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.

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.

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.

"

AD FEEDBACK

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.

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:

http://www.westonaprice.org/

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-blog.html

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz1s1X8BYUM

Ennui

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.

Regarding Second Hand Smoke

REGARDING GRETCHEN CARLSON’S STATEMENTS MADE ON MARCH 6, 2013 FOX AND FRIENDS REGARDING SECOND HAND SMOKE AND SECOND HAND MARIJUANA 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.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Alcohol

"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.

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.

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.

Whores

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.

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?

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.

http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/

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.