Friday, September 24, 2010

More Brutus's Needed! "Et tu" apply now!

"You, too, Bru Crew?"

By Phasma Scriptor


The documentary produced by Joel Bakan, Professor of Law at British Columbia University, “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profits” (The Corporation Film: Joel Bakan, 2003) (“TC“), attributes a psychological condition, specifically, Antisocial Personality Disorder, to the manner in which corporations frequently behave (and, ultimately, always behave since only the most pathological of corporations thrive and, as a consequence, are able to cannibalize less pathological organizations). Maneuvering corporations into psychoanalysis, that is, in a courtroom setting, would have a potentially devastating effect on the willingness of predatory corporations to commit what would be considered heinous crimes were the perp to belong to the company of real live humans. Because of the ability of corporations, in general, and certain corporations, in particular, to defrock attorneys for arbitrary and capricious reasons, litigation of that magnitude would need to attract attorneys with the integrity of the legendary Untouchables. Possible, but unlikely without some reasonable way, even with the odds adversely stacked, to a W as the desired outcome.

Part of that path would have to include, inter alia, the initiation of a Katy-storm-the-ramparts public relations blitzkrieg on the Internet to provide a loud and raucous chorus of web-based supporters. Parallel to the e-path, organizing “spontaneous” scenes in TC similar to those defiant Bolivians, oppressed by one of those corporations, Bechtel, is the kind of backs-against-the-wall, us-Davids-against-the-Goliathan physical presence that encourages nicely irksome “film at 11” media coverage, even though, as the blogosphere has informed us, Internet PR is almost as effective as takin’ it to the streets. A more socially beneficial use of flash mobs organized via Twitter would quickly direct demonstrators to the appropriate courthouse steps, where handbills, rapidly produced on site, could be distributed to the litigation faithful for passing out to passersby, but especially to courthouse denizens. Judges prefer to operate “in closet” and not with mug shots on leaflets that become viral as those leaflets give courthouse copiers a workout and reporters a convenient press release. Mudslinging high-rent PR firms that pimp for the commercial behemoths meet your populist, on-the-cheap, street-fight match.

Corporate officers and their corporate lawyers, engaged in the long con rising, like a specter, from the collective id of the corporations, have plotted, as pawns for the ultra-super-rich, for over a century-and-a-half to transform totally artificial entities into real live humans, sort of a wicked-Blue-Fairy-morphs-Pinocchio-into-Stromboli vision of terror in an economic eclipse of civilization; the recent US Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, USSC No. 08-205, 1/21/2010, 08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (01/21/10)) which purports to allow unlimited corporate contributions to political candidates, has seemingly finalized the imputation of real live human status to corporations, an ultimate legal term of art … based on Dr. Frankenstein’s concepts of what constitutes human life.

Citizens United mainlines right into the cold-blooded veins of Richard A. Posner, former Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and still pontificating after all these years, who is the putative father of the judicial theory of economic efficiency (Biography - IT Services: Documentation - home.uchicago.edu). According to this so-called judicial theory, a euphemism for radically activist judge-concocted, separation-of-powers-busting legislation from the bench, litigants with the greatest financial prowess ought to prevail more often than not with the result that litigants whose financial resources are exhausted first can’t afford justice. This flows, like hot lava scorching its way downhill, from the cautionary tale of the very common judicial put-off that the pathetic slob of a plaintiff/defendant must exhaust all his/her administrative remedies before the courts will hear the case, meaning, of course, that the poor will always lose to the defendant/plaintiff with a massive bankroll, meaning, of course, big business, since what gets exhausted first is the wallet of the impecunious litigant. Thus, presuming to give the judiciary the discretion to weight rulings based on pocketbook factors (fatter being better), which would be unconstitutional (per the 14th Amendment, FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, to say nothing of Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Deuteronomy 16:18,Deuteronomy 16:19 - Passage Lookup - New ...) if written into statutes, is an invasion of legislative authority; a purposeful intention to favor the rich and/or the powerful (like the king who is not permitted to do wrong, according to Par. 61 of the Magna Carta, Amendment I (Petition and Assembly): Magna Carta, c. 61) is so foreign to the basic tenets of equality upon which the US was founded that ripping the fabric of this society seems an apt metaphor. (Note: The word “unconstitutional” is used in the relative sense, since, as will be shown in a future post, the Constitution of the United States has been knocked out of the box)

That sneaky, weasel-y Supreme Court judges might aspire to dominate the other branches, after sucking the authority of the states dry, was the subject of Anti-Federalist Papers Nos. 11, 1/31/1788, and 12, 2/7/1788 (The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers - Humanities), penned by "Brutus", the nom-de-plume widely thought to have been New York State judge Robert Yates, a delegate to the Federal Convention. Yates went further than that old politician’s tale about absolute power; he described the collegial intergenerational spirit of the brethren (and, now, sistern) in the art of grifting and grafting in high political places:

Every body of men invested with office are tenacious of power; they feel interested, and hence it has become a kind of maxim, to hand down their offices, with all its rights and privileges, unimpaired to their successors … [AFP, No. 11]

This sort of putrid process bears the distinct stench of the Pharisees, acridly arising into the noses of those who are really supposed to be in charge, which would be, purportedly in this country, the People. What Yates/Brutus foresees is the usurpation of ever more power by the supreme court pursuant to the gifting of a wide “latitude of interpretation” by the proposed Article III (FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III), far beyond any boundaries of the separation between federal, State and local governments.

[T]he same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority. Every extension of the power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts; and the dignity and importance of the judges, will be in proportion to the extent and magnitude of the powers they exercise. [ibid]

Would the judiciary and its cherry-on-top, the Supremes, operating under this maximizing principle, ever stop extending and increasing their sphere of authority? Well, yeah, saith Brutus, when they had totally subjugated the States, which, by the provisions of the proposed constitution would be made inferior to the federal administration.

[T]he leading features of [the judicial branch as set forth in the proposed Constitution] will operate to a total subversion of the state judiciaries, if not, to the legislative authority of the states.

* * *

The judicial power [of the supreme court] will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, … an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. … In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted. [ibid, emphasis added]

But, would the judges and so-called justices restrain themselves after bringing the States to heel? NO! But not because they loved subverting the States less, but that they loved subverting the federal executive and legislative branches more.

If Yates had extended and increased his own line of reasoning into, what was apparently for him, the unthinkable or, at least, the unmentionable, he would have come to the conclusion that the logical end of that line would be the conclusion, be the final chapter, be the see-ya of the proposed free nation as a free nation, wherein, the federal judiciary didn’t just subvert the States, but also both of the other federal branches … and, by that means, subvert the People themselves, who, after Citizens United, are looking pretty pathetically powerless.

Yates goes on to explain how these judges and so-called justices, empowered under the proposed Article III, would have a ready, recent model.

[The federal judges] will have precedent to plead, to justify them in [their usurpations]. It is well known, that the courts in England, have by their own authority, extended their jurisdiction far beyond the limits set them in their original institution, and by the laws of the land. [emphasis added]

When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul? [ibid]

(Note: Brutus makes a bru-boo by stating that the kings, er, the judges of England could “by their own authority [extend] their jurisdiction far beyond the limits set them in their original institution, and by the laws of the land.” No such “authority” existed; what is described is a usurpation of authority, that is, stealing the authority.)

So, past is prologue, especially where precedent is king … and queen, rook, knight, the whole damn chess board. As I’ve suggested above, the more appropriate historical path for comparison would be the subversion of the Laws of God, the Torah (The Torah), by the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-20 - Passage Lookup - King James Version .) whose slow-cook-the-frog techniques, amongst the longest of long cons, successfully turned the divine Commandments on their head, which Yates states as, “This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please.” [ibid, emphasis added]

Clearly, Brutus was an honorable man … and a prescient one whose perceptions have been fully justified by, in the last instance (and the last straw), the Roberts-cum-Kennedy Court.

ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Happy Equinox!!!

Today, September 23rd, is the first full day of autumn in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of spring in the Southern Hemisphere.

My friend Bob Johnson from the World Union of Deists reminds us of what Thomas Paine said;
"The Equinox reminds us of the truth to this statement about the Creation being the only true word of God which Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason: "It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the Earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

The September Equinox Explained
(from http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/september-equinox.html)

The September equinox occurs at 03:09 (or 3:09am) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on September 23, 2010. It is also referred to as the autumnal or fall equinox in the northern hemisphere, as well as the spring or vernal equinox in the southern hemisphere (not to be confused with the March equinox). This is due to the seasonal contrasts between both hemispheres throughout the year.

The equinox will occur in the evening of September 22, 2010, for locations on US Eastern Daylight Time or further west. To find the September equinox date in other time zones or other years, please use the Seasons Calculator.


This illustration, which shows an example of the September equinox, is not to scale.

What happens during the September equinox?

The sun crosses the celestial equator and moves southward in the northern hemisphere during the September equinox. The location on the earth where the sun is directly overhead at solar noon is known as the subsolar point. The subsolar point occurs on the equator during the September equinox and March equinox. At that time, the earth’s axis of rotation is perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the earth and the sun. This is the time when many people believe that the earth experiences 12 hours of day and night. However, this is not exactly the case.

Dispelling the “exactly 12 hours of daylight” myth

During the equinox, the length of night and day across the world is nearly, but not entirely, equal. This is because the day is slightly longer in places that are further away from the equator, and because the sun takes longer to rise and set in these locations. Furthermore, the sun takes longer to rise and set farther from the equator because it does not set straight down - it moves in a horizontal direction.

Moreover, there is an atmospheric refraction that causes the sun's disk to appear higher in the sky than it would if earth had no atmosphere. timeanddate.com has a more detailed explanation on this topic. timeanddate.com has more information on why day and night are not exactly of equal length during the equinoxes.

The vernal equinox occurs in the spring while the autumnal equinox occurs during fall (autumn). These terms are derivatives of Latin. It is important to note that the northern hemisphere’s vernal equinox is in March while its autumnal equinox is in September. In contrast, the southern hemisphere’s vernal equinox is in September and its autumnal equinox is in March.


This is a time to celebrate life! Spring and new life for the Southern Hemisphere. Harvest and plenty for the North.

Enjoy your spring or autumn Equinox!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Tea Party Tuesday

I'm starting a new feature for Tuesdays. Tea Party or Tea Bagger Tuesday depending upon the content of the information. In our first installment is our friend and fellow traveler down the road of truth telling, Larken Rose.

Tea Party: Worthless? Well...
By Larken Rose


Okay, now that I've bashed the Libertarian and Constitutional political parties as being worthless, how about the so-called "Tea Party"? Does it have any chance of achieving anything positive?

Well, the Tea Party as a whole doesn't actually believe anything. Basically, it's a conglomeration of lots of people disaffected with the "government" they see today. Well, so what? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that so
mething is horribly wrong. The question is, what do the Tea Partiers intend to do about it? If they were in charge, what would they do?

The trouble is, very few of them have anything even vaguely resembling a coherent philosophy or belief system. When I hear people using terms like "r
easonable regulatory controls," "responsible government spending," "lower taxes," "accountability in government," and so on, it tells me that their complaints are not based on actual principles, but are based only upon the current unpleasant side-effects of tyranny. In short, they don't even know what they want; they only know that this isn't it.

It's a safe bet that if you don't even know what you're trying to achieve, you won't achieve it. And I believe that most people who wear the label of "Tea Party" supporter fit that category. They see things to complain about, but they haven't the slightest clue of the underlying cause of the problems. In truth, the underlying cause is still lodged firmly inside their very own heads. They firmly believe in the very delusions that led to the current disaster, and that would lead to it again if they were "in charg
e."

About the most depressing thing to me when I read first-hand accounts of what happened in Nazi Germany has to do with the opposition to the Nazis. The major opposition to the Nazis were the people advocating communism. Talk about a hopeless endeavor. When the argument is about what flavor of totalitarian, violent authoritarian control should be in place, the outcome is certain to be unpleasant. The Germans arguing for communism didn't have the slightest idea why national socialism (Nazi-ism) became what it did. As a result, they argued for something that, in principle, was no better--in fact, it was no different. If the entire spectrum of political ideas in a country is communism versus socialism, things are doomed to get extremely nasty.

And so it is (though to a less drastic degree) with the "Tea
Party" folk. If what they are hoping for is some modifications and reforms to a system of violent control and economic plunder, all of their efforts will accomplish absolutely nothing. To be even more blunt, that part of the "Tea Party" movement concerned with voting and lobbying does not have an ice cube's chance in hell of achieving anything worthwhile. And I suspect that's what most "Tea Party" folk are focusing on: "working within the system" (i.e., playing by the rules made up by the tyrants) to achieve freedom.

As I've explained before (over and over again), to play the game of voting, to praise the cult of democracy, is to begin by conceding that you are someone else's property. The control freaks must be thrilled to pieces every time they look out and see their victims trying to vote them out, or petition them to change their minds. As long as the slaves are groveling, and begging, "please, massuh," the slavemaster knows he's in charge.

The question is, how many Tea Party folk are ready to stop begging and whining, and instead break their chains and walk off the plantation? Very few, I suspect. To put it another way (which makes most loyal subjects uncomfortable), how many Tea Party folk are prepared to "break the law"--i.e., disobey the politicians--in their attempts to achieve freedom? Again, I suspect the number is pretty small.

The very name, "Tea Party," is somewhat ironic. It's a reference to a dramatic act of illegal resistance (the Boston Tea Party). (Incidentally, there were several things about it that were fairly stupid, too, since it harmed a
private industry more than those in "government.") But I would bet that most of those who now call themselves "Tea Party" members are not only too scared to actually disobey their masters (which is somewhat understandable), but don't even dare to think about it inside their own heads. They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the notion that obedience to "authority" and "government" is a moral imperative, that they won't even allow themselves to consider "breaking the law" to achieve freedom.

Let me be blunt. As long as you won't break a "law" to be free, you won't ever be free, because you're not even free inside your own head yet. If you still feel a moral obligation to obey the commands of politicians (which they call "law"), then all you're doing is begging the master to not whip you so hard. Even if he agrees (fat chance), you'll still be a slave.

For the most part, the Tea Party movement is beyond utterly worthless: it is hugely counter-productive, because it will use
up huge amounts of resources and energy of good people, without making them a bit more free. However, if those who are so upset actually dare to think about things, re-examine philosophical principles instead of just whining about details, it might end up doing something constructive, at least for some of those involved.

If, instead of thousands of people standing around outside the lairs of the overlords, whining for "change," there were thousands of people simply disobeying their masters, that might accomplish something. If, instead of whining to the megalomaniacs to end various wars, people quietly stopped funding, or otherwise sabotaged war-mongering efforts, that might accomplish something. If, instead of begging for "lower taxes," people simply stopped paying, that might accomplish something. And--to be terrifyingly blunt--if people stopped merely complaining about the fascist crap that the state
mercenaries ("police") get away with, and started resisting them instead, things might change. (If the consequence for a fascist thug who beat the hell out of an innocent, unarmed civilian was death, instead of a paid vacation, it might happen less often.)

As long as the final decision of how the people are treated rests with the masters, and their hired thugs, the people can whine, vote, beg, and complain all they want. It will achieve nothing. But if enough people start coming to the realization that they own themselves, and that they don't need a "law" saying so, they don't need "legislation" giving them permission to keep what they earn, or to make their own choices, and if they start acting like people who understand and love liberty, they might actually get some. But I'm afraid that describes only the smallest fraction of those in the "Tea Party" movement.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Nancy L. Cohen

If you liked Rovian anti-gay marriage referendums, the Terry Schiavo saga, anti-abortion litmus tests for diplomatic service in a war zone, and creationism in the Grand Canyon bookstore, you'll love this season's Tea Party candidates.

Why are we just getting the bulletin about "social conservatives" in the Tea Party movement? The media, beguiled by the period costumes and libertarian theatrics of the Tea Party demonstrations, overlooked from the very beginning the influence of veteran Christian rightwing activists within it. But read between the lines and you'll find clues that the Christian Right has been in the Tea Party trenches from the start. A few examples:

  • USA Today illustrates a report on the Tea Party movement's seven defining attitudes with a photograph of a Tea Partier holding his gigantic family bible. Their poll (with Gallup). however, doesn't ask a single question about social issues.
  • An April New York Times poll notes that Tea Partiers are more conservative on social issues than other Republicans, only to dismiss the point as irrelevant.
  • A brilliant article by historian Jill Lepore profiles Christen Varley, president of the Boston Tea Party. Varley says she's new to politics. But she is a home-schooling parent, and works for the Coalition for Marriage and Family, a nonprofit formed to try to get a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot. Home-schooling and anti-gay groups are two of the most important sites of political activism in the Christian Right, though you wouldn't know it from the article.

The successful Tea Party candidates reveal how vital social conservatism is to Tea Party voters. Would-be GOP Senators Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell are bona fide Christian zealots. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust!" according to O'Donnell, during her stint as the founder and president of the abstinence group, Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. Angle put her name in the '90s to medieval-themed screeds against gays, and famously said that teen rape and incest victims "can turn a lemon situation into lemonade." In Alaska, an onerous anti-abortion ballot measure helped drive up turnout for Joe Miller. Colorado's Ken 'Vote-for-me-because-I-don't-wear-high-heels' Buck favors a state Personhood amendment, an anti-abortion measure which would effectively outlaw many common forms of birth control. Likewise, he favors a "much closer relationship" between church and state and turning over government services to faith-based groups.

And then there are Sarah Palin's 'mama grizzlies' -- Carly Fiorina (CA), Nikki Haley (SC), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Christine O'Donnell (DE), and Angle (NV). What they have in common is not a ginned up conservative feminism, nor anti-government populism, but rather a common mission to legislate traditional Christian values. Each one plans to make abortion illegal and man the barricades against gay marriage. O'Donnell, Angle, and Palin have been vocal about how their conservative Christian faith shapes their political beliefs. Haley, faced with a difficult primary race, soft-pedaled her Sikh upbringing and testified to "living in Christ every day."

In this season of the libertarians, even the one genuine article, Kentucky's Rand Paul, would like to put the government back in your bedroom.

By their enemies you shall know them. The Tea Party's targets reveal even more about the primacy of social issues. Charlie Crist is a solid fiscal conservative, but has socially liberal inclinations. The Tea Party almost took down Mark Kirk, a pro-choice Republican with a decent chance of winning Obama's former Senate seat. Mike Castle's fatal act, according to Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council, was to author "left and lefter" legislation on stem-cell research.

So why did the Christian Right flock to the Tea Party movement, and what explains their libertarian posturing? To survive after Bush, the Christian Right had to rebrand and lay low. That's nothing new. When Clinton took office, as I detail in my forthcoming book, Christian Right operatives were explicit--among themselves--that their recovery depended on deception. As Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, put it: "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night."

In joining the Tea Party movement as a silent partner, today's Christian Right is taking a page from an old playbook--the one that ushered the GOP back into power in 1994 and in 2000.

Yet signs are emerging that veteran Christian Right leaders have become so confident they've decided to come out of the closet and claim their right to dictate terms to the GOP. First there was Glenn Beck's emphasis on faith, not politics, at his August rally. He and Palin struck the same notes at their Alaskan 9/11 commemoration. That same weekend, top Republican strategists convened for Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing. At the conference, weathervane Gingrich predicted that the "election of 2010 and 2012 will be a referendum on values."

Of course there are genuine and sincere small government, fiscally conservative, quasi-libertarians in the Tea Party. With the faithful claiming power, however, tensions have flared. A Quinnipiac poll suggests that the Christian rightwingers will prevail: Born-again evangelicals are the most dissatisfied group in the nation, and the group most likely to say they would vote for a Tea Party candidate. The GOP knows well that Christian conservatives are their most reliable constituency, and won't cross evangelicals simply to hold onto the handful of votes wielded by libertarians.

History shows that when the Christian rightwingers control the GOP, the voters recoil, and Democrats win. As the mirth over O'Donnell's anti-masturbation video subsides, attention is finally turning to the real Tea Party, and its extremism on abortion, gay marriage, the family, religion, and sexuality in general. It's none too soon. Half the electorate is still undecided or knows little about the Tea Party. There's still time to get the word out. But only just.

Monday, September 20, 2010

News for the Reasonable

From Deistic Thought and Action by the World Union of Deists

Parents who let their premature baby die because of their belief in the lies of the Bible regarding faith-healing have withheld evidence from the police according to the prosecutor.

Will the International Atomic Energy Agency demand to inspect Israel's nuclear arsenal? Iran wants them to as do many other nations and people. Israel is the only KNOWN country in the Middle East to have weapons of mass destruction. It is reasonable to have the IAEA inspect their nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Of course Israel's political prostitutes in the White House and Congress will either do nothing to see that an inspection takes place or they will actively oppose an inspection.


Non-religious Jews in Israel oppose the cruel superstition of Orthodox Jews who look to chickens as their saviors. The religious Jews swing chickens, some dead some alive, over their heads thinking this is an atonement for their sins. "Revealed" religions can get people to do some very silly things!


Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is openly critical of Obama and Bill Clinton in regards to Israel's expansion into Palestinian land in his new book, White House Diary.


Is burning Korans a good idea?


Pat Robertson's former director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, is now back with his own coalition, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Reed was mixed-up with the convicted felon Jack Abramoff and is a shyster of the worse sort. His goal is to not only for more riches and treasure, but to turn America into a Bible based theocracy where he is one of the important and powerful grand poobahs.


Here's an interesting article about the religious right's influence in the Tea Party movement.


Jerry Falwell is dead and gone but his deception lives on in his son, Jerry Jr., and in his Liberty University. Christian author Peter Lillback, who recently had Glenn Beck turn his book George Washington's Sacred Fire into a best seller, gave a speech at Liberty University. The event was Constitution Day and Lillback painted a false picture of America's Founders as Christian zealots. I don't know if he mentioned that the Bible and Christianity are not mentioned at all in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. If America's Founders intended to create a Christian nation they would have clearly stated so in both of these documents. They did not. Click here for America's Deistic origins and here for the religious beliefs of George Washington.


The murder trial of a husband who killed his wife during an exorcism has been postponed until October. The very fact that superstition is alive and well to the point of people actually believing in Satan and exorcisms shows how much more work Deists have to do!


Tens of thousands of tickets to see the pope go unsold in the United Kingdom! That's some great news!


A Roman Catholic priest is murdered in South Africa for shortchanging a man after he had sex with him. The priest, appropriately named Father Sham, was in charge of Boys Town in South Africa.


Two more victims of pedophile Catholic priests step forward in California. I could fill this entire issue with accounts of Catholic clergy molesting innocent children. This just goes to show Christianity has nothing of value to offer people since it can't even keep its own propagators from committing such unnatural and disgusting acts.


God-given reason is not important at all in the "revealed" religions. An example of this is the Catholic Church applying harsher rules against priests who ordain women as priests while being much more lenient towards priests who sexually molest children and infants!


Satanists regroup and still plan a reverse exorcism! Satanism is just an unreasonable superstition just like all of the other "revealed" religions.


Islam attacks the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees free speech. An American cartoonist, Molly Norris, who published an image of Mohammed, ignorance and superstition is upon him, on her website entitled "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was told by the F.B.I. to go into hiding so Muslims will not get a chance to murder her. To see how insecure Muslims are who are opposed to drawing Mohammed, here's a link to the images they want to murder over.


2,000 year old medicine in pill form found in ship wreck off of Tuscany, Italy. Can you imagine how much more advanced we'd be now if Christianity did not take Western civilization into the Dark Ages???

Friday, September 17, 2010

Become Dangerous!

This is an excellent entreaty to help preserve liberty. It comes roundabout first from Strike the Root by way of The Militant Libertarian .

Become Dangerous!

by Paul Bonneau, StR

You know who you are. You're a "philosophical libertarian" or "philosophical anarchist." You might think of yourself as a bit bookish or intellectual. You tend to express yourself through words rather than action.

You have a philosophical agreement, perhaps including some discomfort, with the right to bear arms. You either don't own a gun, or the only one you have is an old .22 rifle you inherited from your grandfather which you shot once 15 years ago; it is now sitting forlorn, rusting in the closet.

You are not a full-blown pacifist (all such may check out at this point). You have run certain scenarios through your head and they have all come out badly, when you are honest about it.

Your problem is that you are not dangerous. This article is intended to help you remedy that. I know, this sounds ambitious; but bear with me.

OK, why be dangerous? Isn't non-violence always better?

I am not arguing for violence on your part, but for the capacity for violence, when such is called for. There is some difference there. To bring up an example, think of the stereotypical peaceful kung-fu master from TV or the movies, walking around spreading good and kindness. He avoids or deflects any dispute he can, but finally there is no way to get out of the climactic fight, usually to protect a weaker or smaller person.

After all, what are you going to do if someone breaks into your house (remember those scenarios that turned out badly)? What is a man for, if not for defending his family? I would go so far as to say that is his primary function for his family.

Strange though it may seem, one does not give up being peaceful by becoming dangerous. In fact, the reverse is usually true. When I started carrying a gun, I noticed that slights, perceived or real, that formerly would have gotten me into a threatening stance if not outright fighting, no longer bothered me--it was like water off a duck's back. I no longer had anything to prove; I knew I could take care of myself and my family. And this is no rare effect--I've seen it remarked upon frequently when people have told about taking up concealed carry of a firearm. It is the natural result of becoming dangerous.

Even Gandhi, the individual most cited by peaceful people, wrote, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." His genius of course, was taking these lemons the British handed him, and turning them into lemonade. Nonviolence worked so well there because Indians were basically rendered incapable of responding violently to British provocations (which might have short-circuited any gains made nonviolently). However, Americans will not be disarmed. This is not the British Raj.

Another reason to become dangerous: we may be thought by the ruling class to be their farm animals, but they will treat us better if we are dangerous, than if we are not. As Machiavelli put it, "Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible." It's definitely not good to be thought contemptible. Being thought dangerous usually forestalls the worst outrages. Imagine some significant percentage of the population heavily armed, not willing to put up with the state any longer. Now imagine the same population disarmed. Quite a difference.

But let's finish with the philosophical arguments and get on with it. I'm assuming you will at least entertain the notion of becoming dangerous, but have not a clue where to start. This former high-school science nerd will give you a hand, by cutting through the massive amounts of bullshit and controversy in the world of gun-nuttery, and giving you just what you need to get started. I hope so, anyway.

Oh, and we are talking guns, after all. "Be not afraid of any man, No matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me And I will equalize." This 1880's-vintage Colt advertising slogan suggests a freedom technology, personal firearms, every bit as significant as Gutenberg's printing press or the Internet. It's time you got up to speed on it. Some statist women's groups reject firearms as "tools of the master," but I wonder if they also reject computers and automobiles? Such notions are silly.

Woops, there I go, getting philosophical again.

What are we "shooting" for? Basic competence in handgun and rifle. This is not very difficult. We are not talking anywhere near the commitment needed to get a black belt in karate. That is why this technology is so revolutionary--the smallest woman or the weakest old fart can no longer be intimidated by the largest, meanest thug. Firearms competitions are almost the only kind of sport where women can compete directly against men. That's saying something.

The Tools
On gun forums you will see interminable arguments about what works best, but I suggest you bypass this unless you find you enjoy being drawn into gun-nuttery, as has been known to happen. Instead, buy these three tools:

1) Any semi-auto .22LR rifle
2) Any quality 9mm handgun, your choice (no Ravens, etc.)
3) AR-15 rifle

Before you go shopping however, burn into your memory, forwards and backwards, Cooper's Four Rules of safety. Go buy yourself Cooper's The Art of the Rifle.

The purpose of the .22 is to get you familiar with shooting and gun handling of a semi-auto. Even a $60 Marlin will do. The .22 is also the most insanely useful cartridge on the planet, despite its ancient lineage. Also it's way cheap.

The AR-15 has become almost a commodity by now; just pick any reputable manufacturer. Most gun shops will not sell you schlock, if they want your repeat business (and they do). Stick with a lightweight 20 inch barrel and make it a "flat-top" (no carry handle). The point of a flattop is to put modern optics on the gun; iron sights are silly these days--it's time to move out of the 19th Century! You don't have to go overboard with the optics. Some people sneer at anything less than $150 for rings and $1,000 for the scope, but that is more gun nuttery (a $200, maybe $150 scope should do). You won't be throwing your rifle on the road and driving over it, will you? The scope should be in the 1x4 range (that is, a variable with a low of around 1 power and a high around 4 power). You need the low 1 power for city work, which covers 90% of the population, and for in-house defense. Always leave the scope set at 1x, and only dial it up for the odd long-range shot. A lighted scope reticle is nice if you ever need to shoot in the dark. For the gun, I don't like barrels shorter than 20 inches, despite the small disadvantage for in-house use, because shooting inside a house (e.g., self defense) even with a 20 inch barrel will damage your hearing, and the 16 inchers are pure evil for muzzle blast. But hey, it's your hearing (do use hearing and sight protection for all practice sessions, of course).

For the pistol, ignore the .40 and .45 caliber snobs. The 9mm (9x19 AKA "Parabellum" AKA "Luger," not "Makarov" or "Largo") is the world standard, and substantially cheaper to shoot. For self defense (unlike practice), stick with quality hollowpoints, and shoot enough of them to be sure they feed properly in your gun. Many recommend Glock, great if you plan on driving a truck over it. They have light, sucky triggers. Light is for experts in my opinion, sucky is for lawsuit avoidance. I use a CZ. Just go into the shop and find one that fits your hand well and has a heavier but smooth trigger (a Kahr, maybe?). Don't get too wrapped around this choice; if you don't like it, you can swap it for something else without too huge a loss. It's a tool, that's all.

Practice a reasonable amount with the pistol, using cheap "ball" ammo (and for Heaven's sake, learn the difference between "bullet" and "cartridge," otherwise you will be immediately marked as the tyro). The gun nuts insist on your taking multiple classes from nationally recognized trainers before you can be considered competent, completely missing the point of this technology, which is that you can avoid black-belt level expertise but still get the job done. Any criminal you encounter won't care about your training because he will be running away the instant you haul out a gun.

With the AR-15, you won't be hunting deer with this cartridge (the .223 Remington AKA 5.56 NATO--it's too small a cartridge) but just imagine you are. The kill zone in a deer is roughly a 12 inch circle, so make paper targets like that. Could you reliably kill a deer at 300 yards using field positions? Keep at it until you can; by then you will be ahead of half the military (or more). It is reasonable competence.

Don't have the cash for this? Out of a job? One can find old "police turn in" .38 Special Colt or Smith & Wesson revolvers, used to be $200 but like everything the price has gone up. Try haunting estate sales, as you might get lucky. For rifles, some call the SKS the "poor man's battle carbine," but if you are going to make compromises, I'd rather point you in the direction of a used, scoped bolt action deer rifle. The Wehrmacht did pretty well in WWII using a bolt gun without a scope, so they are not to be sneered at. For caliber, the .308 Winchester is preferred (as it is also a common military caliber); avoid at all costs any kind of Magnum caliber. Anyway, do what you can with what you have.

To be honest, a scoped .308 Win bolt gun might be substituted for the AR-15 even if you are not poor, although gun nuts would be scandalized to hear it (and the government won't think of you as so dangerous--silly them). It's just not an inside-the-house defense gun; far too much penetration (not nice for the neighbors) and not enough speed in reloading. But penetration can be an advantage if you are trying to shoot through cover. The .308 striking power is much greater than the .223, and it is a better long-range gun.

I hope this helps.

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons." ~ Jeff Cooper

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Self-inflicted KICK ME, Part 2: The Self-Inflicted KILL Me

The Self-inflicted - KICK ME, Part 2:
The Self-Inflicted KILL Me! KICK ME Part 1: HERE

By Phasma Scriptor

What’s wrong with this picture, the one where the
dumshitteabaggers join in a chorus of Bronx cheers to put down the extension of tax cuts for the middle-class simply beca
use the dark-skinned Prez is advocating them and not a similar extension for the wealthier Americans? Depending on the statistics you use, the economic pie of the US has a piece that’s bigger than 2/5 of the whole held by 1% of the people, leaving 3/5 for the other 99%; however, the ratio (see The Self-inflicted Kick Me, Part I) is more stark. The families at the top have, relatively, net worth at a ratio of 42.7/1, whereas, everyone else, even that very well off next 1% on the ladder, have their share at a ratio of 57.3/99. That makes the comparative ratio 42.7/.5788, or 73.77 to 1. Of course, remove that 2nd 1% and the comparative ratio gets much worse and when you take into account unquantifiable factors (like the critical mass of high net worth), it’s very, very much worse, into the triple digits. Still, that top 1% with an average superiority of net worth of way more than 70 times everybody else is a graphic reminder of that old investing proverb “You have to have money to make money.” The bleedin’ obvious is that they ain’t giving up that advantage without a fight. Fortunately for the 1%, the DSTs are fighting for them … as planned.

If the ordinary wage-earner gets a cut in taxes, he/she spends it on products that, joined with others who purchase similar items (which are nearly always items in the class of mass production, the priciest of which is, in the range of a middle-class tax cut, a down payment for a car), represents a significant increase in demand for mass-produced items. Even when the moderately-to-extremely-rich decide a yearly tax cut of $100,000 or more (what they’ve been getting on average since the largess of Jr.) is reason to go out and blow the whole bundle (for them, small change) on something to make them feel good about themselves, they don’t go out and buy 100 Gs worth of goods and services the peons would buy. They’re much more likely to purchase upscale, way up, goods and services that have a much lower to no impact on the economy as a whole, such as artwork, antiques, summer houses, imports, vacations in exotic locations, investment counselors, blahblahblah.

So-called unproductive assets of the kind that are out of the reach of most of us have an impact that’s limited to a very narrow segment of the economy since very few people are employed in producing those much pricier goods and services, some of which require nothing more than glorified sales clerks (who prefer to be called brokers or agents, but definitely not pimps) to get them into the hands of their tony clientèle (the upper-crust’s self-congratulatory euphemism for snootiness), especially those items that are either imported or are used in a foreign country, meaning, the labor force for those products is somewhere else, not in the US; that’s outsourcing of purchases, very similar to outsourcing of jobs by multinational corporations and any business that buys from multinational corporations. Of course, the wealthy are far more likely to put a tax windfall not into that which generates the demand for ordinary goods and services (thereby driving the real economy) but into instruments that simply make more money for their already bloated personal balance sheets (what lower-class type has a balance sheet?).

Look at it this way. When the rich spend in places that are exclusive (due to the high prices which excludes poorer people from becoming regular customers, think Julia Roberts on Rodeo Drive in “Pretty Woman”), their
effect is like a dart, very pointed, very precise, very quick as to the real people that benefit, but, also, very shallow with short-lived effects, certainly without requiring the resort to what’s known as capital expenditures (e.g., investing in large manufacturing/service infrastructure). When the middle-class and poor spend, the benefits are broad-based, get spread around to everyone, even the rich; that affects the nation more like a bulldozer - slower, requiring the ramping up of large facilities that have major production capacity (capital expenditures, including acquisition of more real estate) which also drives companies that fabricate giant production line equipment; deeper, because of the nature of capital expenditures, written off over several years requiring the belief that demand from the middle-class and poor will sustain the commitment to the purchase of heavy and/or high-tech equipment, leasing space, etc.

The former effect has limited scope as to the velocity of money, the speed with which money circulates through the economy (which increases overall prosperity), since, like a dart thrown at the surface of a pond, the ripples are small and dissipate without spreading far. The latter effect obviously makes an enormous difference; try throwing a bulldozer into the same pond. The sheer mass (the huge majority of middle-class and poor consumers) of the bulldozer forces money through the system, the entire system, and, at full effect, rushing all the way out to all the edges of the pond wi
th large waves and the additional response of the criss-crossing of the waves that ricochet off the entire economic border. Unlike the dart’s ripples, when the process gets started, the bulldozer’s waves move quickly and move huge volumes.

In the milieu of the ongoing revolution in
smart-phones (not even close to saturation; see, e.g., Phone Sales Push Profit at Best Buy ), the demand-side of the US economy has economy-sized untapped means to handle and exploit those bulldozer waves more efficiently than in any era in the history of human consumption. The reaction to any source of demand increase will surge more swiftly throughout the whole economy (velocity of money) than even five years ago, smart-phones enabling a significant portion of the commercial transaction process to shrink to near zero as to time required (accomplished at the speed of light), the increase having an exponential component because of the synergy of the large percentage of mobile phones that are “smart”, the constant re-upping of the apps on smart-phones, and the acceleration of the competence of smart-phone users as to the features of those phones, which are way, way beyond what they were only two years ago, having achieved capabilities greater than ye olde mainframe computers ... in pocket-size.

The best way to open this flood of prosperity, which the ultra-super-rich really don’t want for us slaves (and, apparently, neither do the DSTs), is to kick-start the process with federal funding of bulldozer-size projects, repairing the extremely dangerous condition of the nation’s infrastructure, all of it. Crumbling roads (due in many instances to corrupt construction companies having built long sections - usually in corruptly managed urban areas - of the current marshmallow fluff interstates using sub-sub-standard materials), the frazzled electric grid, cracking/leaking dams that threaten entire communities downstream, uh, down-tidal-wave, the subsistence level of renewable energy facilities, rotting underground plumbing (some made with wood, really old wood), etc., ad puking, uh, nauseam, mmm, ad nauseam leading to puking
. Infrastructure projects, necessarily joint ventures between private industry and governmental agencies, bring profitability (taxes being profit to governmental agencies) to all sides of the pond with big waves that have societal benefits far beyond the money thing, even though the money thing ain’t bad because the actual costs of repair vs. new infrastructure are, on the writ-large scale, like constantly fixing an old beater vs. buying a new or, at least, newer car, to say nothing of how much safer, more efficient, more enjoyable it is tooling around in a new/newer car. Gee, I don’t hear all those weird rattles, squeaks and clunks anymore.

The monster fly in this ointment; like I've said (see Robin Hood and his Merry Socialists), the ultra-super-rich remain, always, always, always, since the beginning of ultra-super-rich as a tiny class of oligarchs, in redistribution UP mode, socialism for the ultra-super-rich wherein the redistribution is in their fa
vor at the expense of everyone below, a brutal situation the DSTs just don’t seem to figure out, at least, the ones who aren’t on the pad of the super-rich. In the previous posting, the gap between the income (acquired without labor) of the super-rich and the wages and salaries (earned through labor) of the rest of Americans is as chasmal as it was just prior to the Great Depression.

There is no disputation allowed here. This is a case of the numbers bearing the naked reality of what happens when the lower classes, lower than the super-rich, aren’t watching the backstabbing knife that the super-rich, enabled by the ultra-super-rich, since time immemorial (or, at least, from the time of the Robber Barons of the 19th Century) have raised over the serfs they consider unworthy of having a decent life. Amongst friends, I’ve said that CEOs, like Richard Fuld of the defunct Lehman Bros. Investment banking firm (the intentionally-pulled trigger to the near-collapse of the entire global economic system in 2008), are put in place by corporate boards for one overarching reason, “To f**k everyone in sight, without mercy.” If they don’t do that, they WILL be removed and, given the Fuld example of plundering Lehman to the stuff-his-pockets tune of $500 million, that’s a ½ billion reasons to be a good suck-up CEO. Even the bottom line isn’t as important as the all-encompassing screw-over, although, ruthlessness, mercilessness, and downright mean-spiritedness are all pretty useful when trying to maximize corporate profits.

The 2007 documentar
y film “The One Percent” (T1%) produced, directed, written and narrated by Jamie Johnson, a joint-heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, is a film that started on a very personal note - using Jamie’s own family to launch an inquiry into the mindset of the exceedingly wealthy (of which his family is one) whose kitties run into the billions. The mistake Jamie’s parents made was allowing him to attend NYU, a school with that famous liberal bias, where he probably was inspired to think seditious thoughts, such as, that the concentration of nearly half of the total assets in the US in the hands of a very few people in the top One Percent couldn’t “be good for America.” Hence, his active conscience moved him to make this documentary.

Although T1% has a touch of first-time-out feel to it, the service to humanity that’s provided is invaluable, a peek into upper-crust-think unlike the misleading nonsense of an agent provocateur like, say, Alex Jones whose infantile staged scenes at Bilderberg meeting parking lot entrances with a bullhorn rant are indicative of what he thinks of his audience. Jamie, in contrast, recorded the actual expressions of upper-crust-think because he was one of they and, being comfortable with Jamie, opened up in a way that guys with bullhorns would never and will never elicit.

Perhaps the most revealing of upper-crust sentiment was from Karl Muth, at the time of T1%, a student at the Univer
sity of Chicago, the school that wreaks of Rockefeller $$$$$ and the cocoon of economics moth, Milton Friedman, the guy who hatched trickle-down theory; it’s what happens when you fly too close to the flame. Muth is currently a graduate student whose writings are already being given top-shelf treatment by various high-toned websites, as though he’s being groomed as the next Nobel winner.

[Note: The Prez taught law at the University of Chicago, but unlike Muth, wasn’t caught up in the kiss-up-to-the-wealthy syndrome; see, e.g.,
John K. Wilson: The Times' Distorted Professor Obama, The Huffington Post, 7/30/08]

While taking Jamie on a tour of the battered ghetto neighborhood where Muth’s new, very pricey condo was part of a classic Chicago-style “gentrification” takeover (where robber baron developers, like City-Hall pal A
rthur Rubloff, buy wrecked communities several city blocks at a gulp, have the assessors start raising taxes to run out the riff-raff and then build new, pricey condos), Muth matter-of-factly said, not in a gee-I’m-only-joshing tone, “[It’s easier to] cleanse the earth of these people [ghetto-dwellers], send them to the far reaches of the universe, and the mayor [Richie Daley] will build a big police station, build a bunch of townhouses. The yuppies will buy in and 'bugify' [sic] it [make bourgeois] and suddenly we'll have a community. Yeah, there'll be a bunch of people displaced. Yeah, there'll be a bunch of crime problems. But it's easier. We've found the easy solution.” ‘Nuf said, except to ponder the genesis of Muth’s genocidal attitude. Let’s see, that WAS the Rockefellers who sponsored eugenics theorists that found an eager practitioner (not just hypothetical talk, but real life cutting into the balls of Jews) in Josef Mengele and the rest of the Rockefeller stooges in the Third Reich; see, e.g., Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection - SFGate, 11/9/03; Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton, 1976 (print), 1999 (online).

Subsequently, Jamie interviewed Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, now a professor in public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. What Reich noted was that Charles Darwin, father of modern evolutionary thought, didn't actually, though most people believe otherwise, coin the term “survival of the fittest”; rather, the term originated with Herbert Spencer, dubbed a social Darwinist who supposed that if we just allowed the rich to get richer, society would benefit because, so opined Spencer, we “want to discourage the poor from having a lot of children and basically surviving. ... [That philosophy is] behind much of the social policies we're now seeing [under Jr.’s administration at the time T1% was made]." In other words, socio-economic eugenics as policy from Bush43. Just so you don’t miss it - the advocates of this policy are against everybody in the lower 99 and, although they’d prefer that the colored go first, they’ll throw anyone in the lower 99 under their critically massive financial bus so they can freely breathe the limited resource known as air; go read a few chapters of Bertrand Russell to get clarity; see Schiller Institute "How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man ... for starters.

For you X-Files aficionados, that episode featuring the massive secret vault in an abandoned mine in West Virginia where smallpox vaccination records were stored with associated tissue samples for everyone ever so vaccinated (
"The X-Files" Paper Clip (1995), episode 3)? The inspiration was the 1904 edition of the Rockefeller (and Carnegie and Harriman) eugenics project (SFGate, ibid) in which millions of standard issue lower and middle-class Americans (the usual targets - blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Native Americans, but, also, ta-da, dark-haired hillbillies and the handicapped of all races), targeted for deportation, confinement and/or forced sterilization, had their pertinent ancestral and medical information recorded on index cards stored at a facility in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island; Eugenics, ibid. X-Files producer Chris Carter’s shout-out to the Allied spiriting of Nazi scientists into the United States, the real-life Operation Paperclip, was the Victor Klemper character in that episode, who in turn represented the real-life Nazi import, Dr. Hubertus Strughold, hence, the mining facility was, in that episode, called the Strughold Mining Company, with nasty connotations all around. Strughold was accused, almost certainly correctly, of participating in the Mengele monstrosities, but, with the possible exposure of the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Harriman paymasters for Mengele, Strughold, et al., he was never seriously threatened with prosecution.

The origin of the gas-chamber, around the time of WWI, as a means of ridding the Earth of undesirables (way before Muth’s more mo-dern, more hip “solution” of shipping them to another universe) was, another ta-da, here, here … in the good ‘ol USA and that was the most humane mode of eugenicide on the dockets of the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Harriman-financed fermenting medical looney-tunes … oh, yeah, an insult to Daffy Duck. When the great Nazi venture of the super-duper rich failed, eugenics was put on hold … but, natch, not forever.

A final note, before this particularly nauseating tale is put on hold (for another post), the refusal of the Rockefeller’s top boy in the Department of War, Assistant Secretary John J. McCloy (thereafter, the Rockies’ top lawyer fixing their dirtiest business worldwide), to assist in aiding the prisoners in the Nazi d
eath camps (see, e.g.,A Pledge Betrayed: John McCloy; this site also discusses the promotion of eugenics by Daddy Bush as a generational legacy), should be seen with this perspective - McCloy’s refusal kept the Jews (and others) in situ as a plentiful source of human lab rats for the Nazi Frankensteins to cut up.

Of course, it should now be clear from whence Mr. Muth gets the general idea for his fantasy final “solution” to what the Rockefeller eugenicists referred to as “breeders”. Oh, nice. Here they go again, Dr. Muth and his snooty cohorts as cheerleaders for the oven-meisters.

So, what’s the point? All that other Econ 101 stuff is child’s play compared to the genocidal business end of the weapons of the super-duper rich aimed at the poor and middle-class. The
DUMSHITTEABAGGERs, who are steadfast in that category of people-you-can-fool-all-the-time, have been given false impressions of FEMA prison camps supposedly meant to incarcerate troublemakers in times of deep societal unrest and violent upheaval. Nothing so overt would ever be undertaken and wouldn’t need to be. The eugenic maniacs of the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Harriman cabal have so many much more technologically sophisticated methods of dealing with undesirables that even the suggestion of such FEMA concentration camps for the suspected purpose is entirely a hoot. Self-delusion does seem to be the hallmark of the DSTs.

One example of easy pickin’s. Currently common monoclonal antibody techniques enable bioengineers, of which the ultra-super-rich have the entire Big Pharma industrial complex at their beck and call, to custom-make super-bugs (for which there is no antibiotic or other palliative) with double-time quickness which, if released in a crowd, would land on everyone and give only the one genetic target the bleed-out blues. FEMA concentration camps? That’s so mid-20th Century. Fuggedaboutit. But even super-tech invisible attacks aren’t gonna happen simply because the DSTs are doing the bidding of the super-rich, the rally for tax-cuts-for-the-super-rich being only one of an entire agenda of policies that the super-rich would want and for which the DSTs have been screaming their approval.


That leads to this one question for the DSTs. Why are they doing the work of the ultra-super-rich (and, only incidentally, for the super-rich), of which the Koch Bros., e.g., are toadies, the Kochs having funded all those silly Astroturf efforts? Sheer stupidity comes to mind, but that’s probably giving them too much credit. In the 1960s, the black-power movement was front and center with the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, led by Stokely Carmichael, a firebrand deluxe. When Stokely discovered who it was that was funding SNCC (the Chase Manhattan Bank, i.e., David Rockefeller and Morgan Guaranty Trust; see, e.g.,
SpeakUp 101 - Hegelian Dialectic - Quotes, Facts, Rants, quoting from The Capitalist Conspiracy, G. Edward Griffin, 1971), he announced the co-opting of SNCC the next day and then, poof!, Stokely was involuntarily opted out. Does any DST have that much integrity and/or brains and/or guts? I don’t think so; besides, for any DST so empowered, the old don’t-let-the-door-hit-you-in-the-ass-on-the-way-out warning would be his/her marching orders from the agents-provocateur running those running-dog-and-pony shows. The DST clowns are having this purity party and think they have all the answers when they have ZERO. They’re suffering from that Pogo effect. We have met the enemy and they … is us. Political and, only in the unlikely event the DSTs figure it out, literal suicide.

The
self-inflicted Kill-Me!

Constitution Party: Worthless

Constitution Party: Worthless

By Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/2000.html


In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has watered down its message, basically dumping the principle it was founded on, in order to get votes. Well, while I'm at it, I might as well offend some more people. The Constitution Party is also worthless. Why? Several reasons:

1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution to have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some of what the Founders wrote--the Declaration more so than the Constitution--expressed some pretty darn important and profound concepts, they still ended up creating a ruling class. It was supposed to be a tiny, "limited" ruling class, but they still pretended to bestow upon politicians certain powers that you don't have, I don't have, and none of the writers or signers of the Constitution had. Nice trick.

Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to give some of those "equal" people the right to forcibly rob all the other "equal" people. Yes, the power of "taxation" was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of everyone being "created equal," and the only purpose of "government" being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.

2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become "Constitutional," and what would the Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule.

(It's worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who didn't like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times more accurate than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the beast they were creating would remain small and meek.)

3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it. This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for "legislative" permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that "government" was not supposed to do at all-- yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will change that, you're implicitly conceding that they weren't inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the "inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever you could--including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"--to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master's permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain "rights" via the political process is an inherent contradiction.

4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn't, why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit (or in any way it's duped into supporting)?

5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn out differently next time?

(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion (see correction below), the Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically than others.)

- ------------------------------------

Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:

There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take any bit of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into power and control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of profoundly important truths. For example, had they quit after the Declaration of Independence, I would have had very few complaints. But the fundamental principles stated by some were immediately hijacked by others for their own power.

Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican Party is now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm of the "Tea Party" movement, to use as a source of power for itself. In other words, they are trying to use the advocacy of freedom as a tool to gain dominion over others. This is an exact rerun of what happened a couple hundred years ago, when a few pro- freedom radicals (e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the truth and got some attention, and some political conmen hijacked the results, and used it as a tool for power for themselves. The result was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make sure you're not accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and control freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually want you to be free.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step toward freedom would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, because of any "political" efforts?)

In this post, I incorrectly listed the Whiskey Rebellion AND Shay's Rebellion as taking place after the Constitution was ratified. The Whiskey Rebellion was after, but Shay's Rebellion was shortly before, under the "Articles of Confederation." It doesn't change the point, but I didn't want my history botch-up to go uncorrected.