Obamacare — the mechanics of how it is evil, un-American and unconstitutional

Evil is a powerful word as used in the context of this essay, so, per Voltaire's famous "If you would converse with me, you must first define your terms" admonition, I will explain my definition of evil. But first, a small digression.

Culture's dividers, demonizers and destroyers are fond of using language to create imaginary political dichotomies, such as "secular" vs. "religious", "theist" vs. "atheist", "liberal" vs. "conservative", "communism" vs. "capitalism", "left" vs. "right", etc. Let me demonstrate the obfuscatory and intellectually useless nature of such deceptive garbage by proving that atheism itself is in fact a religion.

"World view" = how you believe the cause-and-effect material universe around us actually functions. "Atheism" = "world view". "Religion" = "world view". I submit that if a = c and b = c, logic dictates that a = b. When you look at it that way, all the wannabe-clever little talking points, jingoistic slogans and dogmas of the "atheism vs. religion" faux controversy are distilled down to the substantive essences of two competing world views or hypotheses. In other words, do you believe the Earth is round or flat, and what, precisely, is your empirically observable factual evidence which supports your opinion?


Energy technology is neither a "Left" nor "Right" issue — the troubled years before the deluge

Per the title of this blog post, energy technology is neither a "Left" nor "Right" issue. So it has always irritated me that the so-called "caring and altruistic" Left seems to think renewable (aka "sustainable") energy is their exclusive domain, while the "evil and greedy" Right seems to prefer centralized, government1-controlled energy sources such as oil, nuclear, coal, etc. My irritation is compounded by the fact it seems that so many, perhaps even most, of the actors and musicians whose work I admire most lean to the left politically2. So I thought it was time to clarify the propaganda-induced confusion and faux "controversy" a bit.

At the outset, the one thing I wanted to make sure I did not fail to emphasize is the great amount of credit that I believe is due to the role-modeling of "star3" environmental activists such as Ed Begley, Jr, Daryl Hannah, Jackson Browne, and many others. They put their money where their mouths are, and try very hard to be good examples of their "green" political gospel. Ed even has two shows, "Living With Ed" and "PlanetGreeen.com" where he tries to demonstrate for his audiences what is possible. Having said that, the bad news is that there is so much they don't talk about that their approach to the issue is so extremely simplistic that it borders on deception. And, the folks whose work I admire aside, there are plenty of fascist4 scumbags5 wanting to profit from the sale of deception and manipulation to the more naive, ignorant and intellectually lazy among us.


A Lèse Majesté Amendment and the grassroots restoration of the U.S. Constitution to full force and effect

According to Wikipedia, "lèse majesté" is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. Of course, in the minds of most tyrants, for example good old "L'Etat, c'est moi" (I am the state) Louis XIV, there is no difference between the state and the tyrant's person.

In the "old days", the offense was considered so serious, that the punishment was the most severe and torturous possible, such as skinning alive, or drawing and quartering. The obvious intent of lese majeste laws was to sufficiently terrorize the general populace that they would not dare entertain thoughts of changing the established social order — which is, in reality, merely a pecking order — with a revolution.

Since the advent of more modern theories of government, specifically since the implementation of the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the constitutions of the various states, it is past time to reconsider the concept of lese majeste and reverse the roles of who is the state/majesty/rule and who is the subject. For example, the beginning of ARTICLE II of the Colorado Constitution, immediately followed by Section 1, says: "In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles upon which our government is founded, we declare: SECTION I. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."


Minor v Happersett: "Natural born citizen" = BOTH parents & baby must be born in U.S.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution says:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) in the only on-point U.S. Supreme Court decision of which I am aware, the Supremes ruled that the term "natural born citizen" means that BOTH parents AND the baby have to be born in the United states. Not only was Barack Obama most probably born in Kenya, but his father certainly was, as was most of the rest of his extended family except for his white American mother and her parents. His family in Kenya say, and are quite proud of the fact that Obama was born in Kenya.


What is an "Anarcho-Christian"?

Last night a lady asked me on Twitter, "What is an Anarcho-Christian?" (That's the word I used on my Twitter profile to describe myself.) I promised her I'd write an essay about it and get back to her with an answer. The question is important, because I believe the experience of history has proven that it takes an Anarcho-Christian culture to sustain a self-ownership-based social contract such as the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, via the "slippery slope" doctrine, it inevitably morphs into police state tyranny — of which the United States has finally become a prime example. In the absence of an Anarcho-Christian culture, the so-called "noble experiment" that is human law and the U.S. Constitution are merely ignoble and tragic failures — even deceptions. This is why the Culture War for the soul of America is of such utmost importance.

Right off the bat, I would like to point out that neither theists (Intelligent Design) nor atheists (Random Conglomeration of Molecules) can "prove" diddley squat to satisfaction of the other side, so it's usually a waste of time to try. I like to just tell my atheist friends, let's pretend that theism (ID) and atheism (RCOM) are both unprovable fairy tales. What's in it for me to believe in the fairy tale with a sad ending? Nothing, as far as I can see, so I made a conscious choice to believe by faith in the fairy tale with the happy (life after death) ending because it makes my life happier.


The #SCDebate in the #Twitterverse - a tutorial on #SocialMedia in politics and freedom on the #Internet

I have written previously about Twitter, and how powerful and important I consider it to be to the cause of individual freedom and positive self-ownership-friendly cultural change. It is my view that Twitter has the power to promote free speech and individual freedom via the open and unrestricted dissemination and sharing of information in cyberspace. In that context, Twitter has the important potential to function as a two-way emergency warning system, a sort of modern-day Committee of Correspondence to get the news out to the citizenry in real time as to what shennanigans "the king" (government1) is up to.

I once heard an intelligent man say on YouTube that he believed an interconnected online community of so-called "citizen journalists" — in other words bloggers just like you and me — is the solution to putting an end to government1 secrecy and start exposing government1 corruption, deception, and lack of transparency and accountability in effective ways. That is so, because we are the ones who have the cell phones with cameras and recorders who happen to be in the right place at the right time when something newsworthy is happening. With that in mind, I thought I'd take a shot at writing a story folks might find interesting, kind of a "behind the scenes" version of the GOP primary debate in South Carolina. To do that, I wanted to use "tweets" (140-character posts) on Twitter to illustrate my story.


Why Janice Rogers Brown could help Ron Paul win the presidency

I think the reason it has been so long since my last post is that America's political1 processes have become disgusting, even repulsive. The politicians bashing away at each other is bad enough, but the cutesy and nasty ad hominem used by their wannabe-clever supporters against those who disagree with them on places like Twitter is enough to make a billy goat puke. Anyway, enough of the self-justification for procrastination and on with the point of this post.

Congressman Ron Paul is the GOP candidate I support for president in 2012. In stark contrast to the other candidates who give mere lip service to the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul speaks and acts as if he truly believes the constitution is a binding specific-performance two-party contract which is not open to being unilaterally changed via strategic misinterpretation by one (the government) party to the contract. The other candidates act as if it's a corruption-friendly "living breathing" document amounting to little more than a shapeless pile of unintelligible socio-political economic manipulation and rhetorical B.S.


To be civil, or not to be civil: that is the question

(NOTE: The video linked to the thumbnail image of Bill Maher below has been taken down by YouTube. But you can still read the transcript of Maher's remarks if you CLICK HERE.

I forgot where I found this sentence, but I love it: "If Christianity is about anything it is about the fact that the awakened consciousness of one human heart can change the entire course of mankind." I sincerely believe that. The question of when to be "civil" (courteous and kind) and when to be "uncivil" (blunt and confrontational) in discussing politics and political strategies is not an easy one. It is true that people never improve out of hatred, contempt and/or scorn; they improve out of love. It is also true that there are adamantly "reprobate" (Jer 7:27-30, Ro 1:28, 2 Cor 13:5-7, 2 Tim 3:8, Tit 1:16) "many-there-be-who-choose-destruction" or "scumbag1" individuals who have no intellectual curiosity, no intellectual honesty, and who delight in trying to destroy all that is good in the world for their own selfish purposes. In such cases, the question arises: should one attempt to "overcome evil with good" (Ro 12:21), in such an ineffective "namby-pamby" way as to merely enable the evil, or, per such scriptures as Amos 5:15, Isa 5:20, Lu 17:3, Pr 28:23, Eph 5:6-7, Eph 5:11, Gal 6:7-9 and 1 Thes 5:21, should one rebuke the evil openly and bluntly so that it may be plainly seen and understood by those who have not yet made up their minds which path they want to follow (or align themselves with "politically2"?


If you believe in Rule of Law, then start helping defend the U.S. Constitution against the federal government!


America's economic crisis is multi-faceted. Probably the biggest part of the problem is cultural, in that an unsustainable percentage of the people have become "entitlement-minded". In other words, they want to live off of the "other guy's" labor which has been stolen and redistributed by dominant members of the human pecking order who call themselves "government". That "syndrome" is most clearly and frequently manifested by the race-hustler scammers when they say, "if you don't want to give me more of your money, you're a 'racist', 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'misogynist', 'hater', etc." Race-hustler scumbag1, Congresswoman Maxine Waters manifests the syndrome when she tells the Tea Party to "go to hell!" (You first, Maxine, dahling!) But another, maybe even bigger, part of the problem is general nation-wide ignorance about both the U.S. Constitution and its history, as combined with general ignorance regarding the history of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. That's a deadly recipe for the destruction of individual freedom.


Bible truth about money is being hidden from Christians by America’s 501c3 Pharisees posing as godly pastors

Dear Christian, please don't shoot the messenger just because the message may seem at first glance unpleasant to some. It has been my experience that silence does not remedy evil, to the contrary, silence enables evil. The maxim of human law is "Qui tacet, consentire videtur", which means "He who is silent is supposed to consent. The silence of a party implies his consent."(Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.) I specifically do NOT consent to the evil I am describing here. Because I believe history is full of great individuals who taught us that silence in the face of evil is cowardice, I am rebuking PROVABLE, DOCUMENTED evil, along with it's perpetrators, promoters and followers per Lu 17:3 and Pr 28:23, Eph 5:6-7, Eph 5:11, Gal 6:7-9 and 1 Thes 5:21, and exhorting them, per Heb 3:13 and Heb 10:24-25, to do better.