"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome

White on black crime becomes big news. You can't get away from it. But black on white crime is played down. You hardly every hear of it. Right now, in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been night after night of rioting and violence and looting because a white cop shot and killed an unarmed black teen, Michael Brown.

We don't know what happened in the Michael Brown case yet. There are conflicting reports of what happened, but the black community is protesting every day and night about it. Did any black people protest over the horrible, brutal murders of two white people, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, at the hands of several black people? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom)
No, they did not. Also, the white community did not riot and loot and protest. But maybe they should have. Click on the link and read about what was done to that young white couple by evil black people. And I use the word evil correctly. What those evil people did to that young white couple was evil by anyone's definition. If white people had done that to a young black couple there would have been riots, and looting, and murders of other white people, as well as 24-hour news coverage. But only the crickets were heard when black people did it to white people.

Channon and Christopher were car-jacked, raped, tortured, and murder, but you don't even know their names. Why? You know who Trayvon Martin is. You know who Michael Brown is. But you have no idea who Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome were. Am I anti-black? Am I a racist? No. I harbor no animosity towards any person for their skin color. However I am against the one-sided news about white on black crime (if what happened in Ferguson was a crime) and the lack of newsworthiness of black on white crime. (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/223696071.html)

Can we say liberals? Can we say leftists? Can we say biased news outlets?

It is my studied belief that one of the biggest problems of the black community was the passage of Lyndon Johnson's policies, commonly know as the War on Poverty, which effectively destroyed the black family and destroyed the incentive to do better. (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/01/23/why-we-lost-the-war-on-poverty/)

I remember reading an article years ago about how the Swedish government (a socialist government) handled teen pregnancies. A teen-aged girl, living at home with her parents who became pregnant could not receive government assistance. Her parents had to provide for her and her child. A working woman, unmarried, who became pregnant could get government assistance. As a result, teen pregnancy in Sweden was low, even though teen sexual activity was high.

Our welfare system rewards unwed mothers--unwed teen mothers especially--and pushes fathers out of the home. It rewards having sex for the sake of having children because the taxpayer will support those unwed mothers and their children and the fathers have no responsibility. That is the definition of perverse. All children do better with both parents in the home. All communities do better when there is a high rate of married couples. The U.S. model of helping poor people destroys families and engenders poverty and crime.

As to Ferguson, Missouri, it is, reportedly, 70% black by population. The black people could vote, if they wanted to, and they could vote in more black city council people, or a black mayor. They could demand more black policemen. But they haven't. Why? Why now do they complain about the racial problems in their town, without having voted to fix it?

I don't know what happened in the Michael Brown case. I do know that the black people are protesting and rioting and looting. But how many black people spoke up for Channon and Christopher? Where were Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to condemn what the evil black people did to those two innocent white people? How many white people protested, rioted, and looted over Channon and Christopher? How come you didn't even know about them and their horrible, brutal deaths?

My Analogy on the Israeli-Hamas War

The Israeli-Hamas war is still going on. Several hours before an agreed upon cease-fire was to expire, several rockets were shot into Israel from Gaza and the Israelis, of course, responded.

I called it the Israeli-Hamas war, using the name Hamas rather than Palestinian because I don't believe all Palestinians want to fight the war. But here's my analogy. 

A man pulls out a semi-automatic pistol and fires several shots at you, but does not hit you. You pull out your semi-automatic pistol and fire several shots back at him, wounding him several times. The man, and his friends, then claim that it's unfair because you wounded him but he didn't wound you. Furthermore, he wants you to stop shooting at him so he can reload and shoot more bullets at you.

The point being, the second man would not have shot at the first man if the first man hand not shot at the second man. So whose fault is it that the first man got wounded?

If the innocent, non-war-like Palestinians (if such exist) don't want to get caught in the cross-fire between Israel and the Hamas terrorist group, which has brought this war down on them, then they need to get rid of Hamas.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Marijuana Does Not Kill Brain Cells

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Gretchen Carlson on the Fox News show, The Real Story, brought up the issue of pot-smoking teenagers. I felt compelled to send her an email, which she will probably not read. The following is what I sent to her.

Dear Ms. Carlson:

I just watched your Wednesday, December 18th program in which you brought up the subject of adolescents smoking marijuana. I believe you and at least two of your panel stated that, of course, marijuana kills brain cells. This article from Vanderbilt University states quite clearly that marijuana does not kill brain cells. That does not mean that it is completely harmless however. But then even moderate drinking of alcohol has it's own set of problems.

Marijuana is an intoxicant. Minors should not be using any intoxicants (and adults should not be driving or operating machinery under the influence of intoxicants). The brains of children go through a growth spurt at about the time of puberty, as this article from PBS explains, then the brain begins pruning back the weak neuron connections and reinforcing others for the next several years. That is, the adolescent brain is a mess until it sorts itself out in early adulthood and adding any intoxicant to that mess can only slow and interfere with that process.

The author of the PBS article quoted Dr. Jay Geidd, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD: "If a teen is doing music or sports or academics, those are the cells and connections that will be hardwired. If they're lying on the couch or playing video games or MTV, those are the cells and connections that are going to survive." That would be with or without marijuana. 

I do not smoke marijuana. I tried it several times as a young man (my first time I was 18) but never really liked it so I stopped using it although nearly everyone I knew and associated with smoked it. The vast majority of those people went on to have successful careers and families. Most of the ones who didn't generally had a bigger alcohol problem.

The linked articles above should be read in their entirety. Hopefully, you, or someone associated with The Real Story can do that so that you have more factual information.

I do not promote drug use, including alcohol among adults. I am totally against recreational drug use by adolescents or any minors. The brain is a beautiful but delicate instrument that needs to be properly nourished and stimulated in order for the child to have a chance at fully developing his or her potential as an adult. Having said that, however, if we truly have inalienable rights, then, as adults, we have the right to any behavior that does not violate the rights of others even if that behavior is or may be harmful to us. Again, as adults, not minors. That would include smoking marijuana regardless if others believe it is wrong and immoral. As Lysander Spooner said: "Vices are not crimes."

I like your program, Ms. Carlson. Keep up the good work.


D.M. Mitchell 

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is usually a plant, like corn or soybeans, although scientists have been messing around with animals too. (Messing around is a scientific term that means we don’t know what’s going to happen but, gee, let’s find out.)

Monsanto is one of a few giant multi-national corporations in the GMO industry, they also make the herbicide Roundup whose main ingredient is glyphosate. Many of the GMO crops were designed to withstand large applications of Roundup to kill other plants without harming the GMO crops.

Below is a photo of rats that were fed GMO foods. (Click on this and the next image to see it in full.)

The next image shows how Monsanto and government work hand-in-hand.

I really think we have a serious problem here. But that’s why Monsanto and others don’t want you to have food labels showing if any GMO’s are in your food.

If you want to learn more about the Monsanto/GMO problems, here are a few links.

Weston A. Price Foundation:

Dr. Mercola:


Institute for Responsible Technology:

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Jury Nullification

I just finished reading an article online from Reason Magazine. It was about the ancient English and American legal premise of jury nullification. Judges in this nation used to instruct the juries that they had the right and the power to nullify a law that they thought was a bad law or if they thought that the law in a particular case should not be applied.

A famous case in America, when it was still thirteen colonies of England, is the trial of John Zenger in 1735. Zenger was accused of printing seditious libels against the Governor of the Colony of New York. Alexander Hamilton defended Zenger and a jury of twelve men found him not guilty in spite of the fact that it was clearly evident that he did print the seditious material. 

The first Chief Justice of this nation, John Jay, stated that juries had the right to judge both the facts and the law. (See the second link, above.) But why would the Founding Fathers of this nation want juries to decide both the facts and the law

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

However, the (in)justice system and the courts began to shy away from letting the jurors know about this ancient principle beginning with the trials under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That Act allowed slave owners or their agents to come into free states and if they found a runaway slave, that person would be put in irons and sent back to his owner.

By the late 1800's courts informing juries of their right to nullification was pretty much dead. "In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws." The final nails in the coffin jury nullification happened after the prohibition of alcohol when many juries wouldn't convict know local bootleggers and moonshine still operators.

Was jury nullification always a good thing. No. In many cases in the South, all white juries would find defendants not guilty of murdering blacks even though the evidence was clear and convincing. But that was then. This is now. It would be much harder for that type of jury misconduct to happen now. Even in the South, today, it would be hard to get an all white jury. And even if that did happen, there are fewer overtly bigoted white people in the South than there were fifty years ago. Besides, "judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries' guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries."

Jury nullification is a right of the people to keep bad laws and bad prosecutors under control. Unless, of course, you are one of those who believe that the government can do no wrong. (If you are one of those you need to check out this site  from the Innocence Project.)

The people need to petition the government (state and federal) to demand that judges specifically tell the juries that they have the right to decide both the facts and the law. Juries are our last defense between citizens and an overzealous, overreaching government that is more and more willing to disregard the inalienable rights of citizens and establish its "absolute authority." (Or, as I like to say: "All hail the Imperial Government. Dissenters will be shot.)

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Everybody Wants to Pay More Taxes

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, recently made this statement: Everybody … including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more. He was talking about taxes, that everyone wants to pay more taxes to the federal government.

Besides the fact that his statement was so incredible as to be ludicrous, bordering on serious delusional behavior, I had to wonder about the taxes that Harry Reid pays.

The arcane, esoteric, convoluted, and impossible to know IRS code allows for many deductions that allow people, like Harry Reid, to lower their effective tax rate—that is, to pay less tax. Now, if Harry Reid is part of “everybody” and not part of the new aristocracy then he wants to pay more taxes.

Therefore, Harry Reid probably doesn’t take advantage of the deductions that are in the IRS code that apply to him, of which I’m sure there are several. Of course, if he does take advantage of those deductions then… well then Harry Reid would be a hypocrite. 

Of course, he is a politician so that’s nothing new. Congress did exempt themselves from the rigors of the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. Obamacare is just for the commoners… uh, that is, the regular citizens… uh, you know, the people of the United States that aren't in Congress or appointed to office or working for those that are.

So how about it Senator Reid, do you pay all the taxes you can and not take any deductions to lower how much you pay to the federal government, since you are part of the “everybody” you said wants to do that? Or, are you really just a hypocrite and think you are so darned lucky to be part of the new aristocracy and take advantage of all the deductions you can, as well as not having to participate in all the laws you help pass, like a co-equal citizen?

What do your tax returns say?

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The Sophistry of Climate

I've found a new site about climate. It's written by an astrophysicist, Joe Postma. He's a bit esoteric in some of his writings but if you read carefully, the layman can understand what he's saying. He absolutely refutes the human-caused global warming/climate change people or, as I like to call them, the Gorists and Warmists. He's well worth reading, unless, of course if you are a Warmist or a Gorist. Then you will be in denial about real science and what really causes global warming and cooling.

The following three URL's are, first, his article about who the true climate deniers are, second, a list of his peer-reviewed papers, and third, The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1.

Read and be enlightened.

1. http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/13/about-joseph-e-postma-joe-postma-the-climate-denier-list-who-are-the-true-deniers/

2. http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/13/about-joseph-e-postma-joe-postma-the-climate-denier-list-who-are-the-true-deniers/

3. http://climateofsophistry.com/?s=The+Fraud+of+the+Atmospheric+Greenhouse+Effect+Part+1

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

The Affordable Health Care Act

The Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) may not be so affordable if we believe what certain Republican politicians and some economic experts and doctors are saying about it. But then, it may just work out like a kind of stitched together Frankenstein monster. Only time will tell.

The Republicans would do well to just let go. Tell their constituency that they did the best they could but the President and the Democrats rebuffed them at every attempt for compromise. Then let the Democrats own it. If it fails then all the fault will be on them, not the Republicans.

But this is what I find most interesting. If Obamacare is so good, as the President and the Democrats have been trying to convince the average American, why then did Congress exempt itself from that Act? 

Further, the Supreme Court of the United States is exempt from Obamacare along with all federal employees and 729 private companies and unions. (Click on link, above.) This is a puzzlement.

Actually, this smacks of elitism, of the actions of a new aristocracy, the political class and their cronies.

It is unprecedented that for the first time in the history of this once great nation the government is forcing people to buy a product from... the government. The original wording of Obamacare allowed a person who refused to buy this product, or show proof of having "valid" health insurance, to be fined. The Supreme Court twisted that around and said, no, it wasn't a fine. That would be unconstitutional. It was a tax. There, all nice and neat. The government can tax you, under certain circumstances, but they can't fine you for not buying their product. (In the end it's the same thing is it not?)

Well here's what I think of the Supreme Court. It's a political animal. You can't be nominated for the Supreme Court, let alone have that nomination confirmed, unless your political beliefs are in line with the presiding political powers.

Everyone forgets that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was constitutional. That Act allowed slave owners, or their agents, to go into "free" states and search for runaway slaves. If found, the slave would be shackled in irons and taken back to his "master."

You may say, oh well that was 1850 and has nothing to do with today. Those people were different then. Not true. The Supreme Court of 1850 was a political animal doing what the political powers wanted. The Supreme Court of today is just as much of a political animal. Their decisions are not necessarily based on the straight-forward meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It's all kind of like a discussion of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" or, even better, Bill Clinton's statement that "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." If that didn't spin your head around then you deserve the government you're getting.

So, Obamacare is the cure-all for our health care problems in America but the new aristocracy and their cronies don't think it's good enough for them. I say, if it's the law of the land, a law passed by Congress, then Congress and all the government must be forced to use it themselves. The law must apply equally to all people.

This nation is still a Constitutional Republic (barely). It still hasn't become a kingdom or fascist police-state (yet). The members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the federal employees, and the cronies of the political class are not above the citizenry, the "common" people who must fund and pay for Obamacare under threat of force.

The members of Congress, et al., are of the common people, the citizenry, also. To think otherwise, to think that they are special because they were elected or appointed to government office, is to believe in aristocracy, a ruling class who are better than the rest of us, which is exactly what the exemption from Obamacare means. They think they are better than the rest of us. The unmitigated hypocrisy and arrogance should scare us all. The mask is slowly being torn off the face of tyranny.