"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/)

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.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

The Religion of Peace

Muslims claim that their religion is a religion of peace. We can see how that is working in the ongoing atrocity in the Westgate Mall take over in Nairobi, Kenya. If you couldn't escape the Islamic Jihadists and couldn't tell them the name of the mother of their prophet, Mohamed, then they shot and killed you.

So where is the outrage by the leaders of Muslim nations? Where is the outrage by so-called moderate Muslims who try to defend their religion... albeit, very, very quietly and timidly?

The national leaders of Muslim nations don't give a damn about a few dozen non-Muslims being brutally murdered. In fact, they probably secretly applaud it. The moderate Muslims know to keep their mouths shut for fear of having a fatwa of death proclaimed against them. They cannot protest their religion's dogma without risking death.

Here's how the religion of peace really works. The radical Islamists hope to establish a worldwide Caliphate, then they will kill anyone who is not a Muslim or who will not convert to their religion. After that: Peace. Right?

Wrong! Sunni Muslims are killing Shiite Muslims and Shiite Muslims are killing Sunni Muslims every day. The Islamic religion is not a religion of peace. It's a religion of hatred, dominance, and intolerance. And the sooner the non-Muslims of this nation--including President Obama and all PC leftists--realize that the sooner we can take a strong stance against the hatred and intolerance and rip the mask of peace off the Muslim religion's face of hatred.  

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus

Tacitus, an ancient Roman scholar, had many wise sayings. The one that I like the best is this one: "The more corrupt the Republic, the more numerous the laws." That kind of explains America today doesn't it. A law for everything. You need to know, or remember, that fascist dictatorships get put into place by one law at a time, not by brute force. Eventually, even the most insensitive liberal will come to understand that his or her rights have been legislated away.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Regarding How Men View Women

We live in modern times and supposedly men are able to accept women as equals, at least in some respects. But is that true? Of course it isn't. Men still think of women as a danger to themselves.

Recently, I was reading a Dick Francis novel that I had previously overlooked (To the Hilt) and came across this passage: "Margaret had come in flowery printed wool, soft and rose-red and disarming, hiding the steel-hard brain. How ridiculous, I thought, that the male mind could often accept a female as equal only if she pretended to be in need of help." (To the Hilt, Putnam, 1996, pg. 286.) That passage, written by Dick Francis in 1996, immediately reminded me of something Hedy Lamarr said. "Any girl can be glamorous: all you have to do is stand still and look stupid." (The Cynic's Lexicon, St. Martin's Press, 1984, pg. 114.)

And still today men are more interested in women looking glamorous than in being the fully rounded and intelligent people that they are.

Hedy Lamarr was an absolutely beautiful early film star and inventor. Dick Francis was a steeplechase jockey and a wonderful mystery novel writer. They both knew that many, if not most men were really afraid of women and are intimidated by smart women, even in our modern society, although few will admit it.

Men truly do have fragile egos. A man puts much of his ego in his sexual prowess. This is only natural given our ancient evolutionary beginnings. (Then it was being a successful hunter. Today it is being a successful wage or salary earner.) But a women can "deflate" a man's ego and sexual prowess with a simple laugh. If she does so, however, she risks physical violence visited upon her by the man. She can also out perform any given man sexually if she chooses to do so. But, again, she needs to be careful.

Ergo, women are a threat to men's egos and sexual prowess and so men must try to trivialize them to protect themselves. It may take a few more centuries, or millennia (if we last that long) before equality of the sexes—that is, accepting a person for his or her abilities without regard to their gender—actually comes about, if it ever does.

Personally, I like women for the fact that they are women; for the wonderful beings they are. I don't want them to think or act like men. If I did... well then, I might as well be homosexual. I'm not homosexual but I accept those who are as valid human beings just as I accept women as valid human beings.

I love women because they are women and not men; for how they think and act and react—differently than men. And yes, I love them for their sexuality also. I am, after all, a heterosexual male and I'm not dead yet.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Star Chamber in America

Does anyone remember their history and what the Star Chamber was? From the late Fourteenth Century until the mid-Seventeenth Century there was a court in England that met in secret. It decided if someone was guilty of a crime against the crown. There were no witnesses, or indictments, only government agents presenting their case to the court. The court, the Star Chamber, had the last word. It became a tool of the rulers--the English Monarchy--to deal with their political opponents.

Today, in America we have a Star Chamber, it's called the FISA Court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court). There are no witnesses, no indictments, only government agents presenting their one-sided cases to the judges.

The FISA Court, along with the NSA spying on all Americans--the PRISM program--looking at all the emails, internet connections, credit card use, and any electronic communications from any American citizen to any other person, American citzen or not, in the world--makes for the real spector of tyanny in America.

The ancient Roman poet Juvenal asked the question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? A literal translation is: Who will guard the guards themselves? Can we trust our civil servants who more and more each year become our civil masters--those who would rule us for our own good whether we like it or not--to not misue their powers? I think not. The recent IRS scandal has proven that.

One so-called Libertarian, Greg Gutfeld of The Five, a Fox cable news program, defends PRISM, saying they're not looking at the content of the emails and so forth. The PRISM program is like looking only at the outside of a letter mailed through the "snail mail" of the U.S. Postal Sytem.

But think. What would the colonists of the original thirteen colonies have thought if the English government, looking for anti-government revolutionaries (terrorists), had put agents in every post offices to write down the "to" and "from" addresses of all the mail. And if they had put check points on all the roads to stop and search all the people traveling to see if they were carrying mail, and then wrote down from whom and to whom the letters were being sent, without opening the envelopes. Do you think the colonists would have thought that to be a gross invasion of their privacy. Of course they would have.

Why don't Americans today--and I mean a huge majority of Americans--rise up and tell the government to stop this domestic spying without out probable cause, a Fourth Amendment violation.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a pretty clear and straight foward statement of the rights of the people. No "unreasonable" searches without "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched... ."

Is the collection of the so-called meta data by the NSA PRISM progam from all the people of the U.S. "unreasonable"? The vast majority of these people are not suspected of committing a crime, yet their private electronic business and messages are being collected and stored by the U.S. Government, without "warrants" being issued and without "probable cause," and without being "supported by oath or affirmation" of the government agents and agencies responsible for this domestic, police state spying.

The reason Americans don't rise up against this basic Constiutional violation--regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court might think (they are a part of the FedGov problem after all)--is threefold.

First, the average American has been brainwashed by public schools into believing that the authority of government, the nation-state, is proper and good even when there is plenty of evidence that it is not.

Second, the U.S. government's monetarily guided international policies by large international corporation that have interfered in the governments of other nations has caused many people of the world to hate the U.S.-- so-called global terrorists or radical Islamic terrorists.

Third, the people are not just afraid of global terrorists. No, they are also afraid of the U.S. government. There are so many laws and regulations that if the U.S. Government had enough man power they could arrest and charge every person in America for one crime or another. And, as Thomas Jefferson said:  "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

In the United States today we have more people who fear the government and very little to no fear by the government of the people. We have a state of tyranny which has not yet been fully crytallized but eventually, if not stopped, it will be and then we will have a full-blown police state. The NSA spying on all Americans is part and parcel of that tyranny and when--not if--we do become a full-blown police state all that collected data will become very valuable to the rulers.

Finally, I have to ask the question why all this spying by the NSA didn't detect and stop both the World Trade Center tragedy or the equally tragic, even if on a smaller scale, of the Boston Bombing? The lack of stopping these atrocities speaks volumes about the efficiency of the FedGov and their rights-violating agencies.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin

White on black crime is a big deal in America. Black on white crime is hardly ever reported, at least at the national level. And yet, black on white crime is much higher than white on black crime.

"Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

"Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

"According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks."http://civilisationis.com/usa/racewar.htm)

But that was probably written by a white man. What does a black man have to say about this subject? Here's what Walter Williams wrote in a Creators article :

"According to a 46-count indictment, suspects Darnell Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman, all blacks, are charged with committing rape, including sodomy against Christian and Newsom, both of whom are white. After being raped, Newsom was shot several times and his body was found burned along nearby railroad tracks.


Christian was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was ultimately raped, tortured and murdered. The police discovered her body inside a large trash can in the kitchen of the home where the murders took place. Before disposing of her body, the murderers poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. Trial dates have been set for next May."

Mr. Willians went on to say:  "According to the 2004 FBI National Crime Victimization Survey, in most instances of interracial crimes, the victim is white and the perpetrator is black. In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black. The failure of civil rights leaders, people like Jackson and Sharpton, as well as politicians to vocally condemn black-on-white crime — and the relative silence of the news media in reporting it — is not simply a matter of double standards. It's dangerous, for it contributes to a pile of racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze. I can't think of better recruitment gifts for America's racists, either white or black."

It is without a doubt that there are many, many good black people. I'm not trying to paint African-Americans as all being evil, obscene people. (To me, obscenity is the violent abuse of other people for no good cause,  but only because someone can do it and wants to do it.)

The latest black on white crime, reported in the news today--and it will be gone and forgotten soon unlike the Trayvon Martin case--is the New Jersey mother of two who was beaten severely by a black man who broke into her house. The beating happened in front of her three-year-old child and recorded on her "nanny cam.". Any man (black or white) who would do such a thing is an obscenity within society. I hope they catch him. Unfortunately, if they do, he probably won't do life in prison, which he deserves.

But the media made a big circus of the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin. A white man shot and killed a black man. I believe that Mr. Zimmerman made a gross error. He should not have gotten out of his car. He should have waited for the police. Trayvon Martin would not have attacked a uniformed police officer. To him, George Zimmerman was just another racist honkey who was harassing him.

But where is the media outrage against the above mentioned black on white crime? What about the 13 month old white baby intentionally shot in the face and killed by a black teen during the commission of an attempted robbery? (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-weeps-son-murdered-cold-blood-article-1.1297488)

That lasted in the news cycle about two or three days, even on Fox News, then it disappeared. Again, where was the media outrage of a black teen intentionally killing a white baby! A baby, by all that's holy! An innocent little child. That outrage of black on white crime doesn't exist. What would have happened if it had been a white teen murdering a black baby?  Do we expect and accept that blacks will kill whites, young and old, and it's no big deal? Or is it that the political correctness that has a stranglehold on reality will not allow the the news media to show what is really going on in America? What a sad nation we live in.

Can I relate to Trayvon Martin's mother and father's pain at the loss of their son. Of course I can. I lost my son to leukemia when he was only 19 years old. It's not the same as losing a child to a quick, violent death, but the pain of the loss is the same. I would like to hear Trayvon Martin's parents speak out about the baby in Georgia that the black teen murdered with a shot to the face. I would like them to speak out about murder, white on black or black on white, or black on black, that it is a horrible crime and an obscenity. I want them to speak to the mother of that poor little baby in Georgia and tell her how sorry they are for his murder, for her loss.

But they won't. Unfortunately, all they can focus on, it seems, is the loss of their child. A white man killing their black son. Something they seem to thinks is a purely rascist killing. But isn't all the black on white crime rascist also? White people murdered and raped by black men are not given any credence. They don't matter. It is expected... maybe desired. White man's shame for what he did to the blacks under slavery and under the Jim Crow laws after slavery.

But murder is murder, crime is crime, whether it's white on white, white on black, black on white, or black on black. Most murders of black are not committed by whites, but by other blacks.  What a sad nation we live in when reality cannot be openly discussed in the press and on the TV news channels for fear of being politically incorrect.

In the meantime, the George Zimmerman circus is given daily front line news attention. And we all know that Mr. Zimmerman must be one of the most evil people in America.

Sunday, June 02, 2013

Obesity, Heart Disease, Cancer, and Diet

The following are a few excerpts from an article entitled Illustrated History of Heart Disease 1825-2015. Click the link to read the whole thing. (The illustrations are in the original article.)

-1825: French lawyer and gourmand Brillant-Savarin publishes The Physiology of Taste, in which he says he has identified the cure for obesity: "More or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy or floury."

-1863: William Banting published Letter On Corpulence, Addressed to the Public. Banting had lost 85 pounds on a high fat, carbohydrate-restricted diet. The British Medical Journal and Lancet reported that Banting's diet could be dangerous: "We advise Mr Banting, and everyone of his kind, not to meddle with medical literature again, but be content to mind his own business."

-1910: Butter consumption = 18 pounds per capita. In the year 2000 butter consumption went below 4 pounds. When we were using high quality butter lavishly, mortality from heart disease was below 10 percent. (Infections killed a majority of people; a high percentage of infants and women of child-bearing age died during the birthing process.) Today as we consume our “Country Croak,” the mortality from heart disease is 40 to 45 percent. Both Dr. Andrew Weil and the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins agree: "Eat butter; not margarine, regardless of the claims the manufacturer is making for it!"

-1910: Lard, the rendered fat from pigs raised outdoors, was the #1 cooking fat - enjoying 70 percent of the market. Lard was the best source of Vitamin D and a good source of palmitoleic acid, a monounsaturated anti-microbial fatty acid that kills bacteria and viruses. Today highly processed soybean oil has 70 percent of the market; zero vitamin D. Now the same experts who told us not to eat lard are telling us we are deficient in Vitamin D! (Emphasis mine.)

-1937: Columbia University biochemists David Rittenberg & Rudolph Schoenheimer demonstrated that dietary cholesterol had very little effect on blood cholesterol. Although never refuted, for thirty years, the federal Dietary Guidelines have restricted dietary cholesterol to less than 300 milligrams a day.

-1950: Using a newly invented one-of-a-kind centrifuge, University of California medical scientist John Gofman discovered several fat-like substances circulating in the blood, including LDL and VLDL. At this time - 60 years ago - he reported that total cholesterol (TC) was a "dangerously poor predictor" of heart disease.

-1951: The Practise of Endocrinology, a textbook published by seven prominent British clinicians. The weight loss recommendations were almost identical to Banting's. Foods to be avoided: Bread and everything else made with flour; cereals, including breakfast cereals and milk puddings; potatoes and all other root vegetables; foods containing sugar and all sweets.

-1955: John Gofman reported that carbohydrates elevate VLDL - the lipoprotein that transports blood fats (triglycerides) made in the liver from excess carbohydrates. Gofman wrote, "Restricting carbohydrates would lower VLDL." Excess carbs = elevated triglycerides = more VLDL = increased risk of heart disease. John Peters, Yale School of Medicine, using a new analytical centrifuge, was able to quantify the triglyceride concentration in VLDL, confirming the work of Gofman.

-1970: Margaret Albrink, Peter Kuo, Lars Carlson, and Joseph Goldstein reported that elevated triglycerides (TG) were more common in heart disease patients than cholesterol. They confirmed that the majority of people with heart disease have what Gofman called "Carbohydrate Induced Lipemia."

-1974: Framingham Heart Study (24 years). Men with cholesterol levels below 190 mg/dl were three times more likely to get colon cancer as men with cholesterol over 220 mg/dl. In Framingham, there was a strong association between low cholesterol and premature death. Also, there was no relationship between elevated cholesterol and sudden death.

-1986: The same year the U.S. declared "War on Cholesterol," Japanese physicians warn that low blood cholesterol levels are strongly associated with strokes, the number one cause of death in Japan. As the percentage of fat in the Japanese diet increased, the incidence of deadly strokes declined.

-1988: After 20 years researching carbohydrate metabolism, Gerald Reavan, MD, University of California, announces his discovery of “Syndrome X,” now referred to as Metabolic Syndrome or diabetes-related heart disease. Syndrome X is a cluster of abnormalities, including high blood sugar, high insulin levels, elevated triglycerides, and depressed levels of protective HDL. In his book Syndrome X, Dr. Reaven said the culprit in heart disease is excess sugar and excess easily-digested carbohydrates - not red meat.

There's a lot more. It makes for interesting reading so do click on the link and read all of the article. But, with what I have included above, you should get the point. The low fat, high carbohydrate diet is an obesity-, heart disease-, and cancer-causing disaster.

When we ate more butter, lard, coconut oil, safely collected raw milk, less sugar, soft drinks, candy, white flour*, vegetable oils (polyunsaturated fatty acids, not natural monounsaturates like lard and olive oil) we were a healthier people. If we went back to that type of eating health care costs--yours, personally, and everyone else--could be reduce substantially. Of course, the big agricultural industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical-treating-not-curing industry will fight like crazy to keep you sick and dependent on them.
* In his book, Wheat Belly, Dr. William Davis, Cardiologist, explains how modern wheat is nearly the same as a genetically modified organism (GMO) due the intensive hybridization it has gone through in the last 50 years. He claims--and has proven it clinically--that by avoiding all wheat and products containing wheat, including "healthy whole wheat," we can avoid many of today's diseases. Buy the book. In the alternative go to  http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/ and check out what's there.

Other links for good, natural diets are:




Friday, May 10, 2013


There has been much in the news lately that could have been subjects for me to write about. But, since my last post, I have had a great sense of ennui settle over me. Does it really matter? That is, I am but one voice crying out in the multitude of voices crying out on the www (and rather a small and unknown one). But more, will writing about that which I feel strongly make a difference...to anyone? Big sigh. Well, maybe later I will be motivated to write something here again.

Besides, I've taken to writing erotic fantasies. I'm even getting paid (a little) for them. And I find that to be ever so much more fun than writing about the reality of the evil actions of individuals and governments.

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Regarding Second Hand Smoke


Ms. Carlson accepts the belief that tobacco second hand smoke is as dangerous as has been reported in the media. But, she thinks that marijuana second hand smoke could just be as dangerous or even more so. Her comments seemed to indicate that smoking marijuana was more dangerous than, perhaps, smoking tobacco. I think this is a typical anti-rightist, anti-drug, religious-based, personal moral perspective.

The “truth” can be subjective. Facts are verifiable.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html This page is about the 1993 EPA report on second hand smoke and how it is flawed and how they had to manipulate the data to get to a risk factor that normally would be considered insignificant.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html This page is about the 1998 World Health Organization’s (WHO) study on second hand smoke in Europe and how it produced unexpected results including a 22% lower chance of lung cancer from children raised in a home with a smoker.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html This page is about a much touted, but seriously flawed study funded by the anti-tobacco forces regarding a six-month smoking ban in all businesses in Helena, Montana in 2002.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helenacharts.html This page shows the chart used in the Helena study trying to prove that the six-month ban of smoking in all businesses reduced heart attacks by 60%. The fraud is explained.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/links.html This page has several links to some interesting things, but click on Name Three … Here, I’ll do if for you: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html This is where Dave Hitt (all the above links came from his “Facts” pages) contacted several people and organizations asking them to name three people who verifiably died from second hand smoke. He was either ignored or when someone did come up with three names they weren’t verified as dying of second hand smoke. In fact one had pancreatic cancer which had traveled to her lungs.

I want to make clear (as does Dave Hitt) that I am not promoting smoking. I was a smoker for 20 years and I’ve been a non-smoker for 27 years. However, I’ve always believed that that much quoted 50,000 people a year are dying from second hand (tobacco) smoke was a big load of B.S.

If you are worried about second hand smoke, you should be more worried about automobile exhaust according to this article: http://gas2.org/2013/01/10/car-exhaust-the-worlds-second-fastest-growing-cause-of-death I can only assume, if this article is backed up by facts rather than skewed and fraudulent scientific claims that living in a large city is a big risk factor for dying early. Automobile exhaust (and you don’t have to see it for it to be there) is around you all the time.

But I digress. The second issue I wish to take up is marijuana and second hand marijuana smoke, as Gretchen Carlson seemed to have been very aggressively concerned about that.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#sthash.MVjZD2dU.dpbs This page, from Drug War Facts, quotes various accepted sources about drugs, drug use, and drug deaths. Marijuana does not cause any deaths. See paragraph 8 and, especially, paragraph 23.

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill This page is from WebMD and talks about two large studies showing that marijuana smoking, even long-term, does not cause heart attacks or lung cancer. This is probably due to the fact that the average user only smokes one marijuana cigarette a day, or less.

Does this mean that minors should have access to marijuana. Absolutely not. Just like they should not have access to alcohol and tobacco, but adults should. That is, if one believes in the concept of inalienable rights which, obviously, most adults and the vast majority in the federal Congress and State Legislatures don’t. (See my dissertation on the myth of inalienable rights at this URL: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com.)

Okay, so marijuana is not a deadly drug, but how much disease is caused from smoking or breathing in second hand marijuana smoke?

I could find nothing directly on the long-term health effects of second hand marijuana smoke, which is easily explained. Marijuana is illegal and it’s hard to do serious research about it’s effects. However another WebMD page, http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer, stated that no correlation could be found between smoking marijuana and lung cancer—again, probably due to less smoking than with tobacco—but on the second page the article cited another study saying that heart attack risk within a short time after smoking was greatly increased.

It would seem that if the direct smoking of marijuana does not promoted lung cancer, then a bit of second hand marijuana smoke would have an even smaller effect. And, as shown above, second hand tobacco smoke probably has little to no effect on non-smokers, so second hand marijuana smoke is probably something even less to worry about.

That doesn’t mean that smoking marijuana is risk free, as these articles point out.




The three articles point out the dangers of smoking marijuana for minors and I agree, as I stated above, mind-altering and addictive drugs should be kept out of the hands of minors to the best of our ability. Teen-agers especially are going through the child-to-adult brain growing period and many emotional chemicals are in the mix. That’s why many teen-agers are so difficult. Throwing a mind-altering drug into that mix will only make matters worse.

Of course, as pointed out in Dave Hitt’s articles, above, we don’t know how well the studies on marijuana use were set up, given its illegal status. How large of a study population, what confounding facts, how long were the study conducted, and so forth.

So, Ms. Carlson, I don’t think you have to be worried about the harmful health effects of second hand marijuana smoke and can relax.

Sunday, March 03, 2013

Wheat Belly

Wheat Belly is the title of a book by preventative cardiologist, William Davis, M.D. He is one of a growing number of experts who are warning us about the harmful effects of a bad diet and Dr. Davis explains in detail why wheat, today, has become a frankenfood that is wrecking the health of millions, possibly billions, of people around the world.

Wheat actually has a higher gylcemic index than table sugar, sucrose. The modern wheat plant has been so hybridized that it has become, in effect, a genetically modified organism (GMO). The purpose of the hybridization was to make the wheat produce more grain per acre. That was done, but along with it came changes in how the wheat--all of its proteins--inter-react in our bodies when we eat it.

Dr. Davis says that in his personal experience--advising overweight, diabetic, and pre-diabetic patitents, sent to him by their family doctors because of their heart disease risk--he has seen people lose weight and either control or eliminate type 2 diabetes by getting wheat out of their diet. This applies to people with Celiac Disease, too, as well as other physical ailments. There are many aspects to how wheat negatively affects your body, many of which may not be apparent but will make you more and more unhealthy as you age.

I, personally, have eliminated all grains from my diet. I am following a paleo diet. But if you're not ready to do that, or can't afford to, then by all means get all wheat out of your diet. That would include so-called healthy whole wheat (grains) and sprouted wheat, too. I know that's a tall order considering just how much our society is addicted to wheat and wheat products, but your future health could depend upon it.

Wheat Belly is well-referenced with some studies going back decades. I highly recommend this book for anyone serious about controlling their health and losing weight. Also, you can go to wheatbellyblog.com to find out more. Go! Go now!

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Gun Control

The purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was in part for self protection but it was also to protect the citizens against its own government.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.- George Mason

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia… . - George Mason

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.- James Madison

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. - Patrick Henry

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed… . - Noah Webster

And, of course, Ben Franklin famously said this: Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

George Washington had this to say about governments in general: Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

The point George Washington was making was that all laws are backed up by the use of force and deadly force if the govenment agents carrying out those laws feel deadly force is necessary. There are many laws on the books that are violative of the rights of the people. If you break one and resist arrest you could be shot and killed.

Then there is the issue of a government take-over. Most people believe it can't happen here, in America. They may be right. However, history has shown that all republics become empires and despotic. We are all humans and we are all liable to human desires. Can you not forsee a scenario when America is in deep trouble and a person much like Julius Caesar rises up and takes us from republic to empire?

But what did modern dictators have to say about guns in the hands of the people?

From Fidel Castro's public address of January 9, 1959: I appeal to the public to disarm the ambitious. Why are clandestine arms being stored at this very minute? Why are arms being hidden at distinct points of the capital? Why are arms being smuggled at this moment? I tell you that there are members of certain revolutionary organizations who are smuggling and storing arms. All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?

It's good to be a Communist dictator, disarm the people and rule how you want.

How about what the mass murderer Mao Zedong had to say: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And the people of China have to look at the barrels of the guns of the government if they protest that government, because they have do not have a right to bear arms.

Then there's this from Vladimir Lenin: One man with a gun can control 100 without one.  I'm sure, that V. Lenin meant for the one man to be working for the government and the 100, to be the people who the government wants to control.

Hitler had this to say about arms in the hands of the people: History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

But what have a few famous Americans said about gun control?

Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3 (Ms. Brady's desire, then, is to conquer the free people of America. See the Hitler quote above.)

And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them. Bill Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

 What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.  Former Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH), also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe a totalitarian take-over of our government isn't possible, but that would be because millions of people own firearms and, so far, have the right to own them. There are those among us-- a former President, U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Senator--who would gladly disarm the Ameriocan people. If that ever happens then our nation is doomed to become a socialist dictatorship because there would be no brakes on what power-hungry people could do. And the power-hungry are always with us. But, as it stands now, they have to sneak around and try to wear away our rights and liberties a little at a time.

It's rather like putting a frog in a pan of cold water and heating the pan slowly. By the time the frog realizes something's wrong, it's too late.

At base, the right of the people to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from an out of control government, however unlikely that may seem, and to overthrow that government when that government becomes abusive of the rights of the people.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration of Independence.

Finally, I heard former U.S. Representative, Gabrielle Giffords, speak before a Senate hearing on gun control. Something she said struck a note. "Too many children are dying... ." She was referring to children killed by guns in the U.S. And I agree with her, althought the statistics show that the majority of the deaths occur among black children which might be a condition of socio-economic problems rather than of mere legal gun ownership.

But this new outcry for gun control came after the horrible murder of twenty childern and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conneticutt, a gun-free zone with no armed guards or armed teachers there to protect them. I wonder how Ms. Giffords feels about the approximately 178 children murdered in U.S. drone strikes. If she were still in Congress would she be for these drone strikes or vehemently against them? Would the possible killing of certain Taliban and Al Qaeda members take precedent over the lives of innocent children? Or, because they're just dirty little Pakis or Yemenis it really doesn't matter? I would like to think that Ms. Giffords' care and compassion would include those children in foreign countries murdered in our attempts to kill the bad guys and that she would want to stop that carnage, too.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Ms. Universe and Marijuana

I saw Olivia Culpo on Fox and Friends this morning. She's the new Ms. Universe. (I wonder how other sentient beings in the universe feel about that title.)

The thing I want to comment on is that she holds a position against legalized marijuana. She claims that there were serious consequences to its use.

Really? Are they as serious as the consequences to the use of alcohol? Alcohol, a true narcotic drug, is the number one violence-causing drug in America, probably the world, merely from it's use. Alcohol is the third leading cause of premature death in the world according to this article. Of course, smoking is worse, but I'm pretty sure Ms. Culpo is against smoking, too, but would she want Congress to pass laws making it illegal like marijuana?

Can a fifteen-year-old walk into a liquor store or grocery store and by alcohol? Of course not. Yet that same fifteen-year-old can, if he or she wants to, find someone to sell them marijuana. Like Pauline Sabine said when she testified before Congress about the harmful effects of alcohol prohibition:

"In pre-prohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children."

If marijuana, and other presently illegal drugs, were sold legally in drug/liquor stores to adults upon proof of age, it would be harder for teenagers to get access to those drugs. As to adults, we don't jail them for drinking or smoking, even though alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and addictive substances. It's the right of an adult to decide if he or she wants to use one or both of those substances. It should be the same for the presently illegal drugs.

That is, it would be if we actually believed in the myth of inalienable rights, which obviously, we don't. The principle of inalienable rights states that some things cannot be voted on, that a majority has no legitimate power to negate a person's actions in certain situations. Under the principle of real and true inalienable rights then, an adult whose behavior does not violate the rights of others and does not threaten or endanger the rights of other, has an inalienable right to that behavior even if you or everyone else in the country believes that the behavior in question is immoral.

Immorality is a religious concept and religion should not control our laws. By advocating the illegality of marijuana, Ms. Culpo, you are advocating the imposition of religion into our secular laws. You are following in the footsteps of the relgious groups who lobbied Congress to make certain drugs illegal because they were immoral. That led to the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, which, to me, was a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause of the United States Constitution. The diminishment of inalienable rights has only gotten worse since then.

By all objective evidence, from the prohibition of alcohol to the prohibition of other drugs today, making those drugs illegal only creates more real crime and violence and allows them to be more available to minors.  I strongly suggest, Ms. Culpo, that you study this issue more and, hopefully, come down on the side of inalienable rights, the right of all consenting adults to use the property of their bodies and minds as they wish, just so long as they do not violate the rights of others in so doing. The legalization of marijuana would be a good first step.