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

Friday, January 20, 2017

Abortion extortion

What would you think of a law that allowed new home buyers to sue the builder when they change their mind about the design long after the house is built? Do you think that home builders would be willing to build houses under such circumstances? 

Obviously, such a law would encourage buyers to extort product and service providers for money damages without cause for simply doing what they contracted to do. You would think that’s ridiculous. You would think that’s unconstitutional.

Tell that to the Iowa Republican parasite politicians who are considering a law that would allow a woman who gets a legal abortion to sue the doctor who performed it if she experiences emotional distress later. They’re Hell bent on extorting physicians into not performing abortions. What doctor would continue performing legal abortions if they knew that the patient could sue them later for merely doing what he or she contracted to do?

The law would permit a woman to file a lawsuit against the medical providers at any point in her life. So 20 or 30 years after the fact a woman who changes her mind and alleges emotional distress could sue her doctor for cash money.

"What we're asking for is that individuals, doctors and clinics that make money off of women by giving them abortions are simply held accountable," declared the GOP religious parasite who introduced the bill. . "That's all this does. It protects women from people who would normally be trying to sell them something in a time when they are under the most stress that is kind of imaginable."

Accountable for what? The woman is the one who made the decision which is allegedly causing her mental anguish – not the medical provider. Surely she should be the only defendant in such a lawsuit. She should be suing herself. This law doesn’t protect a woman from anything. It would simply extort medical providers out of the practice of providing legal abortions.

"The bill's intent is clear: To demonize abortion providers, set up an adversarial relationship between provider and patient, shame women and block access to reproductive health care," declared a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

That’s an understatement.


This is nothing less than abortion extortion. 

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Climate tyrant morons

Did you know that there are lots of people on this planet who wouldn’t hesitate to punish you severely for the “crime” of not agreeing with their opinions? When they can’t win a debate with reason, logic and facts, they demand that you be thrown in jail. It just shows us how insecure they are about their opinions. 

Perhaps the most famous example of this cultural phenomenon is the persecution of Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei during the early 17th century for the heresy of’ accepting the Copernican concept of heliocentrism thereby putting into question the traditional geocentric orthodox biblical understanding that Earth was at the center of the universe and that the Sun and all the stars revolved around it.

Today, radical Islamists kill people, including lots of other Muslims, who refuse to believe the Islamic religion exactly the same as they believe it. You can get your head lopped off in many parts of the Middle East if you question whether Muhammad is God’s prophet.

And then there are the radical global warming alarmists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who laments the fact that there are no laws (yet) on the books to punish global warming skeptics. “I wish there were a law you could punish them with,” he decries. “I think its treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous?  Yes I do.” Do I think they should be in jail? I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals,”

Kennedy is known for wanting his political opponents jailed. Of global warming skeptics he declares: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” He calls coal companies “criminal enterprises.” Their CEO’s “should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

 “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers – ‘Those denialists should face jail – Criminally negligent – It’s time to punish the climate-change liars,” says the Gawker global warmist website. In 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused Congressmen who voted against the climate cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” He has said that deniers should be executed.

“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers,” queried the website, Talking Points Memo. “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”

Global warming alarmists like Al Gore have been spewing this garbage for decades now. Yet none of their dire predictions involving total destruction of planet Earth because of man caused climate change have come true. Temperatures are not rising. Sea levels are not rising. Deserts are not expanding. Sea ice is not disappearing. Polar bears are doing just fine.  

Now, Kennedy says:  “I support the First Amendment which makes room for any citizen to, even knowingly; spew far more vile lies without legal consequence. I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty. This can be accomplished through an existing legal proceeding known as charter revocation. State Attorneys General can invoke this remedy whenever corporations put their profit-making before the public welfare."


No they can’t, Mr. Kennedy. Corporations have First Amendment rights too. And don’t forget that truth is a defense. You are just another climate tyrant moron, sir. 

Monday, January 9, 2017

Russian to judgment

This ongoing Russian/U.S. election hacking “scandal” is the biggest international political uproar over nothing I’ve ever seen. We’re supposed to be shocked – shocked – that the Russians might have been engaged in activities that the United States and every other nation in the history of the planet has been doing routinely for thousands of years

The hypocrisy with this amusing situation is palpable. After all, when it comes to spying, hacking and meddling in the affairs of other people and countries, surely the United States is second to none. No nation does it better than us. 

We invented computers. We invented the Internet. We have all of sixteen separate intelligence agencies – spy agencies -- here. Every one of them has been spying, hacking and meddling constantly at least since the end of WWII.

We don’t simply spy, hack and meddle in foreign affairs. We don’t just try to influence their elections. That’s child’s play for the United States of America. Yes. Our own government has graduated from mere child’s play long ago. We’re now in the nasty habit of completely toppling other governments whenever we feel like it, for the purpose of installing regime change to our liking. We are the masters of espionage and political destruction.

So for our government to cry foul so stridently demanding punishment and sanctions against Russia for hacking the DNC’s and John Podesta’s emails; for threating to start WWIII over such nonsense is ridiculous. And that is assuming – Russian to judgment if you will – that they are the “culprits” who leaked the information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of sabotaging Clinton’s campaign and thereby helping Trump win the election.

I, for one, don’t think the Russians did what they’re accused of doing, but even if they did all of what our sixteen intelligence agencies insist they did, it amounts to absolutely nothing. All of the hacked information gathered and leaked was 100% true. No one is disputing the veracity of it. The Democrats were up to no good and they got caught. That’s the long and the short of it. Maybe the Russians did us all a big favor.

Any computer savvy individual could have hacked that information without leaving a trace. That’s because the information wasn’t the least bit secure. The password to Podesta’s email account, for example, was “PASSWORD.” How much hacking do you think was required to get into his account?

We know for certain now, ever since the Edward Snowden revelations, that our own American intelligence community was in possession of all the same information from its inception. They have all of my emails. They have all of your emails. They have everyone’s emails.

There is nothing electronically that we can do which escapes the attention of our own spooks. So why didn’t our own spy’s do what they’re accusing the Russians of doing? They surely had the motive, the means and the opportunity. There are plenty of spooks in our own intelligence community who wanted Clinton sabotaged and Trump to win.

And Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, insists that the Russians were not the source. Who do you believe – a pack of professional liars from Clapper to Comey, or Julian Assange, a proven truth teller; and a man of integrity?

Finally, think about this: why would the Russians want Donald Trump as president over Hillary Clinton? I can’t think of a single logical reason. I can think of lots of good reasons why our own spooks would want Trump though. After all, Trump is tough, smart, and competent. Clinton is sick, weak, stupid, pliable and lazy. Clinton could easily be blackmailed and manipulated by Putin. Nobody manipulates Trump.


I think thoughtful Americans should think this all over very carefully and in the end refrain from Russian to judgment 

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Having none of it

James A. Haught writes an excellent and compelling article chronicling “The Long, Slow Death of Religion” in America. The institution is already on death’s door in most of the West and today Christianity is fading fast in the U.S.A. I also observed this phenomenon more than four years ago in my blog post: The Power of None.”  

It’s a fact. The “Nones” are coming, I said. They are growing in numbers. Their power is on the rise. They are poised now as a political force to be reckoned with -- people with no religion at all -- the fastest growing philosophically oriented group in America. According to a Pew survey one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion. They ignore faith.

In 1990 the number was just 10%. Four years ago that number had doubled to 20% of the entire American population and, as I observed then, that percentage was growing by leaps and bounds. Now Mr. Haught explains that the number has ballooned to 25%. Yes, now the nation’s largest faith category is no faith at all. Dozens of surveys find identical evidence: Fewer American adults, especially those under 30, attend church — or even belong to a church. 

Why?

The Internet has surely taken its heavy toll. More people today are exposed to a much wider array of rational cultural ideas and practices that undermine old-time beliefs. People are far more cynical today about traditional forms of authority. Young people simply no longer tolerate irrational hostility toward gays, transsexuals and women seeking abortions. The clergy child molestation scandals have shattered religion’s claims to moral superiority. Radical Islamic terrorism in all its irrational forms horrifies normal folks.

Haught brings up an even simpler explanation: In the world of today it is far less plausible to believe in invisible gods, devils, heavens, hells, angels, demons, virgin births, resurrections, miracles, messiahs, prophecies, faith-healings, visions, incarnations, divine visitations and other supernatural claims.  Magical thinking is suspect, ludicrous.  It’s not for intelligent, educated people. People have stopped believing miraculous church dogmas. It’s dishonest.

I remember well the power of religious based laws while growing up in 1950’s America. Few if any businesses were open on Sundays. Prayer was mandated in the public schools. Liquor could not be purchased on the Sabbath. Looking at nude pictures of girls in magazines or writing about sex was against the law. Being gay was a serious crime. Sharing a hotel room with your girlfriend was a crime. Birth control was a crime. Teenaged girls who got knocked up were disgraced along with their entire families. Evolution was not taught in public school.

Think of it. That’s all gone now.


We’re having none of it. 

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Cop justice NYPD style

Those who wonder why some people hate and distrust the police should consider the plain fact that many cops simply don’t deserve our love, trust and respect. If we’re going to expect justice for the common people we must also expect justice for cops.

Consider this recent video showing Sgt. Eliezer Pabon of the New York Police Department shoving a handcuffed defenseless 14-year-old boy with his back to him against and through a plate glass window. It shattered very nearly killing the kid who underwent 4 hours of surgery to remove shards of glass from his lung and near his heart.

Apparently, the 89 pound teenager said something to the cop that he didn’t like. Sgt. Pabon was found guilty by the department for using excessive force after which the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Trials assessed his punishment -- cop justice NYPD style for an aggravated assault upon a defenseless kid who was nearly killed.

Did he have to go to trial? 

Did he have to go to prison?

Well, of course not.

His superiors had requested that he be docked 30 days’ vacation. The Commissioner instead decided to dock him only five days. Compare that to the punishment handed down to another NYPD officer who was docked eight vacation days for saying out loud that he wouldn’t have voted for mayor Bill de Blasio.

So one cop is docked eight days’ vacation for saying he wouldn’t have voted for the mayor while the other is docked five days for shoving a teenager through a plate glass window and sending him to the hospital.


That’s cop justice NYPD style. 

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Bill O’Reilly’s war

I like Bill O’Reilly and enjoy watching his show. But sometimes I find the man incredibly obtuse. 

He insists, for one example, that dealers of hard drugs are committing violent crimes, and gets angry with anyone who disagrees. The fact that there is absolutely no violence involved with simply selling a substance to a willing buyer escapes him.

The possibility that the buyer might misuse the drug and be harmed equates to violence in his thinking. Never-mind that most buyers won’t overdose, Bill still regards the sale all by itself as a violent crime. Under that logic, of course, the seller of any product, legal or illegal, which might be misused by a willing buyer and potentially cause harm, is an act of violence.

Since ten years ago now, O'Reilly has been fighting against an imaginary “War on Christmas.” Now he boasts that he and the “good guys” have won that war, but that “insurgents” still remain. By “insurgents” he means anyone who doesn’t say the words "Merry Christmas" at Christmas time. Such people are warring against Christmas in Bill’s mind -- that means war.

When Bill O’Reilly visits any business or store at Christmas time he checks to see if the employees say “Merry Christmas” or not. If not, “I’m outta there,” he explains. And that’s exactly what he encourages his millions of viewers to do. He has called for an all-out boycott on any business that doesn’t affirmatively promote a "Merry Christmas" to all their customers. It’s a war – a culture war. And anyone who doesn’t say "Merry Christmas" is the enemy.

After 10 years, and a boycott of all his enemies businesses, Bill now insists he’s won the war on Christmas. His former enemies are finally starting to say “Merry Christmas" again and O’Reilly is gratified. “For me, it was interesting to go through that,” Bill exalts, “because some on the far left actually denied there was any controversy at all and claimed that I fabricated it. More lies from a crew that is incapable of telling the truth.”

Today, the American Family Association has issued its annual “naughty or nice” list, Bill explains. It tells the public which businesses are Christmas-friendly and which are not. Cracker Barrel, Hobby Lobby, Kirkland's, Lowe's, Michael's, Wal-Mart and several others all get 5 stars for being nice. “I remember at one time, Lowe's was a problem. But obviously that's turned around,” says Bill. “All of those companies use the word ‘Christmas’ in their advertising and promotion.”

The enemies that are still naughty include Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Foot Locker, The Gap, The Limited, Nordstrom, Office Depot, Office Max, Pet-smart, Staples and Victoria's Secret, because they “marginalized Christmas.” They’re “not in the Christmas spirit.”

Now, what does all this tell us about the mind of Bill O’Reilly? It tells me that this is a man who is not quite fully secure in his Christian faith. If some people don’t want to celebrate Christmas exactly the way he celebrates Christmas, it makes him believe that they’re waging a war against Christmas. He feels threatened.

He tends to regard those who don’t agree with his opinions as enemies. He’s obsessed with what everyone believes about Christmas to the point where he’s willing to take action and start a boycott against such enemies.

Really, why should any Christian secure in his or her faith care if someone else says “Merry Christmas” at Christmas time?

Merry Christmas, Bill!


I sure hope that makes you feel better. 

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Electoral horror picture show

Did you know that the official 2016 presidential election did not happen on November 8th; that Donald Trump hasn’t been elected yet and might not be; that the real election happens on Monday December 19th; that the result is up to only 538 people; and that Hillary Clinton might still become our next President?

Now, I’m not going to panic about this situation. I’m confident that Trump will be elected on Monday by more than the required 270 electoral votes. But I’m afraid that someday, unless it is fixed, our constitutional Electoral College procedure could conceivably turn into an electoral horror picture show which might lead to another civil war.

Even now certain elements in the Democrat Party are fervently attempting to influence the 538 electors to deprive Trump of the presidency and give it to Hillary Clinton. If they are successful that would result in a constitutional crisis and violence in the streets.

You see, right now there are no federal constitutional provisions for a general presidential election like the one we had on November 8th. That’s why, even though he handily won that election, he hasn’t officially been elected yet. Article 2 and the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution set forth the official procedure for electing the President and Vice President.

Art 2.1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Art 2.2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…
So, our presidents are not officially chosen by the people in a general election, but by 538 Electors chosen by the legislators of each of the 50 states. Each individual state determines how their Electors are chosen. The states are not required to choose Electors based on the results of any general election. However, most states have a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state general election gets all the electoral votes and the Electors are chosen by the winning candidate’s political party.

It is generally understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are merely the representative stand-ins for the candidates and are expected to cast their Electoral College ballots for the President and Vice President who appeared on the ballot.

But sometimes electors go rouge and refuse to vote for the designated candidate. Many states have laws requiring electors to toe the line but the constitutionality of such laws is presently uncertain.  

This leaves a window wide open for the kind electoral mischief which could lead to constitutional chaos.

The Twelfth Amendment amended Art 2.3 of the Constitution. It sets forth the voting procedure the Electors are to follow in each state to elect the President and Vice President, and to transmit their results to the President of the U.S. Senate. The problem is that there is no federal constitutional requirement that the Elector vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the state’s general election. So each Elector can theoretically vote for whoever he or she desires.

The President of the U.S. Senate shall, on January 6, 2016, in the presence of the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. If no candidate has a majority then the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the President by vote from among the list of candidates; a representative from each state having one vote. The Vice President is chosen in similar fashion.  


I support the Electoral College as mandated by our federal Constitution; however, I think that the provisions should be amended once again to specify clearly and unambiguously that each Elector is bound to vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in his or her states general election. 

I want to foreclose any possibility in the future of an Electoral horror picture show.