The incarceration rate per capita in the US is by far greater than any other country in the world. Are American people that much more evil than the rest of the world that they need to be incarcerated to such a degree?
How do you reconcile the abolition of the right of habeas corpus and indefinite detention with the Bill of Rights?
How do you reconcile your belief that the President has the power to murder American citizens without due process, with the Bill of Rights?
Since the inception of the Federal Reserve, the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. Is it time that we ended the Fed?
Why is it wrong and illegal for a private citizen to counterfeit, rob, cheat, and steal, but when the government does it, it is considered good public policy?
If America is such a beacon of freedom, why does it need to spend almost half of all the military spending in the world?
How do you reconcile having over 900 military bases throughout the world with the belief in “limited” government?
If marijuana is so dangerous, never having killed one person, that it must be illegal, than how dangerous are the legal prescription drugs that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year?
A trillion dollars of debt here, a trillion dollars of debt there, at what point does that become real money?
What gives the government the right to hold a gun to Americans’ heads while saying, “Your money or your life?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
South Carolina Vote Fraud
Here is the link to the regression analysis on vote fraud in South Caroina discussed on today's radio show.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2ZGU1OWZkZjhk/edit
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2ZGU1OWZkZjhk/edit
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Magic Show
To a rational man it has to be absolutely stunning as to what extent the American people believe in magic. Now, I’m not talking about the garden rabbit-out-of-the-hat variety, but something much more disturbing. So many Americans invert their moral beliefs, as if by magic, when they allow government to engage in an activity that they would abhor in the private sphere.
That became quite clear to me when Ron Paul was jeered and booed for extolling the virtues of the golden rule applying it to foreign policy. Here is a universal code of conduct, proffered by all religions, and also the non-religious. Yet, when it comes to foreign policy, shazamm. Immunity from logic. Individually, the golden rule makes sense. But collectively, through government, the rules are different? We can intervene in the affairs of other nations, bomb, torture, and murder, and not expect adverse consequences? Simply amazing. Shazamm.
Of course this cognitive dissonance does not just cover foreign policy. Virtually all people denounce theft as immoral. Yet, when government does it through the “democratic process,” shazamm, it becomes moral. Of course the founding fathers abhorred democracy. Thomas Paine said, “Democracy is the most vile form of government.” For some reason, most Americans apparently believe that as long as they can get 50 % of the people to go along with them, virtually any deplorable conduct is just fine, in fact, moral. The income tax code is filled with thousands of pages where numerous coalitions of thugs get together to steal from another group of people who didn’t feel compelled to participate in organized crime. As H..L. Mencken once said, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” Theft in private is a vice; theft in the political process is a virtue. Shazamm.
I’ve been thinking of doing my part for the economy lately, instituting my PEE program for America, Prazak Economic Easing. Basically, I would go down to my basement and crank up the old printing press, and start issuing my Prazak Reserve Notes. Now I wouldn’t call them that. After all, my laudable goal would be to get more money into the economy to make everyone richer (especially myself). So I would make them look as close to Federal Reserve Notes as possible so that they would be universally acceptable. Now who could object to such a noble, lofty, yes, patriotic goal? Wouldn’t John Maynard Keynes be proud?. Being a prudent man, I passed along this idea to my attorney first, who was somewhat non-plussed suggesting that there was some law against counterfeiting out there. He went on to point out that only Ben Bernanke had the power to do such economic good for the nation. His heroic benevolent issuance of money to the government and big banks, he assured me, were done with the blessings of the oracles of Wall Street, and K Street. He went out to point out that any independent PEEing in public would get me prison time. The blessings of that sort of golden like showering of paper money are left to the anointed ones. Shazamm!
Ok, so I’m getting my mind right now. What other magical miracles happen when government waves its magic wand? Well, I do recall that George Bailey, in “It’s a Wonderful Life” was looking at jail time for losing $5000 of its building-and-loan’s funds. A serious crime. Yet, the day before 9/11, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that there were 2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget. Figuring in inflation, I do believe that the $5000 missing from the Bailey’s building and loan wouldn’t be quite worth 3.2 trillion in today’s dollars. I think that is a safe assumption. So one might think that there is no moral equivalence until we understand the following. We must remember the important work of the Pentagon wiping out Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and other non humans. What’s a trillion here or a trillion there when it comes to the moral imperative of water boarding, drone-inducing collateral damage, a Haliburton jobs program, and Empire building? Moral equivalence indeed.
Well, even some vices are actually prohibited by our Constitution. Bribery is one. So maybe one can assume that that is one area where the magic show doesn’t apply. Yes, if I bribe an official to change the zoning of my property, I’m sure I could go to jail. If a lobbyist bribes an elected official, well I suppose it’s possible that there might be some negative consequences, but probably only if you are as arrogant or stupid as, say a Governor Blogojevich. The smart ones are a little more indirect in their approach. But there is one area where the magic show shines.
The federal government holds out gobs of cash to the states if they will enact various regulations in those states. When it comes to the drug war, seat belt enforcement, speed limits, and the drinking age of 21, the states are bribed with stolen goods of tax dollar money if they will pass those regulations. One interesting off shoot of this is the fact that 18 year olds can go out and give their life for the Empire yet can’t legally drink a sip of beer. Only in the magical “land of the free and the home of the brave” can such logic exist. We obviously can’t have drunkards protecting the Empire.
Now let’s move on to a law that isn’t in the US Constitution but is assumed jurisdictional by the Feds, that of kidnaping. Surely, this is one area where the magic show doesn’t apply. Right? Wrong. Regarded as one of the most heinous crimes, kidnaping is universally frowned upon, well except when it comes to in loco parentis guardianship in the government schools. Lockdowns that kidnap children for hours is routine in the warrantless searches for drugs on school campuses. It’s for their own good.
And then there is the paramount example of the IRS. On November 28, 1984, IRS agents raided the Engleworld Learning Center (a day-care center) in the Detroit suburb of Allen Park, MI, because of overdue taxes. The IRS agents forced parents to pay the center's taxes when they came to pick up their children. According to the Washington Times, "Inside were a handful of bewildered parents, unable even to see their children until they paid money for taxes they did not owe to two IRS agents sitting near the entrance. Allegedly, the children--as many as 30 of them-could not run to greet their parents . . . as ordinarily was their custom. IRS agents kept them closely guarded in Room C of the center. At least one agent was posted in another room where pre-schoolers, some still in diapers, were detained." Parents were not allowed to see their children until they signed an agreement with the IRS to pay up. It’s only right.
It all makes sense if you consider the fact that the real parents of children apparently are not the parents. In the Alice in Wonderland magical kingdom of government, it takes a village, no, come to think of it, Hillary was a a piker. It takes the State to raise a child.
And now consider the world of Ponzi schemes. The latest bad boy in the private sector was Bernie Madoff. He probably cheated people of tens of billions of dollars. Pretty serious stuff, but a mere pittance compared to Social Security, one of the most beloved programs by Democrats and Republicans alike. If a Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent practice where “investors” on the top of the list are paid by newer “investors” on the bottom of the list, where no true investment takes place, but an ever expanding source of revenue is required to keep the scheme going, than nothing compares more completely than the multi-trillion dollar Ponzi scheme of Social Security. Yet, there are some differences. Bernie Madoff didn’t hold a gun to anybody’s head to force them to invest. But Social Seucrity is so important that it has to be guaranteed successful by making it mandatory through the use of force. Shazamm! From financial fraud to Social Security nirvana. For good moral reason is Social Security the third rail of politics.
Let’s see. What vice haven’t we covered yet? What about extortion? There is a provision of the appropriately named Patriot Act that threatens US citizens with prison if they exercise their Constitutional free speech rights concerning a warrantless federal raid of their home. I guess today’s definition of a patriot is one who loves big brother so much that he can quite clearly see how two plus two equals five if big brother says so. After all, that is how the magic show works. Double thinking is necessary in the eye of the magical mystery tour of moral inversion.
When one thinks about it for not too long, one must conclude that most of the laws in this country do fall under the magical sway of state sanctioned extortion.
Be a kid selling lemonade, get shut down and fined
Plant an illegal plant, go to jail.
Ingest an illegal herb, go to jail.
Engage in a trade without permission from the magicians, go to jail.
Trade in real money, go to jail.
Tell a joke to the TSA, go to jail.
Exercise your free speech rights, go to jail.
Buy a gun to protect yourself, go to jail.
Educate your children at home, in some jurisdictions, go to jail.
Keep what you earn, go to jail.
.
The moral good of extortion, bribery, misappropriation of funds, theft, torture and murder are alive and well through the magical application of government. Shazamm!
Don’t get it? You don’t see how fair is foul and foul is fair? War is peace? Freedom is slavery? Ignorance is strength? By the magic of the government wand, the government is the good. There is always Room 101 for the recalcitrant learners. Still not sure, join the ranks of cool hand Luke. The President will oblige. He has already asserted the power. What we have heah, is failya to communicate.
That became quite clear to me when Ron Paul was jeered and booed for extolling the virtues of the golden rule applying it to foreign policy. Here is a universal code of conduct, proffered by all religions, and also the non-religious. Yet, when it comes to foreign policy, shazamm. Immunity from logic. Individually, the golden rule makes sense. But collectively, through government, the rules are different? We can intervene in the affairs of other nations, bomb, torture, and murder, and not expect adverse consequences? Simply amazing. Shazamm.
Of course this cognitive dissonance does not just cover foreign policy. Virtually all people denounce theft as immoral. Yet, when government does it through the “democratic process,” shazamm, it becomes moral. Of course the founding fathers abhorred democracy. Thomas Paine said, “Democracy is the most vile form of government.” For some reason, most Americans apparently believe that as long as they can get 50 % of the people to go along with them, virtually any deplorable conduct is just fine, in fact, moral. The income tax code is filled with thousands of pages where numerous coalitions of thugs get together to steal from another group of people who didn’t feel compelled to participate in organized crime. As H..L. Mencken once said, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” Theft in private is a vice; theft in the political process is a virtue. Shazamm.
I’ve been thinking of doing my part for the economy lately, instituting my PEE program for America, Prazak Economic Easing. Basically, I would go down to my basement and crank up the old printing press, and start issuing my Prazak Reserve Notes. Now I wouldn’t call them that. After all, my laudable goal would be to get more money into the economy to make everyone richer (especially myself). So I would make them look as close to Federal Reserve Notes as possible so that they would be universally acceptable. Now who could object to such a noble, lofty, yes, patriotic goal? Wouldn’t John Maynard Keynes be proud?. Being a prudent man, I passed along this idea to my attorney first, who was somewhat non-plussed suggesting that there was some law against counterfeiting out there. He went on to point out that only Ben Bernanke had the power to do such economic good for the nation. His heroic benevolent issuance of money to the government and big banks, he assured me, were done with the blessings of the oracles of Wall Street, and K Street. He went out to point out that any independent PEEing in public would get me prison time. The blessings of that sort of golden like showering of paper money are left to the anointed ones. Shazamm!
Ok, so I’m getting my mind right now. What other magical miracles happen when government waves its magic wand? Well, I do recall that George Bailey, in “It’s a Wonderful Life” was looking at jail time for losing $5000 of its building-and-loan’s funds. A serious crime. Yet, the day before 9/11, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that there were 2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget. Figuring in inflation, I do believe that the $5000 missing from the Bailey’s building and loan wouldn’t be quite worth 3.2 trillion in today’s dollars. I think that is a safe assumption. So one might think that there is no moral equivalence until we understand the following. We must remember the important work of the Pentagon wiping out Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and other non humans. What’s a trillion here or a trillion there when it comes to the moral imperative of water boarding, drone-inducing collateral damage, a Haliburton jobs program, and Empire building? Moral equivalence indeed.
Well, even some vices are actually prohibited by our Constitution. Bribery is one. So maybe one can assume that that is one area where the magic show doesn’t apply. Yes, if I bribe an official to change the zoning of my property, I’m sure I could go to jail. If a lobbyist bribes an elected official, well I suppose it’s possible that there might be some negative consequences, but probably only if you are as arrogant or stupid as, say a Governor Blogojevich. The smart ones are a little more indirect in their approach. But there is one area where the magic show shines.
The federal government holds out gobs of cash to the states if they will enact various regulations in those states. When it comes to the drug war, seat belt enforcement, speed limits, and the drinking age of 21, the states are bribed with stolen goods of tax dollar money if they will pass those regulations. One interesting off shoot of this is the fact that 18 year olds can go out and give their life for the Empire yet can’t legally drink a sip of beer. Only in the magical “land of the free and the home of the brave” can such logic exist. We obviously can’t have drunkards protecting the Empire.
Now let’s move on to a law that isn’t in the US Constitution but is assumed jurisdictional by the Feds, that of kidnaping. Surely, this is one area where the magic show doesn’t apply. Right? Wrong. Regarded as one of the most heinous crimes, kidnaping is universally frowned upon, well except when it comes to in loco parentis guardianship in the government schools. Lockdowns that kidnap children for hours is routine in the warrantless searches for drugs on school campuses. It’s for their own good.
And then there is the paramount example of the IRS. On November 28, 1984, IRS agents raided the Engleworld Learning Center (a day-care center) in the Detroit suburb of Allen Park, MI, because of overdue taxes. The IRS agents forced parents to pay the center's taxes when they came to pick up their children. According to the Washington Times, "Inside were a handful of bewildered parents, unable even to see their children until they paid money for taxes they did not owe to two IRS agents sitting near the entrance. Allegedly, the children--as many as 30 of them-could not run to greet their parents . . . as ordinarily was their custom. IRS agents kept them closely guarded in Room C of the center. At least one agent was posted in another room where pre-schoolers, some still in diapers, were detained." Parents were not allowed to see their children until they signed an agreement with the IRS to pay up. It’s only right.
It all makes sense if you consider the fact that the real parents of children apparently are not the parents. In the Alice in Wonderland magical kingdom of government, it takes a village, no, come to think of it, Hillary was a a piker. It takes the State to raise a child.
And now consider the world of Ponzi schemes. The latest bad boy in the private sector was Bernie Madoff. He probably cheated people of tens of billions of dollars. Pretty serious stuff, but a mere pittance compared to Social Security, one of the most beloved programs by Democrats and Republicans alike. If a Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent practice where “investors” on the top of the list are paid by newer “investors” on the bottom of the list, where no true investment takes place, but an ever expanding source of revenue is required to keep the scheme going, than nothing compares more completely than the multi-trillion dollar Ponzi scheme of Social Security. Yet, there are some differences. Bernie Madoff didn’t hold a gun to anybody’s head to force them to invest. But Social Seucrity is so important that it has to be guaranteed successful by making it mandatory through the use of force. Shazamm! From financial fraud to Social Security nirvana. For good moral reason is Social Security the third rail of politics.
Let’s see. What vice haven’t we covered yet? What about extortion? There is a provision of the appropriately named Patriot Act that threatens US citizens with prison if they exercise their Constitutional free speech rights concerning a warrantless federal raid of their home. I guess today’s definition of a patriot is one who loves big brother so much that he can quite clearly see how two plus two equals five if big brother says so. After all, that is how the magic show works. Double thinking is necessary in the eye of the magical mystery tour of moral inversion.
When one thinks about it for not too long, one must conclude that most of the laws in this country do fall under the magical sway of state sanctioned extortion.
Be a kid selling lemonade, get shut down and fined
Plant an illegal plant, go to jail.
Ingest an illegal herb, go to jail.
Engage in a trade without permission from the magicians, go to jail.
Trade in real money, go to jail.
Tell a joke to the TSA, go to jail.
Exercise your free speech rights, go to jail.
Buy a gun to protect yourself, go to jail.
Educate your children at home, in some jurisdictions, go to jail.
Keep what you earn, go to jail.
.
The moral good of extortion, bribery, misappropriation of funds, theft, torture and murder are alive and well through the magical application of government. Shazamm!
Don’t get it? You don’t see how fair is foul and foul is fair? War is peace? Freedom is slavery? Ignorance is strength? By the magic of the government wand, the government is the good. There is always Room 101 for the recalcitrant learners. Still not sure, join the ranks of cool hand Luke. The President will oblige. He has already asserted the power. What we have heah, is failya to communicate.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Regulatory Fantasyland
The following paragraph is a commentary coupled to a video on Corporations faking Blueberries in various products. My response to Mr. Adams follows his paragraph.
here is the link to the video: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=7EC06D27B1A945BE85E7DA8483025962&fb_source=message
1. Blueberries Faked in Cereals, Muffins, Bagels and Other Food Products - Food Investigations
MIKE ADAMS, Health Ranger - Natural News
This is the latest in the breakdown of our food supply. It shows us what comes of deregulation, and how corporations behave when they are not required to meet standards of national wellness. People like Ron Paul who want to eliminate all government regulations of the "free market," live in as fantasy world detached from actual facts. Market forces are making it harder! and harder to raise healthy children because profit comes first. Wellness is hardly a consideration.
Yes, someone is living in a fantasy world, and it isn’t Dr. Paul. It takes an extreme leap of faith to ignore the legion of examples where the big corporations have the regulators in their pockets. The big corporations do not get their power from their standing in the market place; they get their power from the use of the monopoly of power, i.e., the government, through subsidization, tax breaks, and regulations and taxation on their smaller challenging competitors who don’t have the resources as the big corporations do to get in bed with the government.
Mr. Adams makes a typical mistake of many progressives, confusing crony capitalism with the real free market variety. What we have today is crony capitalism. The corporations get their strength not so much from their market power as they do from controlling the regulatory apparatus. The big corporations have controlled the regulatory apparatus ever since the first bureaucratic inception of regulation, the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Faced with the market reality of lower prices for train tickets form Chicago to New York where there was a lot of competition, compared to Chicago to Peoria, were there was no competition, the rates were lower going from Chicago to New York than from Chicago to Peoria. So what did the FTC determine? Did they lower the rates from Chicago to Peoria? No, they raised the rates from Chicago to New York
It has been thus ever since. The powerful corporations gravitate to power to keep, maintain and expand their power. So they buy and sell Congress and get their boys in the regulatory apparatus with a perpetual revolving door. The result: the small entrepreneur who makes a better mousetrap, instead of having customers beating a path to their door, are greeted by the taxman and regulators. Remember the Tucker car and DeLorean’s too? The big boys keep the little guy out by using the powerful force of government. Has ever been so It is foolish to think it could happen any other way Who is living in the fantasy world? Me thinks it is Mr. Adams.
In a true free market, fraud would be answered in a common law court, with fully informed juries meeting out punishment and restitution. That didn’t happen under the regulatory structure a few years back when the state of Illinois sued the city of Milwaukee for polluting Lake Michigan. The case never made it to a jury because the city of Milwaukee made a motion to dismiss the case based on the fact that they were polluting within the EPA guidelines of how much they could pollute. In a free market common law court, Milwaukee would have been held accountable for the trespass of pollution.
True free market deregulation, the type that Ron Paul espouses, does not give any business a free ride to commit fraud. They would be held accountable in court. And the adverse verdict would blemish their reputation, hurting them even more in the market place. Those who try to commit fraud would then think twice the next time. As it is today under crony capitalism, the corporations know they have the bureaucrats in their back pocket. They buy their way out of accountability.
Progressives like Mr. Adams need to understand and differentiate between crony capitalism, where the government and corporations are partnered together (Mussolini called this fascism), and free market capitalism where the government does not play favorites. The market regulates through reputation, success or failure, common law court decisions, and a market regulatory apparatus such as Underwriters Laboratory, which has no government function, but does an excellent job assuring the safety of a variety of products.
Who but the most powerful, will take the reigns of the most powerful? Saying that democracy should only begs the question. Who controls the apparatus of democracy? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The way to curb the power of the powerful is to restrict the entity with the most power, the entity that has a monopoly of force, that, of course is government.
here is the link to the video: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=7EC06D27B1A945BE85E7DA8483025962&fb_source=message
1. Blueberries Faked in Cereals, Muffins, Bagels and Other Food Products - Food Investigations
MIKE ADAMS, Health Ranger - Natural News
This is the latest in the breakdown of our food supply. It shows us what comes of deregulation, and how corporations behave when they are not required to meet standards of national wellness. People like Ron Paul who want to eliminate all government regulations of the "free market," live in as fantasy world detached from actual facts. Market forces are making it harder! and harder to raise healthy children because profit comes first. Wellness is hardly a consideration.
Yes, someone is living in a fantasy world, and it isn’t Dr. Paul. It takes an extreme leap of faith to ignore the legion of examples where the big corporations have the regulators in their pockets. The big corporations do not get their power from their standing in the market place; they get their power from the use of the monopoly of power, i.e., the government, through subsidization, tax breaks, and regulations and taxation on their smaller challenging competitors who don’t have the resources as the big corporations do to get in bed with the government.
Mr. Adams makes a typical mistake of many progressives, confusing crony capitalism with the real free market variety. What we have today is crony capitalism. The corporations get their strength not so much from their market power as they do from controlling the regulatory apparatus. The big corporations have controlled the regulatory apparatus ever since the first bureaucratic inception of regulation, the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Faced with the market reality of lower prices for train tickets form Chicago to New York where there was a lot of competition, compared to Chicago to Peoria, were there was no competition, the rates were lower going from Chicago to New York than from Chicago to Peoria. So what did the FTC determine? Did they lower the rates from Chicago to Peoria? No, they raised the rates from Chicago to New York
It has been thus ever since. The powerful corporations gravitate to power to keep, maintain and expand their power. So they buy and sell Congress and get their boys in the regulatory apparatus with a perpetual revolving door. The result: the small entrepreneur who makes a better mousetrap, instead of having customers beating a path to their door, are greeted by the taxman and regulators. Remember the Tucker car and DeLorean’s too? The big boys keep the little guy out by using the powerful force of government. Has ever been so It is foolish to think it could happen any other way Who is living in the fantasy world? Me thinks it is Mr. Adams.
In a true free market, fraud would be answered in a common law court, with fully informed juries meeting out punishment and restitution. That didn’t happen under the regulatory structure a few years back when the state of Illinois sued the city of Milwaukee for polluting Lake Michigan. The case never made it to a jury because the city of Milwaukee made a motion to dismiss the case based on the fact that they were polluting within the EPA guidelines of how much they could pollute. In a free market common law court, Milwaukee would have been held accountable for the trespass of pollution.
True free market deregulation, the type that Ron Paul espouses, does not give any business a free ride to commit fraud. They would be held accountable in court. And the adverse verdict would blemish their reputation, hurting them even more in the market place. Those who try to commit fraud would then think twice the next time. As it is today under crony capitalism, the corporations know they have the bureaucrats in their back pocket. They buy their way out of accountability.
Progressives like Mr. Adams need to understand and differentiate between crony capitalism, where the government and corporations are partnered together (Mussolini called this fascism), and free market capitalism where the government does not play favorites. The market regulates through reputation, success or failure, common law court decisions, and a market regulatory apparatus such as Underwriters Laboratory, which has no government function, but does an excellent job assuring the safety of a variety of products.
Who but the most powerful, will take the reigns of the most powerful? Saying that democracy should only begs the question. Who controls the apparatus of democracy? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The way to curb the power of the powerful is to restrict the entity with the most power, the entity that has a monopoly of force, that, of course is government.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Who Would Jesus Kill?
A long time ago, in my early twenties, I was still harboring a remnant of a belief system having to do with Roman Catholic Christianity. I even joined my local church choir at St. Barbara’s, in Brookfield, Illinois.
The most memorable phrase from the gospels for me attending weekly mass for so many years was, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me.”
During that time singing with the St. Barbara’s Choir, I came across a report in the local newspaper that the village was moving against an elderly couple, Bert and Elizabeth Kuellmar, with condemnation proceedings. Concerned about “the heavy hand of the state,” I decided to investigate. What I discovered was a friendly elderly couple that was somewhat eccentric. They were employing a compost pile before that activity became popular. Evidently the neighbors believed that composting attracted rodents and so, got the long arm of the law on them. I really didn’t see much else one could complain about. The couple was poor. The inside of the house looked somewhat run down, but nothing of the dangerous sort. As if that was anybody else’s business anyway.
To make a long story short, I wrote an open letter to our pastor that appeared in the local newspaper, appealing to him as a Christian to help those people out. After all, I thought that was what Christianity was all about. Never heard back from him but I received plenty of feedback from some of my fellow choir members who thought I was way out of bounds in soliciting help for the Kuellmars. Evidently, those signing a petition to have the elderly couple’s house condemned were fellow parishioners (including a neighbor of the Kuellmars who was eyeing the property). I was stunned, flabbergasted. There I sat and sang with the choir every Sunday hearing the Word of Jesus’ teachings; “Love thy neighbor”, “love they enemy,” “Jesus, the prince of peace,” “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me.” I quit the church soon after . . .
I hadn’t thought much about that episode in my life lately, until I heard presidential candidate Rick Santorum expressing pleasure at the idea of scientists being assassinated in Iran. Now Mr. Santorum isn’t just any candidate; he is the most pious of Christians running. Just ask him. There is a favorite bumper sticker among Christians: WWJD? What would Jesus Do? I have a few suggestions myself that might get more to the point. How about, WWJK? Who Would Jesus Kill? Or WWJB? Who Would Jesus Bomb? And maybe a new hymn is in order.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother,
That you do unto me ...
Excepting those Muslims,
You might want to kill,
Especially the Taliban,
O grant us our fill,
Collectively we cheer on
more blood of our brothers.
We will do what we crave,
Let’s bring on more murder,
Warring crusade is our love.
And now, as a matter of exclamation point, the South Carolina Republican primary debate provided all viewers with a very telling insight into the mindset of too many folk who call themselves Christians. Ron Paul calls for a foreign policy based on the golden rule. The jeers and boos from the South Carolina Republican audience (of which 60% or more call themselves evangelical Christians) I’m sure were heard all the way to heaven, even if they might have been instigated from a different source.
So from my perspective, whether at the community level, or the level of global foreign policy, the Christian Right has spoken loud and clear. My only question is, to what extent do my Christian friends and acquaintances support what I believe to be such a diametrical aberration from Christian doctrine. Please let me know. I will consider silence as acquiescence.
The most memorable phrase from the gospels for me attending weekly mass for so many years was, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me.”
During that time singing with the St. Barbara’s Choir, I came across a report in the local newspaper that the village was moving against an elderly couple, Bert and Elizabeth Kuellmar, with condemnation proceedings. Concerned about “the heavy hand of the state,” I decided to investigate. What I discovered was a friendly elderly couple that was somewhat eccentric. They were employing a compost pile before that activity became popular. Evidently the neighbors believed that composting attracted rodents and so, got the long arm of the law on them. I really didn’t see much else one could complain about. The couple was poor. The inside of the house looked somewhat run down, but nothing of the dangerous sort. As if that was anybody else’s business anyway.
To make a long story short, I wrote an open letter to our pastor that appeared in the local newspaper, appealing to him as a Christian to help those people out. After all, I thought that was what Christianity was all about. Never heard back from him but I received plenty of feedback from some of my fellow choir members who thought I was way out of bounds in soliciting help for the Kuellmars. Evidently, those signing a petition to have the elderly couple’s house condemned were fellow parishioners (including a neighbor of the Kuellmars who was eyeing the property). I was stunned, flabbergasted. There I sat and sang with the choir every Sunday hearing the Word of Jesus’ teachings; “Love thy neighbor”, “love they enemy,” “Jesus, the prince of peace,” “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me.” I quit the church soon after . . .
I hadn’t thought much about that episode in my life lately, until I heard presidential candidate Rick Santorum expressing pleasure at the idea of scientists being assassinated in Iran. Now Mr. Santorum isn’t just any candidate; he is the most pious of Christians running. Just ask him. There is a favorite bumper sticker among Christians: WWJD? What would Jesus Do? I have a few suggestions myself that might get more to the point. How about, WWJK? Who Would Jesus Kill? Or WWJB? Who Would Jesus Bomb? And maybe a new hymn is in order.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother,
That you do unto me ...
Excepting those Muslims,
You might want to kill,
Especially the Taliban,
O grant us our fill,
Collectively we cheer on
more blood of our brothers.
We will do what we crave,
Let’s bring on more murder,
Warring crusade is our love.
And now, as a matter of exclamation point, the South Carolina Republican primary debate provided all viewers with a very telling insight into the mindset of too many folk who call themselves Christians. Ron Paul calls for a foreign policy based on the golden rule. The jeers and boos from the South Carolina Republican audience (of which 60% or more call themselves evangelical Christians) I’m sure were heard all the way to heaven, even if they might have been instigated from a different source.
So from my perspective, whether at the community level, or the level of global foreign policy, the Christian Right has spoken loud and clear. My only question is, to what extent do my Christian friends and acquaintances support what I believe to be such a diametrical aberration from Christian doctrine. Please let me know. I will consider silence as acquiescence.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Dystopia NOW
As in all election cycles, demagoguery is alive and well this time around. One particular demagogic shot that hasn’t been given much scrutiny yet, is the charge by Newt Gingrich that the federal government must act pro-actively to stop terrorism as exemplified by the Oklahoma City bombing, This happened during a Republican presidential debate where Congressman Ron Paul urged Americans to adhere to Constitution protections when dealing with terrorists, pointing out that even infamous Nazi mass murderer, Adolf Eichman, was given due process of law before being executed.
The mainstream media has chosen to magnify that emotional heat in their process to excommunicate Ron Paul from their definition of serious discussion, while shedding no light on the trenchant reasons for adhering to Constitutional principles.
The emotional reaction to such a statement is that, of course, everything that needs to be done should be done to stop such a horrible carnage. After all, who doesn’t want to save lives? The non-thinking reactionary will close his mind after believing and emoting the “obvious.”
But a rational view requires a more studied outlook. How does one prevent the occurrences such as the Oklahoma City bombing?. Well, that, of course, requires surveillance–monitoring phone calls, internet use, financial transactions, and associations of various types.
After studying and understanding the reasoning behind the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, one must conclude that our founding fathers were very reticent to allow the existence of a police state where surveillance is the norm. If fact, they fought a revolution in great part against the use of writs of assistance that were used to enforce the Townsend Acts and the Intolerable Acts. The writs of assistance gave power to the British crown to search and seize without warrants signed by a judge, giving law enforcement this power without restraint of time, place or items searched. The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with these type of police- state tactics and made sure that pro-active regulation thorough indiscriminate search and seizure was prohibited by the supreme law of the land.
I fear that if put to a vote, the Bill of Rights would be voted down by today’s American constituency. There is a lack of understanding or vigilant urgency as to what it takes to preserve the freedoms that used to define America. And the sycophantic mainstream press to the corporate power elite makes sure that any discussion of this is beyond the bounds of serious discourse.
As a result, the federal government has taken extraordinary steps at an accelerating pace eroding, yes, virtually eliminating the civil rights Americans once held dear, all in the name of the war on terror.
Through the Patriot Act, the use of writs of assistance has been legalized.
President Obama has issued an executive order claiming the power (and carrying it out) to assassinate US citizens. This has been executed without arrest, arraignment, right to an attorney, jury trial, or judgment.
The US Congress has just passed and President Obama has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act . This enables the Executive branch to use the military to apprehend US citizens accused, in secret, of engaging, or aiding and abetting, in terrorist activities and detain them indefinitely without any due process of law.
It is worthy to note that these types of totalitarian tactics throughout history have always boomeranged against those who supported such initiatives. But, of course, reactionaries never think that far ahead.
So, all of this culminates into a nightmare scenario envisioned by Philip K. Dick in his short story, which was made into a Tom Cruise movie, “Minority Report.” Those who have read the story or have seen the movie recall that in a futuristic society, the government apprehends would- be killers ahead of time and executes them for pre-murder. Well, the future is now. These three acts taken together do exactly what Phillip K. Dick feared and prophesied.
American citizens must ask themselves, is this the type of society in which they would like to live? Is illusory safety from isolated terrorist threats, exacerbated by an interventionist foreign policy, worth it in exchange for very real terrorism from ones own government? One must not forget that government sponsored terrorism resulted in over 100 million deaths in the Twentieth Century. Do they really want to live in a dystopian nightmare of missing family members, murdered citizens without any due process-- full, naked power, without check in the Executive branch? The full ramifications of such a policy may not happen tonight, this year, or the next. It may not happen en-masse with this president. But if history is any guide at all, it will happen. Americans are not immune to the nature of the old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And it will happen, to a great degree, because of the reactionary enabling of the establishment press to the demagoguery of the likes of Newt Gingrich, married in their vow to assassinate the character of the champion of freedom, Ron Paul.
The mainstream media has chosen to magnify that emotional heat in their process to excommunicate Ron Paul from their definition of serious discussion, while shedding no light on the trenchant reasons for adhering to Constitutional principles.
The emotional reaction to such a statement is that, of course, everything that needs to be done should be done to stop such a horrible carnage. After all, who doesn’t want to save lives? The non-thinking reactionary will close his mind after believing and emoting the “obvious.”
But a rational view requires a more studied outlook. How does one prevent the occurrences such as the Oklahoma City bombing?. Well, that, of course, requires surveillance–monitoring phone calls, internet use, financial transactions, and associations of various types.
After studying and understanding the reasoning behind the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, one must conclude that our founding fathers were very reticent to allow the existence of a police state where surveillance is the norm. If fact, they fought a revolution in great part against the use of writs of assistance that were used to enforce the Townsend Acts and the Intolerable Acts. The writs of assistance gave power to the British crown to search and seize without warrants signed by a judge, giving law enforcement this power without restraint of time, place or items searched. The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with these type of police- state tactics and made sure that pro-active regulation thorough indiscriminate search and seizure was prohibited by the supreme law of the land.
I fear that if put to a vote, the Bill of Rights would be voted down by today’s American constituency. There is a lack of understanding or vigilant urgency as to what it takes to preserve the freedoms that used to define America. And the sycophantic mainstream press to the corporate power elite makes sure that any discussion of this is beyond the bounds of serious discourse.
As a result, the federal government has taken extraordinary steps at an accelerating pace eroding, yes, virtually eliminating the civil rights Americans once held dear, all in the name of the war on terror.
Through the Patriot Act, the use of writs of assistance has been legalized.
President Obama has issued an executive order claiming the power (and carrying it out) to assassinate US citizens. This has been executed without arrest, arraignment, right to an attorney, jury trial, or judgment.
The US Congress has just passed and President Obama has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act . This enables the Executive branch to use the military to apprehend US citizens accused, in secret, of engaging, or aiding and abetting, in terrorist activities and detain them indefinitely without any due process of law.
It is worthy to note that these types of totalitarian tactics throughout history have always boomeranged against those who supported such initiatives. But, of course, reactionaries never think that far ahead.
So, all of this culminates into a nightmare scenario envisioned by Philip K. Dick in his short story, which was made into a Tom Cruise movie, “Minority Report.” Those who have read the story or have seen the movie recall that in a futuristic society, the government apprehends would- be killers ahead of time and executes them for pre-murder. Well, the future is now. These three acts taken together do exactly what Phillip K. Dick feared and prophesied.
American citizens must ask themselves, is this the type of society in which they would like to live? Is illusory safety from isolated terrorist threats, exacerbated by an interventionist foreign policy, worth it in exchange for very real terrorism from ones own government? One must not forget that government sponsored terrorism resulted in over 100 million deaths in the Twentieth Century. Do they really want to live in a dystopian nightmare of missing family members, murdered citizens without any due process-- full, naked power, without check in the Executive branch? The full ramifications of such a policy may not happen tonight, this year, or the next. It may not happen en-masse with this president. But if history is any guide at all, it will happen. Americans are not immune to the nature of the old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And it will happen, to a great degree, because of the reactionary enabling of the establishment press to the demagoguery of the likes of Newt Gingrich, married in their vow to assassinate the character of the champion of freedom, Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
