon, if ever, these space cadets are spending your money now on projects to decide what kinds of foods humans might eat in the far distant future on planet Mars.
The National Science Foundation is shelling out almost $700,000 to a New York-based theater company for the purpose of making a musical production about climate change and biodiversity. "The Great Immensity" opened in Kansas City this year. The musical also allows the audience to experience the exotic taste of "flying monkey poop."
A $325,000 government grant was awarded for the development of "Robo-squirrel" - a robotic rodent designed to test the interaction between rattlesnakes and squirrels.
If it were up to me, I’d redesign the experiment to test close proximity provoked interactions between rattlesnakes and unprotected government bureaucrats. That might prove to be worth the money.
In all, the 2012 Waste Book report details 100 examples totaling nearly $19 billion in government waste which Coburn describes as only snapshots of the bigger government spending problem.
Included are taxpayer funded government subsidies for free cell phone service to some 16,500,000 participants at a cost of nearly $1.5 billion a year.
The book also reveals widespread abuse of the food stamp system. A certain exotic dancer, for example, earned more than $85,000 a year in tips, yet collected nearly $1,000 a month in food stamps while spending $9,000 during that time period on "cosmetic enhancements."
The U.S. government wastes an estimated $70 million every year just on the losses for making pennies. "The cost to produce a penny in 2012 is more than two times its actual value."
That alone tells us that the value of our money these days is no longer worth even half the value of the metal used to make it. Soon our currency won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
Why is that?
Well … it appears that government Mars menus and musicals have a lot to do with it.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

USA: Murder Incorporated

Murder and mayhem throughout the world has become the mission of the United States of America for several decades now. Acts of Congress are no longer necessary. The president simply compiles a list of human targets and sends a military drone or CIA goon squad out to kill them. Nowadays even American citizens are included on these lists.
Forget about international law, declarations of war, the constitution or due process; the president acts just like a Mafia don today. Legal authority is not required. It’s all accomplished in secret with plausible deniability. Even if the president and his government thugs are caught red handed, so what; they’ll just plead national security and walk away from the mess unaccountable and uncharged.
That’s how it works in Washington today and that’s how it was half a century ago when the Kennedy administration unilaterally and secretly decided to get rid of Fidel Castro and his Cuban communist regime without observing the niceties of the law.
Castro had come to power by revolution in 1959 and quickly aligned himself and Cuba with the hated Russians during the so-called cold war. In JFK’s mind, Fidel Castro had to go. He didn’t want a communist government on friendly terms with Russia only 90 miles from our shores.
So in April of 1961, only three months after assuming the presidency, Kennedy secretly, and without Congressional authority, launched the Bay of Pigs invasion of the Cuban mainland seeking to oust Fidel Castro and the communists with the help of anti-Castro Cuban exiles.
The invasion was a catastrophic failure and Kennedy was left with egg on his face. More than 100 members of the CIA-sponsored invasion team were killed and many were captured by Cuban forces.
The fiasco served to embolden Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, who obtained Castro’s permission to install a few Russian nuclear missiles on Cuban soil to be pointed at the U.S.
That led to the infamous Cuban missile crisis between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in which President Kennedy was successful in convincing them to back down and remove the threat.
Of course, the U.S. had nuclear missiles in Turkey and other countries all over Europe pointed directly at the Soviet Union, but never mind that; that was perfectly justified in the minds of Americans.
By now, JFK and his administration was embarrassed and pissed off to the point of removing Fidel Castro from the face of the Earth at any price, at any risk, and the law might be damned. History reveals several outright attempts by the Kennedy administration to assassinate his political adversary.
Ironically, it was JFK who wound up assassinated
Last week several documents belonging to JFK’s brother, the late Robert Kennedy, who was Attorney General during the Kennedy administration, were revealed. Among the 2,700 pages of these documents is found a CIA memo outlining a Mafia-connected plot to assassinate Castro.   
In the 1964 plan, the mob and "patriotic Cuban exiles" eventually settled on a payment of $100,000 for assassinating Castro, $20,000 for his brother Raúl and $20,000 for revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, plus $2,500 for expenses.
Foiled again – this plot also failed – both Kennedy brothers were assassinated and Fidel Castro still lives. Live by the sword, die by the sword clearly applies in this instance.
The government of the United States of America was secretly and unlawfully working hand in hand with the Mafia. No doubt they still are.
USA: Murder Incorporated.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Power of None

The “None’s” are coming.
They are growing in numbers.
Their power is on the rise.  
They are poised now as a political force to be reckoned with.
The big question: Who will harness and exploit this power for political gain?
They’re the “None’s” – the fastest growing philosophically oriented group in America. They are people with no religion at all. According to a Pew survey one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.
That’s 20% of the entire American population and that percentage is growing by leaps and bounds. Non-religious Americans have grown by 25% just in the past five years and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans. Thirty-three million have no religious affiliation and 13 million in that group identify as either atheist or agnostic.
And you can take my word for it; there are plenty more of these “None’s” in the pipeline and in the closet just waiting to come out. When they do, the political landscape in the United States of America will undergo an epic change.
These religiously unaffiliated are strikingly less religious than the public at large. They attend church infrequently, if at all, are largely not seeking out religion and say that the lack of it in their lives is of little importance.
“There is much less of a stigma attached" to not being religious, explains John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew. “Part of what is fueling this growth is that a lot of people who were never very religious now feel comfortable saying that they don't have an affiliation.”
Young people between 18 to 29 years old are rejecting religion in droves. According to the poll, 34% of “younger millennials” - those born between 1990 and 1994 - are religiously unaffiliated. Among “older millennials,” born between 1981 and 1989, 30% are religiously unaffiliated: 4 percentage points higher than in 2007.
Green says that these numbers are “part of a broader change in American society.” “The unaffiliated have become a more distinct group.”
“As more of the voters are unaffiliated and identifying as atheist and agnostics, I think the politicians will follow that for votes,” explains Jesse Galef, communications director for the Secular Student Alliance. “We won’t be dismissed or ignored anymore.”
The Pew survey suggested that the Democratic Party would do well to recognize the growth of the unaffiliated, since 63% of them identify with or lean toward that political group. Only 26% of the unaffiliated do the same with the Republican Party.
"In the near future, if not this year, the unaffiliated voters will be as important as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party collation,” Green predicted.
The “None’s” reject Republicans because right now the Republican Party is the party of religion.
In announcing the survey’s findings at the Religion News writers Association conference in Bethesda, Maryland, Green said the growing political power of the unaffiliated within the Democratic Party could become similar to the power the Religious Right acquired in the GOP in the 1980s. “Given the growing numbers of the unaffiliated, there is the potential that that could be harnessed,” he said.
It doesn’t have to be that way, I say. This could prove to be a huge bonanza for the Libertarian Party if Libertarians can find ways to convince these voters to reject the Democratic Party. That should prove to be easy.
After all, the “None’s” should reject the democrats for largely the same reasons that they have rejected religion. Religion is anti-freedom. Religion is a form of socialistic collectivism. Religion is dogmatic and authoritarian.
And so is the political philosophy of the Democratic Party.
The Republicans are too stupid to go after the “None’s.” They will eventually pay for that stupidity when the numbers of “None’s” overwhelm the evangelicals. That is bound to happen. The only question is when?
Very soon now, we will witness the power of None.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Government Middle School Sex Indoctrination Statists

Government mandated compulsory public school education is patently unconstitutional in my opinion. It violates the First Amendment Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association clauses of the United States Constitution. It also clearly violates the Fifth Amendment due process clause by wrongfully depriving innocent persons of their liberty.
The state has no legitimate business forcing its political and educational agenda upon a free people. It does so for the purpose of compelling personal conformance to the dictates of the collective; controlling and depriving the people of their right to freedom of thought and individuality during their formative years.
Of course, every child should have the benefit of a basic education, to acquire the ability to read, write and reckon, but that instruction and all other educational input should remain private and at the sole discretion of the child’s parents until the age of majority. If parents cannot afford to pay for it I have no objection to the government paying for basic education in a private secular setting.
But government statists are not satisfied with compelling merely a basic education to their tender young captives. They want to meddle with and interfere into the most intimate and private aspects of each child’s life, including their sex lives.
Government statists actually want to teach your kids, i.e. indoctrinate children as young as 12 years old, or even younger, on what to think and do about every aspect of sex.
I’m not talking about teaching them the basic concepts of human biological reproduction here. That has its rightful place in biology class. This is about the government teaching your children about its own collective ideas regarding, among other things, oral, anal, vaginal sex.
Statists don’t trust parents to teach their young children about sexual matters when it becomes appropriate to do so. They don’t trust children to learn some things for themselves just as children, including my own generation, have done for millions of years. That’s part of the joy of sex – finding out for oneself how to accomplish the specifics. After all, it’s no one else’s business. It’s private. It’s intimate. It’s individual.
“We don’t care about that,” say the compulsory education statists in Houston Texas today. Hundreds of parents there are outraged, and rightly so, over a new sex education program that teaches 12-year-old children about oral, anal and vaginal sex – and uses a graphic curriculum to instruct students on how to use condoms.
The new curriculum is called, “It’s Your Game, Keep It Real.” You see, they might as well trivialize sex while they’re at it. It’s a game.
“We don’t need the school district showing the kids how to put on condoms,” said one parent. “This is very alarming.”
I agree; especially in view of the fact that it is far and away easier for a teenager to put on a condom when the time is right than for a 5-year-old to tie his own shoes or put on galoshes. Any respectable moron can put on a condom.
“I started looking at the curriculum and I got this sense of dread,” said the parent. “I thought, ‘oh my gosh, what is it that they are putting in front of our kids?’” She’s referring to videos which include cursing and slang, and actors dressed provocatively. “It has heavy petting and making out – and this is the seventh grade curriculum.”
Some of the video was so graphic that a Houston television station was unable to air footage from the curriculum, she said.
“I think its soft porn when they have a girl on the couch and she says, ‘Let me help you put the condom on,’” said another parent. “They’re teaching them oral, anal and vaginal sex… They’re teaching them all kinds of sex.”
Well of course they are. They’re the government middle school sex indoctrination statists.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

God's Law: Kill 'em all

Charlie Fuqua, a former Arkansas Department of Human Services attorney and Republican candidate for Arkansas State Representative, believes that God's law's as set out in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible should be adopted as the law of the land in the United States of America.
Incredibly, this is the same insane goal shared by many ultra-right-wing religiously oriented politicians and their mad followers in America today; they just aren't as vociferous about the plan as Mr. Fuqua. His candidacy is being bankrolled by established Republicans in the state, including the party itself and the House Republican Leadership PAC.
If they ever have their way little American children would be stoned to death without the benefit of a trial or any due process for the "crime" of sassing their mommies and daddy's.
Imagine that – a Department of Human Services attorney running for state office who endorses the death penalty for naughty boys and girls. That’s his idea of government enforced human services in the twenty-first century.
Homosexuals, adulterers, and the like; well you can also imagine what he thinks should happen to them. “Stone ‘em; throw ‘em into the fire; kill ‘em all.”
In his book God’s Law: The Only Political Solution,” Charlie explains that he supports killing wayward kids because that’s what the Bible provides. “The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline,” he writes.
“Therefore,” he concludes, “a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.”
“Even though this procedure would rarely be used,” explains Fuqua,”if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.”
Not to be taken lightly? Would be rarely used? Maybe Charlie ought to read the scripture again before he introduces this bill in the state legislature:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21   (King James Version)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
It appears from the broad language of this law that there is no age limit; it would still be applicable when the child is 40 years old, indeed, right up until the death of the parents, as I don’t know of many little kids who are also gluttons and drunkards.
Fuqua has another hair up his ass about the “Muslim problem.” He thinks that it could be solved by expelling all the Muslims from America. He explains on his website that liberals and Muslims have formed a “strange alliance” around their links to the “antichrist,” because, “they both deny that Jesus is God in the flesh of man, and the savior of mankind.”
Oh, yes, and prisoners who cannot be “rehabilitated” within two years should just be executed to save money according to Charlie.
It’s all part of what many Republicans want for America:
God’s law: Kill ‘em all.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Einstein’s Best Discovery

Albert Einstein possessed, in my opinion, the greatest scientific mind of the twentieth century. His discoveries and insights into the complicated realm of physics have contributed more to the progress of wisdom and humanity than all the ranting and babblings of every messiah, prophet, priest, rabbi, pastor, imam, preacher, minister and clergyman combined who ever lived.
My vote for greatest scientist of the nineteenth century goes to Charles Darwin, who proved once and for all the origins and mechanisms by natural selection of all biological species, and in the process that the creation story in the Holy Bible is bunk. He richly deserves the title of father of modern biology.
For this remarkable and elegant world changing scientific discovery, Darwin was vilified and scorned during his lifetime. Albert Einstein would have been vilified and scorned as well had his own well informed views about religion been revealed to the multitudes of religious savages during his lifetime.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
This wonderful original document reflecting the insight of a great scientific mind, dubbed Einstein’s “God Letter” by the Los Angeles-based auction agency that's posting it online, will be up for auction on Monday. The opening bid: $3 million.
Einstein, who was raised a secular Jew, wrote it one year before he died to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, in reaction to Gutkind’s book, “Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.”
“I’ve been managing high profile auctions since 2005, and this is the most historically significant item to come up ... since I’ve been doing auctions,” said Eric Gazin, president of Auction Cause, the group that's organizing the eBay auction.
Einstein was “one of the most brilliant minds to ever live, but so much of what we know is scientific. … As related to God and Judaism, this is so significant. It really lends itself to further study,” said Gazin. “No one even knew this letter existed till recently.”
In this letter, Einstein declared in no uncertain terms his strong opposition to the idea that Jews, or any people, may be “chosen.” “For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups … I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”
I deem Einstein’s insight into the fraud of God and religion as his greatest discovery – not because it was complicated – but because religion has done more to obstruct the progress of humanity than any other phenomenon I can think of, including disease, pestilence, and all manner of natural disasters. The more who realize and understand that the better, especially world renowned scientists.
But, of course, this simple truth did not originate with Einstein. Far from it – It is the least complicated of his discoveries. It has been known consciously by a minority of humanity for millennia, and as I point out in my book, Authority! -- Implications of Consciousness and the Reality of Existence, unconsciously to all of humanity and every living and non-living entity in the universe of existence.
We all know it instinctively and unconsciously. I myself made the conscious discovery as a mere lad of seven years. God and religion are totally incompatible with the reality of existence. There is no truth to it. It is all imaginary.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that the vast majority of scientists today have rejected religion as an explanation for the realities of existence. Religion is incompatible with science. Charles Darwin proved it. Albert Einstein took it for granted.  
Science is all about the observation, examination, study, and appreciation of the reality of existence. Religion is nothing more than an accumulation of consciously created falsehoods which contradict reality.
This could hardly be more obvious to any critically thinking mind, yet a majority of people alive in the world today still believe in the Biblical creation story and reject the fact of scientifically proven evolution. They reject science as the method for revealing and explaining the reality of existence. They remain intellectual savages.
When will Einstein’s greatest discovery be universally accepted?  

Thursday, October 4, 2012

America: It’s About Class, Stupid

The whole point about the founding of the United States of America was that this was not to be a nation of classes like all the nations of Europe and the rest of the world.
Right from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, the federal statutes and the laws of all the states, there were no legal provisions for an American aristocracy because, in theory at least, all men were supposed to be equal.
But, of course, we know that’s all a load of bullshit; America has been a society of classes from the beginning; it’s just that they were never carved in stone; there was always a bit more mobility and elasticity between them here.
If you watched the presidential debates today like I did you realized that the politics now is all about class. But there is only one class which matters today – only one class which is politically correct to mention – the so-called middle class.
Not once did President Obama or Governor Romney mention a lower class, an upper class, or any other class in America; it was all about the middle class. They might get away with talking about rich people and poor people, but you will never catch a politician today talking about any class except the middle class, i.e. the American class.
It’s like it’s OK to be in the middle class, that’s wonderful, but in the United States of America there is really no lower or upper class, both of which carry a stigma that no one wants to be associated with. After all, America is supposed to be a classless society.
And then, of course, there is the political class, that aristocracy of criminal parasites who would rather associate themselves with the middle class so they can try to blend in with normal people.
Perhaps one of the dumbest in the political class, Vice President Biden, said Tuesday that the middle class has been "buried the last four years," a gaffe that Republicans pounced upon immediately to use against President Obama at the first presidential debate.
He said that at a campaign stop in Charlotte, N.C., thinking he was successfully criticizing Republican tax policies which Democrats claim would cut taxes for the rich and hike them for the middle class.
"This is deadly earnest," Biden said. "How they can justify -- how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that's been buried the last four years. How in the lord's name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?"
How about that? A tax cut for the “rich” is actually a tax hike for the “middle class.”
Mitt Romney loved it. "Agree with @JoeBiden, the middle class has been buried the last 4 years, which is why we need a change in November #CantAfford4More," he tweeted.
"Joe Biden said what so many Americans are feeling every day. For four years, the middle class has been buried by Obama's failed policies from higher taxes to more debt which is why he has a difficult time explaining why he deserves another term in the White House," said an RNC official.
A Romney campaign email also included numerous examples of the middle class being "buried" during Obama's term -- by debt, by high unemployment and by falling incomes. An Obama campaign official countered, blaming Republican policies for crushing the middle class -- well before Obama took office.
"As the Vice President has been saying all year and again in his remarks today, the middle class was punished by the failed Bush policies that crashed our economy -- and a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is a return to those failed policies. With more than five million private-sector jobs created since 2010, the Vice President and President Obama will continue to help the middle class recover and move the nation forward," said the official.
You see, the lower class wasn’t affected be either the Bush or Obama economic policies, nor was the upper class, and certainly not the political parasite class, which benefits no matter how the economy is performing. Only the middle class suffered. That’s because, as far as they are concerned, it’s the middle class which will determine the outcome of this presidential election.
The fact of the matter is that everyone has suffered the effects of the Bush and Obama economic blunders – even the political parasite class. Their home prices have tumbled just like everyone else’s and the value of the dollars in their wallets is plummeting by the day. It’s just that they can fix that for themselves in the future while the rest of us can’t.
America: now it’s all about class – the middle class.