"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/)

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Climate Change: More Cold and Snow

I haven't seen anything in the main stream media (MSM) about the cold and snow that is affecting the Northern Hemisphere from Europe to Japan. Here are some links to stories provided by the Ice Age Now site.

Bitter Cold Kill Three in Bulgaria. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/bitter-cold-kills-bulgaria/

Heavy Snowfall Cuts Power to Hundreds of Ukraine Villages. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snowfall-cuts-power-hundreds-ukraine-villages/

Heavy Snow Strands Many in Japan--Video. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snow-strands-japan-video/

Record Snowfall in Kyiv--Heaviest in at least 130 Years. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-kyiv-heaviest-130-years/

Record Snowfall Hits Southwest Norway. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-hits-southwest-norway/

This is just a sampling of what's happening around the Northern Hemisphere this year that the MSM is not reporting. A "consensus" of valid climatologist are suggesting that we are headed for a mini-ice age, if not a full blown one. And that will be much worse that the global warming that Al Gore and the U.N. are promoting.

Go to the first link above to keep reading about what's really happening with our climate.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Jacintha Saldanha

Jacintha Saldanha is the nurse that took a prank call from two radio dj's in Australia--pretending to be the Queen of England and her husband Prince Phillip. Jacintha passed the call along to the actual nurse on duty in charge of looking after the Duchess of Cambridge, the former Kate Middleton.

It was a silly prank, as these types of radio pranks go but, to the best of my knowledge, no state secrets were released, no information vital to the health and safety of the Duchess given out, nothing more than the fact that the Duchess hadn't had any more "retching," and was resting quietly. Okay. No big deal.

But then, Jacintha supposedly killed herself, committed suicide because she was . . . what? Embarrassed that she had been fooled? Would that set of circumstances call for a person to kill herself? I think not.

Of course, perhaps Jacintha had some serious emotional problems that we don't know about and this was the last straw, so to speak, which broke the back of her mental stability and so she decided to kill herself. Sound good to you? Could that be a possibility? I guess so.

Another alternative occurred to me. I'm not sure, but if Jacintha was Muslim and married to a Muslim man, was the honor of the family besmirched because of her very small mistake? Nah, that couldn't be it. Still, family honor is a very big thing with Muslims. It would be a shame if . . . she . . . killed herself for that reason.

Whatever the facts are behind the death of Jacintha, I hardly think that the two dj's are to blame. What they did was silly, but it wasn't deadly. There was no good reason why Jacintha Saldanha should have killed herself.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

An Open Letter to Bob Beckel

I was watching The Five on the Fox News Channel yesterday and heard, again, Bob Beckel singing the praises of unions. (Although he thought that the Bakers Union should give a bit so Hostess--and Twinkies--would not go out of business.

Dear Bob Beckel:

I got to thinking, what would the U.S. be like if, somehow, every business could be unionized. I mean, the union hierarchy would love that, billions of dollars to flow into their coffers for them to use ... well, however they wanted. I'm sure it would all go to help union workers.

So, every workers who is not a business owner or part of management is a union worker getting maximum pay and maximum benefits, right? Cool! A virtual paradise on Earth, right?

There is just a small problem with that scenario. With businesses having to pay all workers union-type wages (above average) and union-type benefits (again, above average), then the costs for the products and services that all businesses provide would necessarily have to go up ... way up. We, the U.S. would quickly become the most expensive place in the world to live.

That would kill tourism, although I doubt the U.S., overall, depends that much on tourism, but several businesses do. So they would be out of business, except for those catering to the rich. They would still be working because the rich of other nations would be able to afford the cost of coming to America.

Then there are the unemployed and the elderly on fixed incomes. Would they be able to buy enough food or pay for enough heat in the winter? Maybe the government could print up some more money and give it to the poor and those on fixed incomes. Of course, with everyone being a union worker, making more money, the government would be collecting more taxes, right? So, between more taxes and more money printed the government could take care of those in need.

But what of the union workers? Would their lot be any better? Probably not. Everything would now cost a lot more and so their increased wages wouldn't go any further than before, maybe not as far. Health care, what with their wonderful union benefits package? But with hospitals and clinics and pharmaceutical companies all being unionized, those cost would go up too. So that would probably be a wash.

But, wait, retirement! Yeah, the retired union workers would be on east street, right? No, because, they would be on fixed, retirement incomes and costs would continue to climb as the unions demanded more and more pay and benefits from the evil capitalists to keep up with the costs created by every worker getting union wages and benefits.

Of course, it's the evil capitalist that provide the jobs in the first place, not unions. No union ever created a job for any union worker. Unions only create jobs for union leaders and union leaders are takers, not makers. At least the union workers are making products or providing services, like cars, or shoes, or food, and other goodies that we need and want. Not so the union leaders.

So am I against unions? Not in theory. Sometimes workers need to organize to get better wages, working conditions, benefits. But so often the union leaders take the issues beyond the point of reason and logic and hurt, rather than help, the economy and society in general. Union leaders act like the top management of evil capitalists, or at least, that's how it seems to me, Bob.

All in all, I don't think a totally unionized nation would be a good thing at all. And there are some evil capitalists who pay good wages and provide good benefits without the unions. Of course, you never said that you wanted every non-management worker unionized. But it just seems to me that you would like it to be that way. But then, now that I think of it, why not unionize management too? Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!

Friday, November 09, 2012

Morality cannot be forced

Do you not see, first, that — as a mental abstract — physical force is directly opposed to morality; and, secondly, that it practically drives out of existence the moral forces? How can an act done under compulsion have any moral element in it, seeing that what is moral is the free act of an intelligent being? If you tie a man's hands there is nothing moral about his not committing murder. Such an abstaining from murder is a mechanical act; and just the same in kind, though less in degree, are the acts which men are compelled to do under penalties imposed upon them by their fellow men. Those who would drive their fellow men into the performance of any good actions do not see that the very elements of morality — the free act following on the free choice — are as much absent in those upon whom they practice their legislation as in a flock of sheep penned in by hurdles.— Auberon Herbert

Friday, October 26, 2012


"I never gargled, I never gambled, I never smoked at all. Until I met my two good amigos, Nick Teen and Al K. Hall." So goes the opening lyrics of an old Rolf Harris song. It's a humorous song, of course, but there is little that is truly humorous about alcohol for the approximately 14 million Americans who are alcohol abusers or alcoholics.

Alcohol is a true narcotic drug. It's use and abuse causes more harm, damage, disease, and death than all the presently illegal drugs combined.

We are fighting a multi-billion dollar war on other drugs, ones that cause less harm than legal alcohol. If the government has the legitimate power to save us from ourselves--to dictate what we can or cannot smoke, drink, inject, snort, or otherwise use in our own bodies--why then is the government not fighting a war on alcohol also?

Conversely, if it is legal for adults to use or abuse alcohol (where they do not violate the rights of others), then the presently illegal drugs should be legalized because their mere use is demonstrably less harmful than the use of alcohol.

Do your government representatives--local, state, or federal--preach for the continuation of the futile and wasteful war on drugs? Do they drink alcohol, the number one violence-causing drug? If so, then they are complete and absolute hypocrites and should be voted out of office. They are not tough on drugs. They are tough on the drugs that they don't like. Drugs that are less harmful, overall, than the drug they use.

It is a fact that nearly all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused, not by the use of the drugs, but their illegal status. If you want to reduce drug-related violence, then they must be relegalized to consenting adults. After all, if a person truly owns the property of his or her body, then that person has a right to use his or her body anyway they wish just so long as they do not violated the rights of others. That's called inalienable rights.

In conclusion, it seems quite obvious, that alcohol should be considered drug enemy number one. Of course, we fought that war once, with disastrous results. Now, we are doing the same with other, less liked, drugs, but with no less disastrous results.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

There Are Only Three Objectively Bad Things about Sex

Sex is such a wonderful thing, or it should be. If it wasn’t so wonderful we wouldn’t have seven billion people on this planet now.

There are really only two reasons to have sex: 1) to make babies and, 2) because it feels good. It’s the second reason that has led to what some people say is overpopulation—although I think human ingenuity will allow for an even greater population without massive and widespread famine. But I digress.

If sex doesn’t feel good, then you’re probably doing it wrong. That usually applies to women, not that women do it wrong on purpose. And that brings up a third reason for sex, control and domination. Many men don’t give a damn if the women they have sex with like it or not, just as long as they, the men, get off on it. That sentiment is probably more typical than many people might think. And, in my personal experience, I have met many women whose former boyfriends or husbands really didn’t care if their woman enjoyed the sexual experience or not. In fact, some men felt threatened if their wives enjoyed it too much.

But again, I digress. The title of this post is “There Are Only Three Objectively Bad Things about Sex.” So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we are talking about men who want to please their women sexually and are as concerned with doing so as with pleasing themselves, and vice versa.

Here’s the list of the three objectively bad things about sex: 1) Non-consensual sex, 2) unwanted pregnancies, 3) sexually transmissible diseases.

Objectively bad thing number one, non-consensual sex, means that the two (or more) people coming together for a pleasurable sexual experience are of sufficient age and mental maturity that they know what they want and can consent to have sex and do so, otherwise it would be non-consensual. That’s pretty simple, right? In the United States that usually means the people involved must have reached the age of eighteen.

On that subject, I ask you this: Why can’t a female of seventeen years and 364 days consent to have sex, but one day later she can? It is magic? Is her brain unable to understand the mechanics and emotional involvement of having sex before she turns eighteen? It is a puzzlement.

Also, most teens can drive at age sixteen. That is a much more dangerous proposition for both the teen driver, any passengers they have, and anyone else on the road. A teen-age girl hiking her skirt up, peeling off her panties and spreading her legs pales in comparison to the dangers of a teen-age girl, or boy, driving on our streets, roads, and highways. Still, there has to be some cut-off point, like in Denmark, where a girl can consent to have sex at age fifteen, as can girls in Sweden, France, and Greece, among other nations. And, of course, it is not straightforward. If an adult, over 21, uses coercion or special circumstances, say homelessness, to have sex, then the adult can be prosecuted.

Consensual sex also includes the kind of sex involved. Let’s face it, if a forty-five year old man forces his forty-five year old wife to have sex when she doesn’t want it, that’s non-consensual sex and that’s rape. Also, if he wants to have anal sex and she doesn’t, then, if he’s a nice guy, he can’t go there. If he does, again, that’s rape. Same with oral sex or group sex. All decisions to have sex, any kind of sex, with one or more persons has to be consensual between all parties to make it consensual sex.

Then there’s unwanted pregnancies. I don’t get it. In today’s modern world there is no reason why a woman should get pregnant when she doesn’t want to … except for the occasional accident, which does happen. Is it just plain ignorance or the belief that “just this once” it can’t hurt? Oh yeah. There is the alcohol issue, with the more you drink the stupider you become. Good guys should never take advantage of a drunk women. Of course, if the guy drinks too much, he gets just as stupid, possibly causing a serious lapse of judgement.

Whatever it is that is causing most of the unwanted pregnancies, they don't have to happen with a little foresight and a little planning. But, of course, that means taking responsibility for your desires and actions, which many people just don't want to do. And, in my opinion, it’s not just the woman’s decision. An honorable and well-meaning man should avoid getting a woman pregnant if 1) she doesn’t want to get pregnant and, 2) he’s not willing to accept his responsibility in supporting and nurturing the child.

There are many different kinds of birth control available to women. Some good, some not so good. Some are a bit of a hassle, some not so much. Then, for those women, and men, who decide that they really don't want children, or who have one or more child and don't want any more, there are two permanent options of birth control. One for women and one for men. For a woman, she can have her tubes tied. No more eggs coming down the fallopian tubes. No more pregnancies. For a man, he can get a vasectomy, the male version of having the tubes tied because, well, the tubes bringing sperm from his testicles are cut and tied, or in some way sealed. Ergo, no more sperm in the semen and he can't get a woman pregnant.

But there is one simple birth control method available to both men and women: the condom. Properly used, it is at least 98% effective. And it’s so simple to use. Here’s how it works boys and girls. Have the guy put the condom on his “willy” before slipping his willy into the gals “do-dah,” and leave it on until the guy pulls his willy out when he’s all done.

Other no-no’s regarding condoms. Guys, don’t carry it around in your wallet where it might get pinched and worn and wear a tiny, tiny, teeny small hole in it and thereby leak some of your “seed” where it shouldn’t be leaked. Don’t use old condoms. The latex can become fragile and break or tear. Women don’t bite on the condom when it is on your guy’s willy—although why a women would do that is beyond me. Treat the condom with respect and it will protect you from unwanted pregnancies.

A condom will also protect you—both guys and gals, but mostly gals—from our third bad thing about sex: sexually transmissible diseases.

If you are not 100% sure that your partner is “safe” and disease-free—either man or woman—then a condom is called for. I can’t tell you how to be 100% sure. You’ll have to figure that out all on your own. But it is better to be safe than sorry. HIV is not something you want, nor, syphilis, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, or a host of other nasty but lesser diseases like herpes.

See how wonderful the condom is? It can prevent pregnancies and diseases. That’s two birds with one stone, so to speak. (How much would it cost Sandra Fluke to buy condoms? Would she need taxpayers to pay for them?)

So there we are gang the three objectively bad things about sex: 1) Non-consensual sex, 2) unwanted pregnancies and 3) sexually transmissible diseases. Take care of those three things then anything goes, right?

Well, only for the more sexually liberated among us. Those who base their behaviors on logic rather than emotion, who know that sex should and can feel good and want to experience as much sexual pleasure as possible and can make room for in their busy lives.

There are, of course, hundreds, if not thousands of subjective reasons to not have sex. Religious belief is the leading cause of sexual guilt and subjective teachings about not having sex unless it is with the right person (husband or wife) at the right time (after you’re married) in the right place (your bedroom—door closed, locked and lights out) and doing it (the sex act) in the right manner (him on top and no sodomy—that means oral, as well as anal sex). If that’s your hang-up, so be it. It’s your life.

For the rest of us, just remember to avoid the three objectively bad things about sex, then have fun, experiment, and experience all that you want to experience. However, remember, there will be times that you will suffer emotional pain. Not everything will go according to plan, vis-à-vis, a particular relationship. It will hurt but you will get over it, hopefully wiser and more careful. And between those times you may find that you will have some really good, really great, really fun and fantastic sex … with one or more other consenting adults, without unwanted pregnancies, and without sexually transmissible diseases.

In any case, I hope so, because sex should be fun and enjoyable. Humans are, after all, the most sexual animals on Earth. But that is a subject for another time.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Moderate Muslims No Help

Muslim apologizers try to convince us that only the militant and extremist muslims are a danger. The Taliban is a member group of the militant and extremist Muslims who would like to take the whole world back to the dark ages. The apologizers say that the moderate Muslims are okay and they out number the extremists. I believe the moderate Muslims will be of no help in stopping the extremist. (This is a rather long article. You can scroll down to "Muslim Beliefs," and begin there.)

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl was shot and seriously wounded in an assasination attempt by the Taliban. The girl, Malala Yousufzai, had gained notice for speaking out against the Taliban and militant Muslim groups, for which she gained both national and international attention.

Malala lived in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, according to Reuters. In 2009 the Taliban had control of the Swat and set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Malala attended.

Lataer, in 2009, the Pakistani government took back that area. But Malala received several death threats. Tuesday, the Taliban tried to make good on its threats. The young girl was shot in the neck and the head. Two other girls with her were also wounded.

Sharia Law, which is what the Taliban and Muslims around the world would like to see installed in all nations, globablly, is Dark Ages mentality. Under it, women are to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated. Women under Shariah Law are literally property. Moderate Muslims accept Shariah Law also.

The extremist Muslim attitude is this: If you believe differently than me, will not accept the Muslim religion and Sharia Law, and will not change, then I will kill you, as they tried to do to one brave little girl who just wanted to live her own life without harming others. (Malala had said in a documentary that she wanted to be a doctor.)

So where is the moderate Muslim outrage about this cowardly deed? Where is the news coverage in the mainstream media, pointing out the evils of this religion that, at base, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of murder if you dare to disagree with their extremist leaders.

There is no moderate Muslim outrage for one reason and one reason only. Any Muslim who would dare to speak out, and strongly, against this attempted assasination of a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl would become a target himself.

Sharia Law already has a toehold in America and a strong grip in the United Kingdom and European Union. Incidents like this should make all freedom- and liberty-loving Americans write to, or otherwise contact their government representatives and tell them in no uncertain words that we will not tolerate Shariah Law in the United States. The extreme Muslim position and Sharia Law does not tolerate free-will, free-thinking, free-acting people and it makes actual slaves of women.

Ironically, I will quote a saying from the Middle East: If you let the nose of the camel under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in the tent. The nose of the camel is pushing to get under tent in America. We must stop it now and forever.

Monday, October 01, 2012


Whore, prostitute, call girl, escort, they're all the same. They are people who get paid to have sex with other people. And, while there are some male prostitutes and escorts, most are women. To most adults in America prostitutes are considered to be terrible women. Oh my God! Having sex for money. How disgusting and degrading and, and ... and just wrong! But why is it wrong?

What's wrong with sex? Well, I can think of three things right off the top of my head: unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmissible diseases, and non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex is rape, and a child under a certain age--usually 18 in most states--is presumed not able to know enough to make a consensual decision to have sex. I won't argue that point with anyone under the age of 15, but how is it that a girl who is 17 years, 364 days old is unable to consent to sex, but the next day, on her 18th birthday, she is? That is a puzzlement.

As to the issues of disease and pregnancies, the simplest answer is the condom. Properly used it prevents both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmissible diseases. Assuming that a women is sure that her sex partner has no such diseases and he prefers not to use a condom--for the greater sensation going condom free provides him--then there are several options for birth control a woman can use. Still, the condom is the cheapest and simplest birth control method with about a 98% effectiveness if properly used.

We have sex for two reasons and two reasons only: to make babies, and because it feels good. If sex doesn't feel good then you're probably doing it wrong. Of course some men don't really care if it feels good for the woman just as long as it feels good for them. My advice to women with such men is to run, do not walk, away from them. There are a lot of good men out there who want you to be able to enjoy sex also.

If sex didn't feel good, especially for the men, then we wouldn't have 7 billion people on this planet. Hell, we may have died out as a species if sex didn't feel good. Which brings us back to whores.

Whores do not have sex with men (the typical such encounter) for the pleasure they derive from the sex act, although they certainly could enjoy it. No, they are in business. It's a way to make money and if they are good enough at it they can make a lot of money.

A women could have sex with a man and not get paid and the legal system could care less. One girlfriend I had and stayed with for nearly eight years, told me shortly after meeting and going to bed, that she had already had sex with over 100 men. She was 24 at the time. We went on to connect with various other people, married couples or boyfriend and girlfriend, for sex. We were "swingers." All consensual adult behavior without the worry of going to jail for it ... and a whole lot of yummy sex.

But way back when, in Merry Old England and, I imagine, in the early American Colonies, back in the bad old days, an unmarried women who had sex and got pregnant and no father was found or came forth, that women could be thrown in prison for one year. Also, the "bastard" child was to be considered on the level of a prostitute, thief, or beggar. (Same link as above.)

As a society we've gotten over the need to punish a women with jail time for having a baby out of wedlock, although I am sure there are many who still would like to do that. But why haven't we gotten over issue of sex for hire? Many men don't have a women with which to have sex on a regular basis. Many married men don't get all the sex they desire. The sex drive is a natural human behavior and it is quite strong--more so in some people than in others and even women can have strong libidoes. (However, a woman wanting to have sex can usually and quite easily find a man or several of them who will gladly help her out. Not so with the average man.)

When I talk about whores and prostitutes (whore seems to have a much harsher conotation, does it not?) I am not talking about teen-agers who run away then get forced into, quite often, drug-induced prostitution. I am most definitely not talking about sex slavery. The out-and-out slaver and the pimps who hold their "girls" in virtually slavery, are extremely evil people and are a danger to all in society. I consider them to be the same as mass murderers. But there are some prostitutes that are independent or working for a pimp or madam that treats them with kindness, respect, and dignity, and who don't mind having sex with  a variety of men.

Does prostitution threaten family life? If a married man goes to a prostitute does that mean he's going to leave his wife? Hardly. He goes to a prostitute for one of three reasons: the experience of having sex with a women other than his wife; or he feels he doesn't get enough sex from his wife; or he can have the prostitute do things that he's always wanted to experience, but his wife won't do them.

But here's the thing, with all the "hook-up" dating sites on the internet, a married man, if he wanted to, could hook-up with like-minded women to have sex. That, I believe, would be a threat to his marriage. Paying a prostitute to give him "head" and swallow, or to have anal sex, is not likely to be a threat to his marriage. He knows he's paying for it. The whore isn't going to run away with him and start a new life. He gets an experience that he wants but his wife, for whatever reasons, doesn't provide.

Besides, a man might love his wife, his family, love coming home at the end of the day to spend time with them, but still desire more or different sex than his wife wants to provide. Going to a prostitute would probably help that man and, thereby, help his relationship with his wife and family.

The fact is that the laws against prostitution are based on religious beliefs and are, in fact, violative of the principle of inalienable rights. This behavior is immoral, therefore it should be illegal. But, as pointed out above, once it was legal to put unwed mothers in prison, but we got over it. Now it is time to stop the criminalization of consensual adult sex for hire.

Like the criminal justice problem associated with the presently illegal drugs, most of the criminal justice problem associated with prostitution is caused by its illegality. If prostitution were legal and disputes between prostitutes and customers were able to be taken to open court, then the need for pimps would diminish, maybe go away altogether. More independent prostitutes could advertise and make a living without having to give up a substantial portion of her earnings to the pimp or worry about going to jail. More "madams" like the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jane Palfrey, who looked for strong, independent, educated women and, evidently, treated them well, would be able to exist.

And, as mentioned above, there is the religious element to the anti-prostitution laws and to all but church sanctioned types of sexual expression. Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad in their book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, states it like this:
Religions all want everyone's major emotional bond to be with whatever god figure the religion presents. If the most important thing is salvation--whether of one's soul as in the West, or progressing along the reincarnative chain as in the East--then anything that distracts from this is looked upon as detrimental. This is one reason why sexuality is often regarded as low, carnal, animal, even dirty; for sexuality, if left unfettered, risks putting people out of control--and more importantly, out of religion's control. (North Atlantic Books, Frog Ltd., 1993, pg. 91.)
All in all, prostitution is just about commerce, supply and demand. Women have what most men want.
Some of those women are willing to sell it. If it is a legitimate job for a woman to give a man a non-sexual massage, rubbing her hands and massaging his body all over, except for the genitals, then why isn't it a legitimate job for a women to continue on into the sexual area. This is skin on skin, personal, intimate contact. (I'm talking about the non-sexual massage.)

Prostitution is consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property. And, If both people involved, under the principle of inalieanable rights, fully and completely own the property of their bodies and their minds, then such sexual behavior would be their inalienable right and no law could be passed to prohibit it.

However, since prostitution, as well as certain mind-altering drugs, are still illegal, I say that the concept of inalienable rights is a myth.  Yes,we are free in America ... free to do whatever the government allows us to.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Obama's Energy Policy and the Possible Effect on the Poor

I don't believe in human-caused global warming/climate change. I've been researching for over three years now and there is plenty of evidence to show that. CO2 has little to no effect on global warming. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that  heat always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, and never the reverse.

So what has the higher temperature, the surface of the Earth or the upper atmosphere? The upper atmosphere is extremely cold, of course. Yet we are supposed to believe that the CO2 in the upper atmosphere will radiate heat back to the warmer surface of the Earth thereby breaking the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

CO2 is absolutely necessary for plant growth and the more the better. Without CO2 plants die and then everything else dies, including people. Plants, if you will remember from your middle school science classes, produce oxygen, which is what humans, and other animals need in order to survive. Simple, right?

Ice core samples have shown that in the past CO2 levels followed the warming of the Earth, not the other way around as we have been told and as Obama obviously believes. (Of course, if he really doesn't believe that then ... well, I really don't want to go there.)

Also, it's been hotter in the past with lower CO2 levels. Humans, it seems, have short term memories or don't bother to check on what happened 50 to 100 years ago.

We are also near the end of an inter-glacial period. Over the last several hunderd thousand years, there have been major ice-age glaciations of the northern hemisphere. Each ice age lasted about 100,000 years and the inter-glacial period last between 10,000 and 12,000 years. That along with the fact that sun spot activity is low (more sun spots means more energy output from the sun, means more energy--heat--received by the Earth) among other factors, means that we could be just around the corner from a full-blown ice age or, at the very least, a mini-ice-age, which would mean longer, harsher winters across most of the northern land mass of Earth.

Okay, that's the basics. So, if we don't have global warming to the point that Obama, Gore, et.al., believe, we will, eventually, have global cooling. There are some who are predicting a mini-ice-age beginning in 2014. But the Obama policy, if carried out in full, will raise energy prices and raise them substantially. Those on fixed incomes and the poor in general, will not be able to afford to properly heat their houses or apartments. That means we will have a higher than average death rate from pneumonia and other cold-related disease, including some who will merely freezed to death if they don't starve to death first. What can they afford to pay for? The choice will be between food and heating costs.

Of course, if the global warmist are correct that we are going into a severe warming stage on Earth (but, surely not from CO2), then the higher energy prices means that the poor and elderly on fixed incomes will die at a higher rate from heat exhaustion because they won't be able to afford to properly cool their homes or apartments.

Either way, it looks like the Obama energy policy is design to harm those on the lowest end of the economic scale in America. The middle class will struggle with higher energy prices, but will be able to manage it, and the rich, of course, won't have any problem at all paying to keep their houses warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

This begs the question: Why is Obama and the liberal left so set on harming the most vulnerable people in our nation?

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Two-fold Purpose of the War on Drugs

There are two reasons for the war on drugs. The first is to keep the violent drug cartels, the violent street gangs, and the global terrorists in business and flush with American money. The second is to feed the prison industrial complex. All those prison builders, prison suppliers, prison staff, not to mention the private prison stockholders, have to have jobs and make money some way, don't they?

If, somehow, by some miraculous act, Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and repealed the biggest rights-violating scheme of laws in the United States (the war on drugs) and re-established the principle of inalienable rights, the drug cartels, street gangs and global terrorists would be put out of business immediately. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, especially, the major drug cartels have money in this game to keep the war on drugs going. They have too much to lose otherwise.

The prison-industrial complex also lobbies Congress hard for mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. It's their bread and butter. Long sentences equal job security. And, for the prison guards, non-violent prisoners also means job safety.

But, if you are intellectually and philosophically honest, you have to ask yourself how non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior, which almost all drug behavior is, can be consider a crime. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. It is well-documented that the vast majority of drug users are honest, peaceful citizens who just like to alter their perceptions with a drug other than alcohol. You may find it to be immoral, but that's a religious concept and, I'm sure, there are many things you find to be immoral in our nation today that are legal . . . because they don't violate the rights of others.

You might say we have to protect the children. But that's just the problem. The war on drugs actually makes these substances more available to minors. The dealers don't care who buys them as long as they have the money to pay for them. That is a direct parallel with the war on alcohol--prohibition.

Prior to prohibition, saloon-keepers could have been put out of business if caught selling alcohol to minors. After prohibition, the people making and selling booze didn't care who bought it, just as long as they had the money to pay for it. The alcoholic rate among teen-agers went up during prohibition, as well as a disregard for the law.

The issue of drug use, including alcohol and tobacco, is a personal morals issue, not a secular, criminal one. An adult, under the principle of inalienable rights, owns his or her body completely and can, or should, be able to do with it whatever he or she wants to do, just so long as in so doing they do not violate the rights of others. How does the mere use of a drug violate the rights of others? Almost all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused by their being illegal. However, the drug alcohol is the drug most associated with violent behavior merely from its use. Ask any honest cop.

The anti-drug-use laws are based on the moral principles of certain religious people. (Check out who lobbied the hardest for the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914.) Basically, certain religious groups got their version of morality passed into federal secular law.  (Which would seem to be a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause.)

Let me give you an example. If a man sits in his house all day drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes and not bothering any one, he can drink until he pukes and passes out and there are no legal grounds to arrest him, even if the neighbors know what he is doing and tells the police. However, if the same man was in his house, again, not bothering anyone, smoking pot, or even snorting coke, and his neighbors knew it and told the police, then the police could get a search warrant, bust down the man's door and, if they found the presently illegal drugs, they would arrest that man and they could confiscate his house, too. Two examples of non-violent, consensual adult drug use with two very different outcomes. The law does not equal justice.

By the way, did you know that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Act, there was no criminal justice problems associated with the use of the drugs that are now illegal. The drugs were legal, cheap, and there was no violence or threat of violence in the purchase or use of them. That is, the government created the problems that we now associated with the drug trade. Now that's criminal.

So, yes, the drug war is being fought to protect the money that the drug cartels, street gangs, and global terrorists are making and to protect and preserve the prison-industrial complex. Despite anything a politician or policeman might say about protecting society, those are the only two reason for the continuation of the war on drugs because the war on drugs is not only a failure, it has also created more harm and misery than any harm and misery it was meant to prevent. And anyone with half a mind knows it.

America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. We stopped being the land of the free and the land of liberty long ago. And it's all predicated on the war on drugs which, in reality is a war on the right of all adults to the full and complete ownership of his or her body and mind.


Monday, June 18, 2012

Burt Rutan on Human-Caused Global Warming

Who is Burt Rutan? He is a famous aeronautical engineer and designer of airplanes and spacecraft. In his line of work he has to analyze a large amount of data to make dead certain that the aircraft or spacecraft will worked as designed and be as safe as it can possibly be.

He put his mind to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue, analyzing the data as any good scientist or engineer should and has come to the (obvious) conclusion that AGW is a fraud being perpetrated upon civilization.

Read what he has to say and why he is saying it here.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Random thoughts

The John Edwards trial

Let's assume that John Edwards is guilty as charged. Does that guilt deserve up to thirty years in prison? Friedrich Nietzsche said that we should "mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." That would be the United States, the biggest jailer in the world. I should think that a simple felony conviction with one year and a day in prison would be more than enough. Of course, they could also fine Mr. Edwards appropriately: cost of trial, cost of incarceration, etc.

He would be a convicted felon then. I seriously doubt that he would ever run for public office again, if he was legally allowed to. He would be disbarred and not allowed to practice law again. How much more punishment does he need?

Yes, if he is actually guilty of the charges, then he is a sneaky, low-life, egotistical person and misused political campaign money. But other than that, who was physically or financially harmed? And up to thirty years in prison? Many murderers get off with less than that. Murderers! People who kill other people for no good cause!

Of wooden men and Nuremburg Nazis

Henry David Thoreau, in his essay, “Civil Disobedience,” said the following of public servants:

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.

When it comes to the so-called war on drugs it seems to me that the policemen, government drug agents, and prison guards could be such wooden men. They don't think about what they are doing, at least not deeply. They just follow orders and the law. The vast majority of people arrested for drugs have not violated the rights of other people. They are either mere users, or merely offer a product to willing customers, just like the tobacco and alcohol makers and sellers. How can non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior be criminal? You may find it to be immoral, but that is a religious term and that would make drug use a sin, not a crime. 

Law does not equal justice. Once it was a crime to be homosexual . . . or, at the very least, to get caught at being one. Once it was a crime for a woman to be pregnant without having a husband. Once it was a crime to not go to church on Sunday, or to do any unnecessary work on Sunday.  Once it was a crime to help slaves escape slavery. (At the same time is was legal to own slaves!) All those crimes, except the last, were based on religious beliefs. None of them were solidly grounded in the right of private citizens to do what they wanted just so long as they did not violate the rights of others: Inalienable rights. We do not veiw those laws as just and proper now.

And so the drug warriors are carrying out their duties, happy to have a job, even though the people they are arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning have only committed sins. They are not thinking. They are only following the law and could just as well be machines rather than rational, logical men.

And, when it comes to following the law, they could also be compared to the Nuremberg Nazis. At the trials of certain Nazis at Nuremberg, Germany, after the end of World War II, those on trial claimed that they could not be guilty of any crime because they were only following orders. Those conducting the trial relied on Principal VI to negate the Nazis claims of innocence. Principal VI states: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

What is the moral choice in a nation where lip-service is given to inalienable rights and where the choice is to either arrest or not arrest someone who has not and is not violating the rights of others? Well, if we really don't have inalienable rights--the complete ownership and use of our bodies and minds as adults (not minors) where such owenership and use does not violate the rights of others--then arresting and incarcerating otherwise honest, peaceful citizens presents no problems . . . because it's the law.

But if there is such a thing as inalienable rights, then only wooden men and Nuremberg Nazis can, with clear conscience and a devotion to their superiors, follow the unjust and illegitimate laws that destroys so many lives, so many families, so many communites. And I am not defending drug use per se. I just know, from many, many years of research, that the so-called war on drugs is really a war on rights and causes more harm than the drugs would to those who would choose to use them if they were legally available to adults.

And don't forget that alcohol and tobacco are recreational drugs. Tobacco use has been substantially reduced without making it illegal. And when we made alcohol illegal, during the Prohibition Era, murder rates soared, poisoned liquor was sold, anyone with the money to buy it could, even teen-agers, and corruption was rampant, much like what is happening today with the new prohibition.

You can read more of this Myth of Inalienable Rights here.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Santorum's Political Posturing on Pornography

Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, has gotten on his "high horse" to rail against the plethora of pornography in the U.S. He blames the Obama administration for not aggressively prosecuting the existing laws on pornography and says, if elected, he will wage a war on porn.


Why do these conservative Christian types hate and fear sex so much?

I know, I know. They will say that they don't hate or fear it, but that sex is sacred and should only be consummated between a married man and woman ... married to each other, that is.


Well first of all, I don't think sex is anymore sacred than any other natural bodily function. There are only two reasons to have sex at all: producing offspring and pleasure. That is, if you are doing it correctly you should experience pleasure. And if it never felt good, then we wouldn't have seven billion people on this planet, would we?

Second, why do so many of these Republican politicians get caught with their little man in the doo dah of a woman who is not his wife. Go to this Wikipedia site and scroll down to, for instance, Mark Souder, Tom Ganley, Chip Pickering, Vito Fossella, Randall L. Tobias, and David Vitter, among others. These men were all federal Congressmen, Senators, or appointees. They are no longer in their elected or appointed positions because they were caught having extra-marital affairs. So much for core conservative values.

And it's not just the Republicans. If you go to the same Wikipedia site you will find Democrats who are misbehaving too ... that is, according to their political stances on family values and protecting the children. I mean, what politician, Democrat or Republican, would tell the truth and say that he, or she, likes sex, likes it a lot, and likes it with more than one partner?

Okay, so back to Santorum. He claims that pornography harms children. Where are the studies showing this? He says that porn makes men into misogynists. Where are the studies? Upon what scientifically proven facts is he basing these statements?

Do you remember Masters and Johnson? They wrote a book back in the 80's: Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving (Little, Brown, 1982). They equate "sexually explicit materials" with "erotica." Here are a few brief excerpts from that book.
  • Throughout the centuries, books about sex have been widely and eagerly read. (pg. 299)
  • Erotica provides a source of knowledge and comparative information about sexual behavior. (pg. 299)
  • [B]oth sexes respond to erotica in similar ways. To be certain, some females--having been taught that it is not "ladylike" to allow oneself to be intrigued or excited by such materials--avidly avoid any exposure to erotica or do their best to block their own spontaneous responses by an act of will. (pg. 300)
Masters and Johnson mentions the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography of 1968 which noted that "[i]n general, established patterns of sexual behavior were found to be very stable and not altered substantially by exposure to erotica." (pg. 301)

Further, after Denmark legalized hard-core pornography in 1965, "the rates of many sex crimes decreased substantially, . . ." (pg. 301) And in America studies have shown that the people women and parents fear the most, rapists and child molesters,  "had less exposure to sexually explicit materials during adolescence than other adults." (pg. 301)

There were studies about violent pornography, which would include the "slasher" type films where one or more young women are depicted in sexually provocative and violent situations. It seems that the violence against the women in those movies, "rather than the sexual content," is what "produces the negative effects" of male "aggression against women . . . ." (pg. 302)

Wendy McElroy, in her book, XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (St. Martin's Press, 1995), makes several points about the benefits of pornography for women. McElroy researched her book by going to and interviewing the actors and producers of hard-core porn movies.

McElroy believes that pornography is a source of information for women by showing them "sexual possibilities," by letting them vicariously "experience sexual alternatives," and by giving them "information that cannot be found in textbooks or discussions." (pg. 129) And this can be done in the safe environment of their own homes. "Pornography is safe sex. No diseases. No violence. No pregnancy. No infidelity. No one to apologize to the next morning. Pornography is one of the most benevolent ways a woman can experience who she is sexually." (pg. 132)

She understands that pornography is not for every woman, but that it is a form of "free speech applied to the sexual realm" (pg. 129). Women who wish to watch pornographic movies should be free to do so.
Also, in her interviews of the actresses of the porn industry, she found none that were forced to do what they were doing.

Many women are physically abused by their boyfriends or husbands, but more times than not, male insecurity coupled with alcohol is the root of that problem, not pornography.

And finally, there is the issue of obscenity. The Supreme Court, in Miller vs. California, said that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause and made up the "Miller Test" to decide if something was obscene or not. But one person's obscenity is another person's delight.

Dictionary.com defines obscene as follows: 1) offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language. 2) Causing uncontrolled sexual desire. 3) Abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

I think that murder, rape, child molesting, and unnecessary warfare are all offensive to morality, decency, indecent, and depraved. I have never watched any porn--and I have watched a lot of it--that caused any uncontrolled sexual desire within me. As to that which I believe to be abominable, disgusting, and repulsive, I refer you to the first sentence in this paragraph.

The pornography issue is like the drugs issue. It's not going away and if you try to prohibit it and suppress it then it will just pop up some place else in some other way. It will cause the business to go underground and then it will become a dangerous and violent business with real rapes and forced sexual acts. Or, it will be provided from outside the United States from people in countries who will shake their heads and wonder at the foolishness of the American people, just as they did during our prohibition of alcohol.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Self-Mutilation Versus the War on Drugs

I came across an old newspaper clipping the other day from 1996. The article was about two different men who self-mutilated themselves. One cut his penis off, the other one shot himself in the groin with a shotgun. The mutilations happened in Phoenix.

Why I saved the article was the lie that the Phoenix police spokesman told when asked about the incidents. He said, “It’s no crime. You can do whatever you want to your own body.”

Why is that a lie? Had those two men been smoking a marijuana cigarette and had the police spokesman, Sgt. Mike Torres, observed them, he would have arrested them for possession of a controlled substance. They would only have been doing what they wanted to with their “own bodies,” and they would not have been violating the rights of others.

A person can horribly mutilate himself and its not a crime. Okay, fine. I can understand that. But merely using a recreational drug—one that every government commission that has ever studied it has concluded is less harmful than alcohol—is a crime? It might be a sin by some moral standards, but how can it be a crime? A real crime should involve harming some other person.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that we really don’t own our bodies. The government does and the government decides what behavior, to your own body, you can and cannot do even if that behavior does not harm other people.

So what is the so-called war on drugs all about? If the government actually has the legitimate constitutional power to stop people from using recreational drugs then shouldn’t the government make the most harmful of those drugs a priority?

The substance, tobacco, is the most harmful recreational “drug” in America, racking up more than 400,000 deaths per year. Then there is the disease and suffering and lost production leading up to those deaths that tobacco causes. That would seem a really good drug for the government to fight a so-called war over . . . if the government had the legitimate power to do so, and if the government’s purpose was to protect us from ourselves.

Then there is alcohol, not nearly as bad as tobacco in sheer numbers of deaths. I’ve seen estimated as low as 85,000 deaths per year from the use of alcohol to as high as 200,000. But what is really interesting about alcohol, according to the federal government’s own statistics, is that it is the number one violence-causing drug in America.

The use and abuse of alcohol leads to more than fifty percent of all violent crime, including murders, rapes, and robberies. It’s abuse by pregnant women is also the number one cause of retardation in newborns. So, again, if the government has the legitimate power to fight a war on drugs and the legitimate power to protect us from our own bad choices, then alcohol should the number two enemy in the war on drugs.

But of course the government doesn’t have the legitimate constitutional power to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies as long as those people are not violating the right of others. The government took the power and the U.S. Supreme Court legitimized it. The so-called war on drugs is a war on the inalienable rights of otherwise honest, peaceful citizens and it is based on a religious principle that those drugs are immoral therefore they should be illegal.

In a truly free and liberty-loving society, one in which the government upheld the principle of inalienable rights and protected those rights, then an adult (no minors allowed) would not only have the right to mutilate his or her body, but to use any drug they wanted, just as long as their behavior did not violate the rights of others.

I do not advocate drug use by anyone, even tobacco and alcohol. And I strongly suspect that those people who would seriously mutilate their bodies, as well as drug abusers, need counseling and the active support of their family and friends to help them overcome their problems..

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

But Alcohol is Legal

Two men, both in similar lines of work, died at the same time and found themselves standing before Saint Peter, in front of the “Pearly Gates.”

St. Peter explained that since they had both died at the exact same moment they were both before him at the same time. He also said they would have to take a “burden of guilt” test to get into heaven.

The two men looked at each other. One of them, wearing a suit and tie, asked, “What is a ‘burden of guilt’ test?”

St. Peter smiled a saintly smile and explained the test was designed to indicate the burden of guilt we carried from what we did in life and any negative consequences to society that we had caused.

St. Peter then turned to the other man, who was wearing jeans and a T-shirt, and informed him that Mr. Suit and Tie was the CEO of a major liquor company. Then he told Mr. Suit and Tie that Mr. Jeans and T-Shirt was a cocaine dealer.

The CEO relaxed and smiled. He took the coke dealer’s hand and shook it and told him he was sorry that he had failed the test, better luck next time, and so forth.

St. Peter coughed discreetly and informed the CEO that the test wasn’t a contest between the two of them, with the winner getting into heaven. Then he asked the CEO why he thought, had it been a contest, that he would have won.

The CEO looked nonplussed and explained that the other man was a dealer in an illegal drug, and everyone knew how bad cocaine was, how the government was waging a huge, multi-billion dollar per year fight against the evils of cocaine and other illegal drugs. On the other hand, he explained, he was a pillar of the community, ran a legal business, supported politicians who were tough on drugs, and so forth.

“So, what’s your point?” St. Peter asked. “You were both in the drug dealing business.”

But before the CEO could respond, St. Peter started the test. He asked the cocaine dealer the first question.

“Approximately, how many deaths per year are caused by the mere use of cocaine?”

“I don’t know,” the coke dealer replied.

“About 2,000,” St. Peter said.

He then asked the CEO the same question regarding alcohol.

“But that’s not fair,” Mr. CEO said. “Alcohol is legal. It’s not a crime to make or sell, with the proper licenses, of course. Besides, we always put warnings in our advertisements about using alcohol responsibly.”

St. Peter sighed. “The answer is between 80 and 100 thousand deaths per year.”

The questions came fast and furious then, with the CEO getting buried under the facts showing that alcohol is, overall, much more harmful to society than cocaine.

The number one cause of retardation in newborns is alcohol abuse by pregnant women; over 50 percent of all violent crimes are caused by people drinking alcohol, including 64 percent of all murders in large metropolitan areas, 54 percent of all rapes, 40 percent of all traffic fatalities, with drunk driving being the number one cause of teen-age deaths.

And on it went. Of course the coke dealer’s burden of guilt wasn’t negligible. It was just a whole lot less than that of the CEO of the liquor company.

The cocaine dealer was feeling pretty good by this time but the CEO had gone quite pale. He was sweating and tugging at his tie. He kept saying, “Yes, but alcohol is legal.”

At one point, when the CEO made that statement, St. Peter told him that slavery had been legal at one time too. Didn’t make it right, but it was legal.

Finally, the test was over. St. Peter tallied up our “burden of guilt” scores. He shook his head and frowned, then gave a big sigh.

“Obviously, neither one of you is an angel,” he told us. “Neither one of you can get into heaven. At least, not just yet anyway, for one of you.”

He turned to the cocaine dealer and said, “Your burden of guilt is not nearly as large as the CEO’s. You will have to go to purgatory for a while. Maybe, just maybe, after a time, you can atone for your sins.

“But you,” St. Peter said, as he turned to glare at the liquor company CEO, “are going straight to hell, where you will burn for eternity!”

As the trap door opened beneath us, and during our long fall from grace, the CEO kept screaming, “But alcohol is legal!”

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

First Amendment Violations of the Drug War

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The word “respecting” can be replaced with “regarding” or “on the subject of”. Therefore we can say that “Congress shall make no law [regarding] an establishment of religion” – or “no law [on the subject of the] establishment of religion.

So what is a religion? I am a strongly agnostic Libertarian and to me, the term religion in its broadest form means the totality of one’s belief system about Life, the Universe, and Everything and what is right and wrong behavior.

I believe that right behavior, under a secular government that protects inalienable rights, means you can do whatever you wish just so long as you do not violate the rights of others. Your personal moral values should not be an issue. A truly secular government should only care that your behavior does not harm others or their property without good cause.

In my article, “The Myth of Inalienable Rights,” I define those rights as follows: 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.

Please note that I am only talking about adults. Minors do not have full adult rights.

So just what does the “establishment” clause mean? One point of view is that there is a “wall of separation” between the government and religion. Another point of view is that the federal government is prohibited from creating a state church.

The anti-drug laws, starting with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, came about because religious groups lobbied Congress to pass a law to control drugs because their non-medical use was considered to be immoral. That is, the use of certain drugs are immoral therefore they should be illegal. The fact that there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use at that time (when they were legal) was not considered. Certain religious groups got their version of religion enacted into law to enforce their personal moral/religious views as to right and wrong behavior. The wall of separation between Church and State was breached.

And even though the federal government has not established a church that we must all attend, by passing the Harrison Narcotics Act, and subsequent drug prohibition laws, the federal government has promoted the religious and personal moral views of some of the people at the expense of others. That is the same as forcing us all to adhere to a specific religious belief upon pain of punishment if we do not.

But of course, millions of people don’t go to that church and don’t believe in that religion, yet they are forced by a supposedly secular government to obey the religious beliefs of some people or risk arrest, fines, loss of property, and imprisonment. Should a person resist strongly enough, they risk being murdered by government agents for their peaceful, honest, consenting adult behavior. (In fact, many innocent people have been murdered in botched drug raids by the police.)

I am in no way promoting any drug use by anyone. To use a mind-altering, possibly addictive, possibly dangerous drug, however stupid that is, should be the right of all adults under a truly rights-protecting, secular government. That would include the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco which are several times more harmful to individuals and society than all the illegal drugs combined, with alcohol being the drug most likely to cause violent crimes.

The so-called war on drugs, while good for the Prison-Industrial Complex and campaigning politicians, does more harm overall than any good it was supposed to do. The drug laws are clear violations of the principle of inalienable rights and are actually religious laws masquerading as secular laws. I would like to see some major civil liberties organization attack those laws as violations of the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

A Few of the Reasons Why I’m Not a Christian

At the Republican primary debate in South Carolina on January 16, 2012, Ron Paul was booed by the audience for saying that the United States should follow the Golden Rule in it’s approach to foreign policy. The Golden Rule basically states that we should treat other people as we would like other people to treat us.

In a supposedly Christian nation, with South Carolina having a large Evangelical Christian population, how could such a statement be booed? What part of Christ’s message was for warfare, for killing for any reason, for raining destruction upon those who have vilely abused you?

So what did Jesus say? (Taken from the Kings James version of the Bible.)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5: 43-44)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Matthew 7: 12)

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:51-52)

John W. Whitehead, of the Rutherford Institute, in an article entitled Jesus and War, explained that Tertullian, an early Christian leader, told Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity to either get out of the army or be prepared to be martyred for refusing to fight. In fact, until the Church was co-opted by the Roman Empire in about 313 A.D. there had been no known Christian writers who advocated warfare.

“During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain...that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.” (Dymond An Inquiry Into the Accordancy of War with the Principle of Christianity, p. 80.)

Clement of Alexandria stated the following. "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings. For (it is) not those who abstain from evil by compulsion, but those (who abstain) by choice, (that) God crowns. For it is not possible for a man to be good steadily except by his own choice." (Cadoux Early Christian Attitude of War, p. 78.)

It was clear to the early Christians that Jesus’ message was one of peace, not war or violence. If you are a true Christian it is better to be killed, blessing those who are killing you, than to defend yourself and possibly killing others. Christians should not fear death. If they stay true to Jesus’ teachings then their place in heaven is assured.

This nation has millions of so-called Christians who are quite willing to go to war to kill the enemy, or actively support those who do. Do they not understand what Jesus was preaching? Have they become so enamored of this earthly, carnal life that they are ready to save their lives, but then lose them in the eternal hereafter? Or are they merely calling themselves Christians because it is convenient to do so?

I don’t really care. That’s none of my business. I do believe in making war on our enemies. I do believe in retaliation, revenge, and defending myself, my loved ones, and innocent others, using deadly force if necessary. And those are just a few of the reasons why I am not a Christian.