How the "Right's" thinking is haywire

I absolutely despise such misleading, manipulative and so-unspecific-as-to-be-useless words as "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", etc, etc, as commonly used in reference to politics, economics and other human behavior.

I used to generally think of the Left as stupid and the Right as corrupt. The accurate truth is a lot more complicated than that. However, because of the constitutional illiteracy and Economics-101-challenged status of the Left, their stupidities are MUCH easier to recognize, criticize, and ridicule than those of the Right. Since the Right's errors, deceptions, and manipulations are much more subtle and difficult to describe and address, and since much of the Left is emotionally incapable of laughing at itself, it seemed logical to write the anti-Right essay before the anti-Left. For any members of the Right who have difficulty accepting constructive criticism, I assure you that the Left "gets theirs" in a separate essay.

Let me assure you it is entirely demonstrable that the "right-left" paradigm is a political and intellectual fraud designed by the controlling manipulative banking-government-media elite classes to control the naive working-productive common hoi polloi classes. I find it helpful to think of society as being comprised of the Left elite and the Right elite, who are for the most part on the same page, and who are promoters of the same corrupt economic playing field (whatever you might choose to call it), and the Left lemmings and the Right lemmings, who are, of course, not only on "different pages", but entirely different intellectual planets. The elite cooperate to steal the labor of the lemmings, while the Left lemmings and Right lemmings are busy hating each other and dreaming up wannabe-clever talking points and pejoratives with which to demonize "the other" as being the primary cause of all evils in the world.

Perhaps the most instantly recognizable and annoying thing the Right does is to pretend that there is nothing wrong with the so-called "capitalist" system, and that everything is just peachy "with liberty and justice for all". Well, all the left-leaning "little guys" who are struggling to make a living know to a moral certainty there's something wrong with that lie. They are correct. There is. They just don't know what and how that nebulous unidentifiable "something" is wrong. They are lacking the knowledge with which to connect all the dots.

Another of many annoying things the Right does - (I heard Rush Limbaugh do it just a couple of days ago on his radio show while talking about cops taking a bunch of socialistic SEIU thugs to the home of a banking CEO) - is to lie and otherwise mislead people about the difference between "private citizen" and "gubmint". Hey Rush, you incredible numbnuts, I've got news for you: any person who is in favor of a dishonest-money-based, provably-unconstitutional (see e.g. "The Big Lie"), economy dependent upon ultra vires gubmint coercion for its existence is NOT a "private" citizen/person by any stretch of the imagination. They are an integral part of tyrannical "gubmint". Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to accuse Rush and his fellow Right elite talking-head numbnuts of not giving a damn that all of society and the U.S. Constitution has been totally changed into the polar opposite of what was intended by the Founders, without any benefit of the due process constitutional amendment procedures outlined and required by Article V. All that is apparently OK with these Right-elite liars who pretend a patriotism and love of the Bill of Rights that they de facto do not have. Can you spell "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y"? Can you spell "I-N-T-E-L-L-E-C-T-U-A-L D-I-S-H-O-N-E-S-T-Y"?

As an aside, I also hate the word "capitalism". Exactly what does that mean? If you look up the etymology of the word, it comes from the French for "head". So what? As near as I can tell, "capitalism" means an economic system where labor has to have the permission of money ("capital") before any work can get done. That, of course, is self-evidently unnatural and stupid. If you need water to grow vegetables, you just grab a pick and shovel and dig a ditch from the river to your garden. You don't "need no stinkin' permission" from money to get the job done. In the state of Nature, labor existed BEFORE money, not after.

The great delusion of the masses is that "capitalism" is precisely synonymous with "free enterprise". Nothing could be further from the truth. Money-monopoly "capitalism" and money-monopoly "communism" (or money-monopoly "socialism" and money-monopoly "fascism") are one and the same thing. Whoever controls the money supply controls commerce, and, therefore, society. That's why there is a night-and-day, a life-and-death, a freedom-and-slavery, difference between a freedom-based commodity medium exchange (which has a commensurate amount of human labor inextricably attached to its production) and a coercion-based political medium of exchange created out of thin air by criminals who have lied and manipulated their way into positions of government power. Simply put, it is UNSUSTAINABLE (not to mention provably unconstitutional) to let banksters create money out of thin air and pass so-called "legal tender" laws forcing you to use their fraudulent, unsustainable interest-bearing money.

The Right is living a lie. Let me demonstrate. Dallas Willard begins his magnificent book, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God, (ISBN 0-06-069333-9 [cloth] ISBN 0-06-069332-0 [pbk]), with a parable I absolutely love: "Recently a pilot was practicing high-speed maneuvers in a jet fighter. She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent—and flew straight into the ground. She was unaware that she had been flying upside down.”

I am unable to improve on Willard’s comment about his parable: “This is a parable of human existence in our times — not exactly that everyone is crashing, though there is enough of that — but most of us as individuals, and world society as a whole, live at high-speed, of often with no clue to whether we are flying upside down or right-side up. Indeed, we are haunted by a strong suspicion that there may be no difference — or at least that it is unknown or irrelevant.”

The Right steadfastly refuses to address the issue that paper money is blatantly unconstitutional, as I have dispositively proven as a matter of historical FACT in my essay, "The Big Lie." The Right also refuses to talk about the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court deliberately turned America's economic airplane upside-down by outright lying and declaring paper money to be constitutionally permissible, which is provably is NOT. Compare the historical truth of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870) to the revisionist-history lies told by the Grant-packed majorities in Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870) and Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

In expressing his extreme oppostion to the idea of paper money in 1776, Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense,” said: “The laws of a country ought to be the standard of equity and calculated to impress on the minds of the people the moral as well as the legal obligations of political justice. But tender laws, of any kind, operate to destroy morality, and to dissolve by the pretence of law what ought to be the principle of law to support, reciprocal justice between man and man; and the punishment of a member who should move for such a law ought to be DEATH.” I agree with old Tom 100%. In my opinion, the perpetrators (any still living), protectors and perpetuators of America's monetary and taxation frauds should be tried and executed for treason against the U.S. Constitution. But don't hold your breath. Inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring (political) Power is its own justification, and gubmint never commits suicide.

The reason Thomas Paine was so adamant in his hatred of making paper money a legal tender is because he knew it would inherently and inevitably turn America's economic airplane upside-down by creating a subtle machinery by which a banking-government elite could steal the labor of everyone else in society. This happens because the banksters simply create out of thin air what ever money they want, while everyone else has to exchange their time, education, skills and labor for the money they need to make other purchases and exchanges in commerce. Because Nature itself is inherently a free market, the creators of money out of thin air can easily outbid the rest of productive society for political candidates and elections to maintain their subtle wannabe-clever system of labor theft.

(NOTE: In both Left and Right alike, there are at least two separate and distinct groups, the predatorial and parasitic ruling elite and their lemming hoi polloi working-class followers. The elite know full well what they are doing, while their lemming followers are merely gullible and naive ignramuses, not infrequently proud and combative in their ignorance and naivete.)

Now, make no mistake about it, the elite Right understand full well that they are lying. They just don't care to correct the lie. They'd rather keep living it — and would very much like it if everyone else wanted to keep living it too. They pretend that the system is fair and that "capitalism" equals free enterprise. They pretend that the monetary and tax systems are basically honest and constitutionally valid. But the truth is otherwise. As economics professor, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., has very accurately stated, "...our economy cannot be described as free market..."

America's judges are the point men (and women) for the lying, the false declaring of things to be constitutional that obviously aren't. This is true because judges get to interpret and apply the Constitution. This principle was set forth by John Marshall in the great mandamus case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

It is sufficient to prove my point about judicial lying to refer to the writings of two brilliant "conservative" judicial scholars, Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork. Both men consider themselves to be believers in what is commonly called the "originalism" school of judicial thought. In other words, they believe the Constitution should be interpreted to mean exactly what the Framers intended it to mean at the time they wrote it.

Justice Scalia freely, openly, and very matter-of-factly described the process of judicial lying in his speech titled, "Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way", which he gave at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005:

"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people...If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted...."

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the 'Living Constitution,' judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such."

"It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, 'Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.' We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: 'The Constitution is a living document.' You know, it morphs."

"Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted...."

In the last paragraph of his magnificent concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago - 08-1521 (2010), while surgically eviscerating Justice Steven's dissenting opinion, Scalia clearly infers that the Supremes have usurped power from the people in sneaky ways. Here is that last paragraph which shows why, even with all their faults, I prefer the Right to the Left:

“And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which ‘majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,’ post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life­-tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53 —with ‘the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,’ ibid. — makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.”

On page 155 of the hardbound version of his book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (ISBN-10: 0844739782 ISBN-13: 978-0844739786), Judge Bork said:

"The question of precedent is particularly important, because, as Professor Henry Monaghan of Columbia University law school notes, 'much of the existing constitutional order is at variance with what we know of the original understanding.'1 Some commentators have argued from this obvious truth that the approach of original understanding is impossible or fatally compromised, since they suppose it would require the Court to declare paper money unconstitutional and overturn the centralization accomplished by abandoning restrictions on congressional powers during the New Deal. There is in these instances a great gap between the original understanding of the constitutional structure and where the nation stands now. But the conclusion does not follow. To suppose that it does is to confuse the descriptive with the normative. To say that prior courts have allowed, or initiated, deformations of the Constitution is not enough to create a warrant for present and future courts to do the same thing."

"All serious constitutional theory centers upon the duties of judges, and that comes down to the question: What should the judge decide in the case now before him? Obviously, an originalist judge should not deform the Constitution further. Just as obviously , he should not attempt to undo all mistakes made in the past. Whatever might have been the proper ruling shortly after the Civil War, if a judge today were to decide that paper money is unconstitutional, we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian. At the center of the philosophy of original understanding , therefore, there must stand some idea of when the judge is bound by prior decisions and when he is not."

What I find most striking is that, at least from a grammatically correct point of view, Judge Bork obviously meant to include himself when he used the words "we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian". In other words, one of America's most brilliant "conservative" judicial scholars believes that any judge today who told the truth about the provable unconstitutionality of paper money in a decision s/he wrote should be locked up in an insane asylum. That offends my sense of morality, and it offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Because, with Justice Story, I consider the U.S. Constitution to be a binding contract between two parties, the gubmint and the citizenry, I categorically reject the criminal notion (insane in and of itself) that a person should be locked up in an insane asylum for believing that one of the parties (gubmint) to a two-party social contract/compact should not be allowed to simply unilaterally alter the terms of the contract for personal financial gain.

The ramifications of The Big Lie and the elite Right-Wing2 gubmint (including judicial) support it receives are enormous and catastrophic. It forces all of the ignorant police powers of the nation, including both the U.S. military and the state and local civilian police departments to function as attackers of, and traitors to, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of functioning as its upholders and defenders — as to a man and woman they swear an oath to be and do. This also makes them the de facto enemies and criminal attackers of the citizenry whose labor is being unconstitutionally stolen via unequal protection of law.3

All this happened without any type of legitimate rule-of-law amendment to the U.S. Constitution per Article V. And that's supposed to be OK with everybody? That a criminal cabal gets to simply create money out of thin air by making computer entries — (they don't even have to print paper money)— while everybody else has to exchange their sweat, labor, education, skills and time to get relatively small amounts of that same money is supposed to be OK with everybody? Give me a break!

Arguably the most dangerous and reprehensible thing the Right is guilty of is using the intellectually fraudulent "War On Drugs" to destroy the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th Amendment. The cops have been militarized into SWAT teams who will kick down your door and kill you for no other reason than that's what jackboots are trained to do: empty their guns into the center of your body mass. Countless innocent people have been killed by these new militarized police policies such as the infamous "no knock" and warrantless entries. (See also the videos linked below.) Probable (aka reasonable) cause? Procedural due process? Forget about them, they are things of the past. They have no place in the brave new world of neo-feudalistic society. And you can thank primarily the Right for that. The Left still wants the Bill of Rights so they can smoke dope, watch porn, and go naked in public without getting "swatted".

Of course, as with the elite Left, the elite Right know exactly why they want to eliminate the Bill of Rights. But the lemming Right don't understand that they need the Bill of Rights to assure their property rights. They don't understand that laws and gubmint coercion are not necessary to keep people from eating poison. Apparently they don't understand that drugs are poison, not food. Humans don't require laws to keep them from eating, for example, laundry detergent. Speaking as a teetotaler ex-hippie, drugs are poison, and therefore destructive to your body. We don't need personality-disordered jackboots emptying their guns into the center of our body masses for good measure. We also don't need the control-freak jerks who promote the fraudulent so-called "War On Drugs" demonizing us with their Goebbelsian propaganda tactics while pretending that they have the moral high ground. They don't.

But even all that's not bad enough. Noooo! All the politicians and media talking heads and radio shouters on the Right demonize and ridicule as "unpatriotic" any person who is less than enthusiastic and grateful to the very military and police who are functioning as de facto tyrants and traitors to the U.S. Constitution and the individual freedoms, self-ownership and self-determination it guarantees. America's economic airplane is flying upside down, and anyone who points that out is called "unpatriotic" by the Right and/or "racist", "hater", "homophobe" by the Left. We're losing our country and we have no alternative but to save her. It's life or death. Freedom or slavery.

The lying elite Right in conjunction and cooperation with the lying elite Left are de facto eliminating individual rights in America, and they are de facto setting up civilian law enforcement and the military to fight a Civil War of terror and repression against the citizenry of the United States in the fraudulent name of "national security" and "rule of law". That is unacceptable, unforgivable, and anathema. We all have to help fight the Culture War for the soul of America.

Under construction . . .


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Imagine The FairTax - Google video

Fox News Freedom Watch's Judge Napolitano Shreds Columbia, MO SWAT Raid - 5/10/10 - YouTube video - I agree with Judge Napolitano that these cops should be tried and sent to prison for violation of civil rights.

Judge supports Cannabis legalization - YouTube video - I agree 100% with Judge James P. Gray, formerly a Republican now turned Libertarian, who, as a former in-the-trenches anti-drug warrior, speaks with exceptional first-hand factual knowledge, clarity and logic. Of course, mindless wannabe-clever constitutional illiterates can always be found to demonize him.

Thomas Sowell - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized - YouTube video

American Drug War: The Last White Hope - Google video - It is maddening that being opposed to the so-called "Drug War" is generally seen as a "leftist" position. The same type of manipulative scumbags say you are "racist" if you are opposed to socialism or Obama's socialistic economic policies. Such manipulative sophistry and constitutional illiteracy are unacceptable and anathema. Of course, the clueless Left, illiterate not only in the U.S. Constitution but also Economics 101, doesn't understand that the whole point of using the Drug War to destroy the Bill of Rights is so that the elite can steal your labor on an exponentially larger scale via provably unconstitutional, fraudulent and immoral monetary and tax structures on an unfair, fascistic, neo-feudalistic economic playing field. Check out Judge Gray's website.

Ending the War on Drugs? - Fox News video - John Stossel weighs in on campaign to legalize drugs. Watch FoxNews talking lawyer/airhead Megyn Kelly disgustingly parrot the standard manipulative Goebbelsian "right wing" pro-Drug-War talking points while totally blowing off the 4th Amendment, self-ownership, and the fact the cops kill many more innocent people in mistaken drug raids than the MSM will ever admit. Nothing ever happens to the cops for killing innocent people. That's "justice" for ya!

Warren Buffett's "Luckiest Day" - BrightCove video - Buffett states that The Intelligent Investor is "by far the best book on investing ever written."

The Gig Is Up: Money, the Federal Reserve and You. - Google video - Populist lawyer Gary Fielder's website is The Gig Is Up

Deflation Would be a Good Thing: Marc Faber - CNBC video - Truly excellent discussion. Listen and learn!

Bilderberg 2010: What we have learned - GUARDIAN.CO.UK - "A huge agenda of global issues was crammed into four days of 'secret' meetings by a mysterious group of power brokers. But who elected them and why are we paying for them?"

Angela Merkel's government threatened with collapse - GUARDIAN.CO.UK - "German chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right coalition government looked to be close to collapse today, weakened by a string of disagreements and intense infighting over austerity cuts, policy reform and the departure of senior conservatives."

Olson surprises many conservatives by seeking to overturn gay-marriage ban - WASHINGTON POST - "Paul D. Clement, who was Olson's deputy as solicitor general and then took over the job, said conservatives have 'come to terms' with Olson's decision, 'but those who never understood it are still scratching their heads.'" It's easy to understand. Ted Olson is career gubmint, and, as such, has only respect for gubmint power, not the Bill of Rights which limits that power, particularly the 1st Amendment. Nobody hates gays, it's just that the word "marriage" is already been in use for millennia by heterosexuals. Homosexuals should find another word. Even openly gay Elton John knows that. Although Olson is supposedly a "high-powered legal talent", he definitely biffed it on this one. Olson has no credibility with me. He's just another professional deceiver, as far as I'm concerned. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said (quoted above), even judges routinely lie. Olson is far to arrogant, pompous and intellectually dishonest to admit that simple FACT. Olson can't answer the points I raised in my essay about how the so-called "gay marriage" movement is a serious threat to the 1st Amendment. To me, his position on the issue proves he's just another legal hack who tries to impress all the yokels.

THE VERY HEART of the so-called "gay marriage" so-called "issue" is an intellectual fraud in which sodomy is the "elephant in the room". Some wannabe-clever manipulators in the gay propaganda strategy department decided that if they co-opted the heterosexual word "marriage" that, AS A MATTER OF PROPAGANDA MARKETING STRATEGY, increasingly greater percentages of "straight" society would become more and more accepting of the "gay" lifestyle as being equally valid with heterosexuality. It's just that simple. What made it more complicated is 1) the gay propaganda strategy leadership's willingness to be lewd, crude, and rude (also as a matter of strategy), and engage in rhetorical brinksmanship, viciousness, ugliness, ad homimem attacks, and demonization to promote their agenda, and 2) the general unwillingness of heterosexuals to defend themselves and the institution of marriage by engaging in tit-for-tat rhetorical brinksmanship right back.

The so-called "gay marriage" movement would be finished virtually overnight if all heterosexuals would join me in telling the blunt, crude TRUTH: "As a matter of thought, speech, conscience, philosophy, religion, and association, the 1st Amendment allows me to say I believe that smearing feces on one's urethra is disgusting and medically risky. The 1st Amendment also allows me to say I believe that rectums were designed ("evolved" for those who prefer that word) for the expulsion of waste, NOT the expression of romantic love." Any gay lawyers who think they're cute and clever should sue me for saying what I have just said, and we can see if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with them. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet good money they can't even find a closet gay U.S. District Court trial judge stupid enough to say my above specific speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. There is no constitutional right to not be disliked, or to not be ridiculed, period, end of story. [See, e.g., Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) and the cases cited therein.]

Having said that, I don't remotely hate homosexuals' basic humanity. I am a 1st Amendment absolutist who is a fan of William O. Douglas, and was opposed to the Supremes' decision in the Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ) case on grounds of self-ownership and self-determination. Furthermore, I believe it is nobody's business what consenting adults do behind the close doors of a private home. I have also had several platonic friendships with gays and lesbians (two died of AIDS), although it has been my observation they do tend to voluntarily socialize with themselves and frequent "gay" bars more than "straight" bars. Accordingly, any gay propaganda strategy leader who would call me names like "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", just to try to dilute the political effectiveness of my anti-speech-Nazi arguments I view as being intellectually reprobate scum6. I am intellectually impervious to such demonization, in fact it only strengthens my determination and tenacity. If the heterosexual defenders of marriage would adopt my same strategy of rhetorical brinksmanship, the already existing backlash would be exponentially greater and the so-called "gay marriage" movement would already be dead and buried.

The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most - Townhall - Some of these folks are far more "RINO" than "conservative". With the notable exception of Ron Paul, very few (if any) of them try to educate the general citizenry as to how the FED/IRS system creates provably UNCONSTITUTIONAL interest-bearing fiat currency out of thin air, and what the ramifications of that fact are on taxation and the economy.


1. Note 1 in the book: Monahan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 723, 725-27 (1988) (“The relevant inquiry must focus on the public understanding of the language when the Constitution was developed. Hamilton put it well: ‘whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual & established rules of construction.’” [emphasis in the original; footnotes omitted]).
Note 4 in the book: See also Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, 853 (1989) (It is a canard to interepret Marshall’s observation in McCulloch as implying that our interpretation of the Constitution must change from age to age. “The real implication was quite the opposite: Marshall was saying that the Constitution had to be interpreted generously because the power conferred upon Congress under it had to be broad enough to serve not only the needs of the federal government originally discerned but also the needs that might arise in the future. If constitutional interpretations could be adjusted as changing circumstances required, a broad initial interpretation would have been unnecessary.”).
Note 22 in the book: “Monaghan, supra note 1, at 727.”
Note 23 in the book: Id; see also Bittker, The Bicentennial of the Jurisprudence of Original Intent: The Recent Past, 77 Calif. L. Rev. 235 (1989).

2. The entire elite Left is also rabidly supportive of The Big Lie and all its criminal and treasonous economic ramifications. Meanwhile the race-and-gender-hustling Left lemmings just want more "freebies", like a noisy bunch of blind baby birds with their mouths open waiting to be fed.

3. Here's what the fascist4, neo-feudalist Taker "government" (aka "political5") classes don't want the Maker productive classes to know: If the employer-owner of a plumbing shop charges a customer $40/hour for one of his employee- plumber's time, but pays pays his employee- plumber $20/hr, the owner of the plumbing shop has realized a $20/hr profit, or gain (aka "INCOME"), from the labor of another person: his employee- plumber. The only loss incurred by the plumbing shop owner was the $20/hr wage he paid his employee. Obviously, the plumbing shop owner didn't incur any loss on the extra $20/hr of profit paid by the customer for the plumber's time — it was 100% profit, or gain (aka "INCOME"). To the employee-plumber, however, the $20/hr wage he gets paid by his employer, the owner of the plumbing shop, is COMPENSATION for his loss of time, education, effort, and skills. It is a free-will-based voluntary zero-sum exchange in which he receives the COMPENSATION of $20/hr for the loss of time, education, effort, and skills he incurred. The only way the employee-plumber's wage of $20/hr of COMPENSATION can be fraudulently taxed as "INCOME" (aka profit, gain) is if the monetary value of his labor, his loss of time, education, effort, and skills, is fraudulently calculated to be ZERO.

In other words, the so-called "income tax," as fraudulently and unconstitutionally enforced by the predatory statist children of hell, deliberately accords ZERO monetary value to a person's own labor. From both a logical, technical, and de facto point of view, that means that human labor is not accorded a monetary value unless another person pays money for it. Therefore, to the purchasers of labor (the employer classes), labor is accorded a monetary value which is deductible as overhead, a cost of "doing business" (which is why common "law" doesn't specifically define the word "business"). But to the owners/sellers of labor (aka the hoi polloi wage-earning employee classes), their labor is accorded by the criminal "income tax" cabal as having ZERO monetary value. In every sense of the word, logical, technical, moral, legal, political, and de facto, that simply means that, under the so-called "income tax" system, THE OWNERS/SELLERS OF LABOR DO NOT "LEGALLY" OWN THEIR OWN LABOR. Hence the term "wage slave" an 100% accurate appellation/euphemism under the satanic and feudal "income tax" system.

Here's how the self-evident unequal protection of law between the buyers and sellers of labor works: The voluntary exchange between the buyers ("employers") and sellers ("employees") of labor is a ZERO SUM exchange. The money paid for the labor is worth EXACTLY the amount of labor paid/exchanged for the money or the exchange could/would not have voluntarily taken place. In the exchange, the buyer of the labor incurs a loss: the money ("wages") paid for the labor. The seller of the labor also incurs a loss: the labor (including the monetary value thereof) paid for the money. The buyer's/employer's loss (money equal in value to the labor it is exchanged for) is deductible as a cost/expense of "doing business". The seller'/employee's loss (labor whose monetary value is equal to the money it is exchanged for) is not deductible. On its very face, that constitutes blatant, self-evident prima facie discrimination and unequal protection of law which has NO logical/rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. The suspect class is labor, and, were the federal judges not a bunch of classist, elitist liars, precisely because there IS an identifiable suspect class (labor), the so-called "federal question" at issue would normally be examined under what is called the "strict scrutiny" rule.

4. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag6 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions.

5. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

6. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.