Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senators Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina are meeting today with President Obama to discuss tactics on how best to orchestrate the appearance of bipartisanship regarding comprehensive immigration reform. However, immigration reform is not the sole reason for the Senators’ visit. Also on the agenda is the culmination of the plutocrat’s fetish like desire to track all Americans with yet another attempt at shackling us with a national identification card.

Since the events of September 11th, the aristocrats on the hill have sought a way to effectively track like cattle all U.S. Citizens; however, despite their relentless fearmongering of boogiemen terrorists, the American people have in large part resisted the attempt to achieve “safety” via a mirroring of 1970’s era East Germany.

In a fashion similar to when the FDIC proposed the “Know Your Customer Rule” before public backlash forced a retraction, the statist have returned to their default playbook to achieve their end by swaddling in a national identification card under the guise of “securing the borders”. Then Assistant Director of the FEDERAL RESERVE, Richard Small provided keen insight to the minds of plutocrats when he spoke at the Mid Atlantic Compliance Conference in 1999, quipping that success of “Know Your Customer” depended on simply renaming the provision in order to avoid public scrutiny; the Central Authority hopes to replicate a corresponding trajectory for the National ID.

Whereas, “Know Your Customer” finally became law upon passage of the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act, the National ID card has encountered continued resistance thanks both to the new-media and internet-at-large. First as REAL ID, then as the PASS Act, the National ID has thus far repeatedly run up against an ever-growing chorus of Americans awakening to a federal government intruding ever further into our personal lives and business.

As recently reported, efforts are now under way by Imperial Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Scott “Tea-Party” Brown (R-MA), and seven other co-sponsors co-conspirators to indefinitely detain Americans merely upon suspicion and without trial. Further, details remain sparse on the Obama Administration and Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair’s request to be granted authority by Congress to assassinate Americans suspected of committing belligerent acts against the Central Government. Now the seek to saddle us with a biometric ID which confirms identity be scanning the veins in our hands?

These several recent legislative maneuvers by the treasonous statists in Congress are scheming what can no less be described and ought rightfully be referred to as the “New Intolerable Acts”.

While we are fortunate to have a robust and growing body of enlightened pro-liberty advocates, thinkers, and teachers such as Representative Ron Paul, we must not rest upon their hard work to reclaim our quickly atrophying liberties. As his interview with Megyan Kelly of Fox News demonstrates, we must also consider utterly detaching ourselves form what was once referred to as “the fourth branch of government”, ergo the old-media, as it is obvious at least to this blogger, that they are but mere shills for the statists. Her inference that an erosion of our natural liberties is of no consequence and a necessary concession under the current events, shows her to be a cold lifeless traitor to human liberty.

Make no mistake, the world, why undeniably dangerous, has always appeared to be at an unrivaled level of hostility when viewed through the lens of the here and now. Whereas it took close to 2,000 years of human civilization for an imperfect generation to rightfully proclaim the individual as the standard-bearer of liberty, in full possession of our natural rights, and offer the opportunity to form a more perfect Union.

Let us not now shrink in the duty to be ever vigilant defenders of both our own and our posterity’s unalienable natural liberties in the face of this growing tyranny.

Allison Bricker

The “Change We Can Believe In” sure keeps looking like more of the same.

EDITORIAL – In the aftermath of the September 11th Attacks, the United States Congress hurriedly passed, without reading, and the President signed, the three hundred and forty-two page behemoth known as the USA PATRIOT ACT. Thereby legislatively gutting any remnant of our inherent right to privacy as outlined in the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politicians, such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sought to calm the fears of civil libertarians by attaching a ‘sunset’ clause so as to require the act’s repeal unless extended by the congress.

Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act first came up for review in 2005, a time in which the great color-guide of terror still readily flashed across television screens helping to keep the specter of terrorism at the forefront of the American psyche. Thus with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq entering their fourth and second years respectively, coupled with the security provided by term-limits, the 43rd Executive, George W. Bush, upped the paranoia level with forecasts of bad ‘gut’ feelings and propagandized news headlines in order to further secure the central authority’s new “legalized” tools of tyranny.

At the conclusion of the tireless fear mongering, the USA PATRIOT Act’s sunset portion was extended until December of this year. Thus, with the act set to expire yet again, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who originally sought to counter worries over the act, opted to author S. 1629 the “USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009”, thereby pushing any hope of legitimate legislative relief out past 2013, conveniently also just beyond the 44th Executive, Barrack Obama’s reelection bid.

In addition, it is possible that the Congress may opt to deflect additional criticisms in whole by resorting to one of the most tired political maneuvers on the hill, renaming the PATRIOT Act entirely. One proposed alternative; “The JUSTICE Act”, extending even further a truly demented sense of irony embraced exclusively by the plutocratic oligarchs who delight in seemingly sex-like gratification by exerting control over the lives of others.

S. 1629 seeks to extend some of the most controversial of the act’s powers, among which are domestic warrantless wiretapping in conjunction with ‘National Security Letters’. The latter provides the ability to snoop through an individual’s home, bank, medical, and/or telephone records, ergo LIFE, without probable cause, notice, or permission. Once again, like ‘political manna from heaven’ old-media evening news headlines flash and proclaim the latest terrorist arrests, coincidentally providing a national pedestal for police-state plutocrats of ‘either’ party to claim a necessity in curtailing Constitutional restraints on the federal government in favor of catching vaguely defined ‘evildoers’.

More so, the reality of the matter is that with all the ballyhoo of “needing” these essential “tools” in order to win the ‘War on Terror’, the USA PATRIOT ACT has yielded few legitimate results. To the contrary, the powers granted to the Central Authority’s varied intelligence/police apparatuses have largely resulted in repeated and continued abuses of power.

Of the several hundred “sneak and peak” warrants executed under power decreed from the USA PATRIOT Act, only three were related at all to terrorism. The majority were used in investigations of illegal narcotics, to which, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, flippantly replied during testimony:

“I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

David Kris
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

Fellow readers, it is very alarming indeed that a piece of legislation sold and hence foisted upon us out of necessity in ‘combating terrorism’ elicits no surprise in its misapplication and utter violation of inherent liberties. Are we to now believe that the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terror” are one in the same; liberty be damned across the board?

This is just the latest example of the audacious and contemptuous behavior displayed by the wretches who clutch the reins of power. A power, which as expected and as we were warned, has like a cancer, spread throughout the seats of our government, and the American Republic.

Moreover, for those whom profess to cherish liberty, it must surely incite nausea to realize that many who were apprehended and branded as “persons of interest” or “terrorists” were quietly let go after the Central Authority failed to find any evidence of criminal activity; terrorism, drugs, or otherwise. Nevertheless, lives and reputations ruined wholly by mere suspicion/retribution by the state, i.e. Terrorism Theater.

It should also be noted that some of the innocent and unfortunate souls who fell victim to these wanton abuses of power were released with far less fanfare than the fist pumping “chicken-hawk”, tough on terror machismo displayed upon their capture. The ruined reputations viewed merely as “collateral damage” by a Central Authority who used the fallacious arrests like pawns in a chess match solely as a means to retain their pornographic lust of power over the common person.

It is most aptly apparent, that the representatives who inhabit the halls of our American government have failed to listen to our repeated injuries endured under such a repugnant “Act”. Let fall on deaf ear, our disdain over banker and auto manufacturer bailouts, continued torture through “Executive Order” vis-à-vis Rendition, and health care.

Instead, the banker beholden plutocrats attempt to label ‘We the People’ and our dissent as “un-American”, “Nazi”, “racist”. Let it be known that they shall disregard Liberty’s demands to repeal in its entirety, the USA PATRIOT Act at their own peril.

It may yet take actual Patriots to show these tyrants how to Act appropriately.

#DToM

Related Material(s)
	USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001 H.R. 3162 / P.L. 107-56 (PDF 377Kb) S.1692 – USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (PDF 239Kb)

Allison Bricker

Social news site reddit.com interviews 14th Congressional District representative, Ron Paul. Questions were asked and voted upon by the reddit community, with the top ten questions asked during the course of the interview.

1. Kitanata: Dr. Paul, you have stated that you do not support Net Neutrality. Could you define Net Neutrality as you see it, then elaborate on what aspects of Net Neutrality you do not support and why? Thank you.




2. Fauster: Do you think that scientists are politically motivated with regard to issues of global warming and evolution? As a medical professional, you probably understand the value of deferring to specialists outside areas of your expertise. Nonetheless, you openly disagree with overwhelming scientific consensus in these two areas. While hardly anyone thinks Greenland will melt in twenty years, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe the effects of climate change will be lasting and severe in the next 50-100 years. With regard to evolution, almost all biologists, geologists, and physicists would say it’s better characterized as a law than a theory. Do you think the Bible provides a superior account of the origins of life on Earth, and thus claim a different source of expertise? Or rather, do you believe that scientific claims are grossly wrong, biased, or politically motivated?




3. SquirrelOnFire: Congressman Paul, The current health care legislation seems to be moving closer to the insurance industry’s ideal (minimal change + mandatory insurance) each day. What can be done to tip the balance of power in the congress away from lobbyists and towards the voters? Thank you for agreeing to speak with us.




4. Blackf1sh: Congressman Paul, Government investments in science and technology have historically yielded great returns. For example, it has been estimated[1] that, “technologies derived from quantum mechanics may account for 30% of the gross national product of the United States.” Money from the US government has led to the development of the internet[2] and a long list of NASA spin-off technologies have contributed to our daily lives[3].

   In contrast, the risk-averse private sector has little incentive and a poor track record for funding these types of long-term projects. Although the exploratory research in academic settings is often inefficient at achieving specific goals, it has the unique potential to yield unexpectedly amazing results on decade-long timescales.

   How can one justify reducing the budget for science and technology in spite of the quality of life and national security afforded by the developments from government-funded research?




5. Rightc0ast: Dr. Paul, Regarding the theory of evolution, I realize you have said you don’t feel the issue is important, but it’s been a topic discussed at great length at reddit, and other web sites. We’d really appreciate an answer to this.

   Allow me to clarify. Many people mistakenly confuse actual evolution with abiogenesis, or life coming from inanimate matter. Evolution is not a theory of creation. It is a theory encompassing genetic drift and selection, and describing changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Do you accept evolution in this regard as the foundation upon which nearly all biological knowledge is based, or do you truly believe change within species from generation to generation does not occur?




6. DoesMyKeyboardWork: Dr. Paul, What would a “return to sound currency” look like? Realistically, how would it play out? Would people exchange their dollars for a new gold/silver backed currency?

   As much as I agree with you (donated for the original money bomb, sticker on my car, wrote you in for the election), the defeatist in me thinks this is impossible and the entire system is eternally ruined. Thank you (and sorry for the pessimism)




7. TheHiveQueen: Dr. Paul, How do you reconcile the fact that you believe that the Federal Government has no place in Gay Marriage debate with your support of DOMA?




8. Playeren: Sir, should the government be able to keep secrets from the public at all? And Is ultimate freedom more important than ultimate security?




9. Chungkaishek: Dr. Paul, Given your well-established belief in the merits of the free market system, I’d like to know how you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA establishes restrictions and requirements on businesses, something I imagine goes against free market principles, yet it also ensures, for example, that a blind customer with a service animal such as a seeing eye dog will be treated like any other customer and not turned away for bringing a dog into a store.

   Should a free market decide which customers get service, or is this the responsibility of the federal government?




10. Jboeke: Dr. Paul, I’m trying to be a good libertarian, but I’m conflicted. I live in Phoenix, AZ and we just started up our light rail system earlier this year. I love it! I use it to commute to work and take it to the bar on weekends so I don’t drive drunk.

    But, light rail was a big public works project which took millions in taxpayer money from the three different cities and the Federal government. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a scenario where something like light rail would have ever been built by the free market. How can I enjoy this project and still be a good libertarian?

Guest Contributor

Raymond Powell

Raymond Powell is the Editor in Chief of “Liberty Network News”,  a “Revolution Broadcasting” radio personality, and is a member of several other ventures in the liberty movement. All of which are all accessible through RaymondPowell.com Mr. Powell considers himself to be a libertarian minded freedom seeker who became serious about changing the world in July of 2007 when Dr. Ron Paul was campaigning for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

The planners behind the New World Order movement are once again showing their pure brilliance. For decades, they have worked to maintain a two-party system and ensure that people have only one of two groups to identify with. These groups have been labeled “liberal” and “conservative”. If you want to study this technique, do some research on the Hegelian Dialectic. Of course you can always read Carroll Quigley as well to get all the specifics on their plan.

Please note that when I refer to “liberals” and “conservatives” throughout this article, I am not attempting to validate their usage. I am only pointing out that these are the two ideologies that have been created by usage of the technique I just described. That is why I enclose those words in quotes.

Every time one side of the Hegelian takes a clear political advantage, they know that the other side is surely feeling completely disenfranchised. The patriot/freedom movement has had the luxury of being able to reach out to a disenfranchised group for almost 2 years now. We have made significant progress with the “liberals” before the 2008 election, and we are making major progress with the “conservatives” now that the “liberals” are running the federal government. Of course we did make progress with the “conservatives” before the election too due to the Bush administrations complete lack of identity with “conservatism”. Due to that lack of identity, the “conservative” side has been weakened.

The planners behind the New World Order cannot allow the freedom movement to continue to make progress. With Obama being elected, the “liberals” now have their home. But the “conservatives” have none. They have now shown us how they intend to solve their dilemma. This new “we surround them” project will give all the “conservative” side a home again; a place from which they can re-invigorate their battle with the “liberals”. Of course this on-going battle has always served, and will always serve, to create a more restrictive society.

Let’s not be fooled. While this list of things may appear on the surface to be progress for the freedom movement, we know better. In order for this to be progress, it would mean that News Corp and other large media players have suddenly come around and joined us! To believe that, one would have to be seriously uninformed about the power, scope, goals, and experience in societal manipulations of the planners behind the New World Order.

Remember how this all started with Glenn Beck suddenly apologized to Ron Paul supporters for calling them “terrorists”? Once again, to really think he had just miraculously come around on his own, is to not understand the scope of the problem we are fighting against. I clearly remember watching his apology and addressing Ron Paul supporters and being extremely suspicious at the time.

While all of the evidence I am presenting is purely circumstantial, I believe anyone who has been paying attention to circumstances in current day and over the last 100 years or so, can see this evidence as clearly as I can.

I believe Glenn Beck was appointed to infiltrate our message. First, they decided that CNN is not the place for him- that is the “liberal” news network. They needed to put him in the right place, working for Fox News, who is the “conservative” news network. They did a small field test with his broadcasts over the last few weeks. They have done studies on the reaction and have come up with a clear plan as to what void needs to be filled in the “conservative” side of the Hegelian. Now that they have that, they have created a 9-point scheme, created a nice, easy to remember name for the project (we surround them) and are now attempting to enlist the big “conservative” guns, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Once this plan goes into effect, the uneducated, and misinformed populous will not be able to differentiate between the true message of freedom, and the message of the new “conservative” meme which is being created. But that same segment of the populous will find some comfort in their message, and they will be able to hear it in their car, see it on TV, and read it in all the conservative publications. The real message of freedom will be drowned out, and the populous will be manipulated, as always, into a false battle of fighting against those evil “liberals”.

I will now provide my analysis of their 9 points, and what I think they are trying to accomplish with each:

1. America is good.
   This sounds great! In reality, the only thing truly good about America (The United States of), is our constitution. Of course since that document is being totally ignored these days by our federal government, this statement is pretty meaningless and only serves to create false patriotism which ultimately leads to support of a big federal government.

   
   

   
   

   
   

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
   By this, they most certainly mean the “popular” version of God that has been created over many centuries of manipulations of the world population. That version of God is carefully maintained presently by the “National Council of Churches”. This point serves to separate those “conservatives” who tend to more regularly attend church and buy into the God concept they have created, from those “liberals” who tend to be afraid to address the issue of God in their lives. This ongoing battle will now be re-invigorated and keep everyone distracted from the fact they are continuing to restrict our freedoms and enslave us economically.

   
   

   
   

   
   

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
   Not sure about this one. Just seems to be good feeling fluff. Of course everyone wants honesty. Once again, it only serves to divide because once you have the “liberals” fighting against this platform, those who support the platform, will believe in their mind that those in opposition obviously don’t believe honesty is important.

   
   

   
   

   
   

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
   This statement is designed to grab those who support less government, but convince them, at the same time, that by believing in less government, you must act completely selfishly. Of course, working together and recognizing our shared responsibility for our community is paramount to a successful “free” society. This will divide the two groups and tap into people’s common sense understanding that we must share those certain responsibilities and present government as the only solution. Also note the use of the word “spouse”. This implies that those who choose to enter into the governments approved version personal relationships are somehow more worthy.

   
   

   
   

   
   

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
   This statement forces those that bought into this platform because of the freedom elements, to also accept that law must be enforced at all costs- regardless of real morality of freedom, and regardless of the constitutionality of the law in question. This will also allow people to sit back and accept the enactment of harsh penalties that we have never seen before.

   
   

   
   

   
   

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
   This statement gives the “conservatives” the ammunition to say “don’t complain you whiner”, whenever the government comes down hard on freedom-fighters. It subtly says “freedom is a neat idea, but don’t complain when you don’t get it.”

   
   

   
   

   
   

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
   This is “conservatism” at its best. This would be generally acceptable on its own in a pure sense, of course, to “liberals” this will appear to be insensible selfishness and only add fuel to the Hegelian battle. Experienced freedom fighters know that in order to get away with making statements like this, it always needs to be worded more like: While giving to others and being charitable is important in a functioning society, it can never be the role of government to use force or coercion to enforce morality.

   
   

   
   

   
   

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
   Once again, this enforces false patriotism in this “America” concept. The freedom movement would simply say something like: “The constitution enumerates my rights which allow me the freedom to rail against the government or to express my opinion.” But this would be far too sensible and not nearly divisive enough to accomplish the goals of their project.

   
   

   
   

   
   

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
   Once again, this statement has shades of sentiment of a freedom-fighting constitutionalist. But we know these people aren’t. They are actually enforcing the concept of big government. They are saying big government is ok, as long as we (“conservatives”) are in control.

Part of me wants to write another several pages to make my argument crystal clear. However, I have real freedom-fighting work to get back to. I only hope that our movement can see through these tactics and not be fooled. This is a complicated game- and the road to winning back our freedom just got harder.

If you made it all the way through my post. Thank you for taking the time. You must have saw some little bit of wisdom here!

Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. -During an interview by Emily Bazelon of the “New York Times Sunday Magazine”, Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals how she originally understood the high court’s 1973 decision on ROE  v. WADE to be based upon a desire for government population control. Specifically stating:

“…there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times Magazine
July 12th, 2009 Edition

 

Justice Ginsburg points to U.S Air Force policy prior to ROE v. WADE of automatic discharge for women who became pregnant. She further explains how it was customary for superiors to recommend abortions in lieu of discharge and that the U.S. Air Force actually offered abortions to pregnant enlisted women on base. Specifically Justice Ginsburg cites her representation of Captain Susan Struck during her hearing in 1972.

Moreover, Justice Ginsburg reveals how she imagined Medicaid could have served as the vehicle for government funded abortions. However, to her complete surprise, the court ruled to uphold the “Hyde Amendment” i.e. prohibition on the government funding of abortion, in its 1980 decision,  HARRIS v. M_CRAE. The ninety-minute interview also covered her opinions on President Obama’s pick for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. To which Fox News Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano admonished her for cheer leading a potential Supreme Court nominee whilst residing on the bench.

Source(s): New York Times Magazine “The Place of Women on the Court” published for Sunday July 12th, 2009 Edition

Joseph Marohl

France’s conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy¹ has publicly stated that he backs a coalition of French legislators expressing “concerns” over the increase in burqa wearing among Muslim women in France:

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity.”

“The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”

“We cannot accept that some women in our country are prisoners behind a grille, cut off from social life, deprived of their identity.”

Nobody has said anything (yet) about “banning” burqas, though it is worth remembering that, as of 2004, French law prohibits the wearing of overt religious symbols (including crucifixes, headscarves, and yarmulkes) in secular state institutions, including state-operated schools².

President Sarkozy’s words “not welcome,” which grate in American ears, are part of the government’s century-old attempt to define and preserve an idea of French culture in a mobile and diverse society. As such, President Sarkozy’s speech is consistent with the French concept of laïcité and an effort to preserve a level of peace and order in public institutions at a time when religion can be compared to gang membership in the minds of many, many of both secular and religious mindsets.

Laïcité is a uniquely French concept, only somewhat comparable to America’s separation of church and state—which, in case you haven’t noticed, are hardly ever actually separate in this country.

French secularism was a nineteenth-century innovation to separate education, traditionally a Catholic system (all the medieval universities, for instance, were arms of the Church), from the control of the clergy. More strictly, then, than in the United States, France has kept government out of religion and religion out of government—no oaths on the Bible, no “one nation under God,” no crèches at city hall, no politicians crowding the pulpits.

Further, laïcité is as much a concept of French culture as it is of French law. French secularism does not deny the value of faith and spirituality. It does, however, separate it from the public sphere, viewing religion as a distinctly “private” matter, not to be meddled with in public and not to be allowed to meddle in matters of importance to the common collective good of the French people, of whatever creeds or none.

Still, it is hard not to hear President Sarkozy’s words in the context of the conservative European backlash against immigrants, especially Arab immigrants, since 2001 and the rise of the “demographic winter” conspiracy scenarios currently popping up around the continent—diluted in mainstream films like Children of Men and fortified in far right religionist to neo-Nazi propaganda blaming feminists, gays, and abortion clinics for the shrinking numbers of white Christian babies.

His [Sarkozy] stated concern—women’s freedom and dignity—, though, is clearly not anti-feminist or strongly sectarian. The question remains whether the statement truly reflects his and the legislators’ intent—because we Americans may remember how neoconservatives opportunistically embraced feminism (for a few days) to justify wars, not so very long ago.

French laïcité has been criticized as an attempt to homogenize French culture. And in the burqa controversy, President Sarkozy’s stance could backfire, as fundamentalist Muslims might then refuse wives and daughters the liberty to go out in public at all, not to mention draw fire from Islamists for whom there is no such thing as the secular.

Are burqas a sign of religious freedom or an emblem of the subjugation of women? In America, such matters are usually left alone—rightly or wrongly designated as matters of religious choice and therefore protected under the First Amendment. In exceptional cases, such as when parents refuse needed medical care for their child in the belief that medical science denies faith in God’s healing powers, sometimes the state intervenes—but, even then, usually to some controversy.

I, for one, applaud France’s efforts to define a society based on secular values, while protecting religion as a privacy issue. I think America could do more to assert, protect, and enforce a secular culture that still maintains individuals’ right to worship (or not) as they please. Such a culture is essential to a society that values both individual freedom and the common good of its citizens.

Despite well-choreographed propaganda, the word “secular” does not and never really has meant the same thing as “anti-religious.” Some American religious zealots are comfortable persecuting others, while claiming martyrs’ crowns for themselves. For example, in my state (North Carolina), the biggest impediment to the just-passed anti-bullying law was not original-intent Constitutionalists, with their technical legal concerns, but church groups claiming that the inclusion of “real and perceived sexual orientation” as a protected category was an assault on their fundamental values, which hold that some types of children deserve all the bullying they get.

I cannot claim a great deal of sensitivity towards religion these days (I was brought up a fundamentalist Baptist) or much knowledge at all of Muslim practices. But purely from an outsider’s point of view, the burqa does, yes, look to me like the subjugation of women—even though I do realize that many women gladly and voluntarily don these heavy, forbidding coverings … mass self-subjugation is no less an affront on the human spirit than external constraints, lest we forget that many slaves claimed to love their masters, prided themselves in their faithful servitude, and would never have dreamt of trying to escape.

Definitely, I would feel different if in some Middle Eastern countries women who refuse to cover their heads in public had not been beaten and stoned in recent years. Under other circumstances, in a different historical context, I would tolerate the burqa as one more alien and sexist quirk of fashion—of which haute couture has seen plenty just as alien and just as sexist. But women in Paris are not physically attacked for refusing to wear Chanel or Franck Sorbier.

We live in a multicultural world. We have to live and let live. If we do not, we will divide and destroy ourselves.

But tolerance does not mean toleration of the patent degradation of whole groups. If burqas were merely offensive to my scruples or tastes, I would have nothing to say about them here. If burqa wearing was clearly a matter of personal preference and choice, I would have nothing to say against it.  If I could hear a reasonable, liberal, and (yes) secular defense of the burqa, I could still change my mind about it.

But, in my admitted ignorance of the custom, the burqa looks degrading, and degradation of the human spirit is un-democratic. It is also un-French, if not yet (sadly) altogether un-American.

Source(s): ¹Reuters “Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France” by Estelle Shirbo, published Monday, June 22nd, 2009 • ²French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools (English Translation by BabelFish)

Allison Bricker

TEHRAN, IRAN – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader has ordered the Guardian Council to take up the an investigation of alleged fraud over Iran’s tumultuous election, according to Iran’s state television network. In a response to opposition candidate’s letter to the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replied:

“You are different from those people (rioter protesters on the streets) and you are advised to keep manners and calmness,”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Iranian Supreme Leader

Opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi is now reporting that he is currently under house arrest as protests continue to swell across the nation. Police and rioters continue to clash regardless of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory speech on Sunday. Reports are also circulating that various news reporters have been arrested, including those from NBC and the BBC. At the time of publiction, details are spotty and difficult to confirm. The Smoking Argus Daily will continue to provide updates to this post upon further developments.

—END REPORT—

Source(s): ¹NBC “The Today Show” live report, June 15th, 2009 •

Joseph Marohl

The religious right’s positions on a good many issues perplex me. I would genuinely like to hear the data and reasoning behind them, rather than the usual bumper-sticker cant that indicates no research and little thought—and no great attention even to the scriptures they so devoutly brandish, unaware of just how two-edged their swords are (Hebrews 4:12).

On abortion, for instance, the heavenly minded take a stance that life begins at conception. Quite recently, a sincere believer I know upheld this stance with the story of Onan, the guy in Genesis who “spilled his seed on the ground” to avoid his duty of impregnating his dead brother’s childless wife (Genesis 38:9-10). Now I had always thought that the sin of Onan (onanism) was masturbation, but this person was quite certain that the real sin was a sin against life, human life. Then, I asked, was she suggesting that Onan’s sperm was a human being? No, she answered, but Onan’s refusal to give his widowed sister-in-law a child was more than an infraction of Jehovah’s pre-Mosaic law; it was, more importantly, a denial of the special holiness of human life.

Now I’ve read the Old Testament through several times—not recently, though—and I don’t recall its version of God ever having much to say about the special holiness of human life—a concept that rings in my ears as more early 19th-century romantic than Judaic or Christian.

In fact, the jealous and angry God of Moses did not hesitate to ask Abraham and Jephthah to sacrifice (kill) their son and daughter respectively, the former to test Abraham’s piety and the latter to settle what amounts to a careless wager (Genesis 22:1-14; Judges 11:30-37). God spared Isaac and, so a good many evangelical readers believe (or hope), Jephthah’s daughter, as well—an optimism based on her mourning the fact that she would never marry, not her impending death—though for a girl in the ancient world, not marrying equaled death and, in Greek mythology, Iphigenia, King Agamemnon’s daughter, similarly mourns her perpetual maiden state before facing her father’s blade (though some Greeks, suckers for happy endings like the rest of us, imagined that, after death, she married Achilles).

At any rate, God most definitely did not spare Job’s children—and again for no better reason than to put Job’s devotion to the test (Job 1:6-21). But then, according to some traditions, Job was Sumerian, not Hebrew—and the Old Testament God never recognized the special holiness of goyim and backsliding Jews, as again and again he called for the slaughter of every man, woman, and child (even the livestock) among “them” (Exodus 12:29; Leviticus 26:29; Numbers 16:27-33, 31:17-18; Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6; I Samuel 15:3—and here I scratch only the genocidal surface of the Bible).

Beyond a callous disregard for the lives of the born, Mosaic law offers no sense that unborn lives are even as special. The first five books of the Bible offer excruciatingly detailed instructions about the eating of shrimp, copulating during a woman’s menstrual cycle, and the cleansing of lepers, but hardly a word about the disposition of the unborn. Exodus 21:22-25 describes the prescribed punishment for a man who, in the middle of a fight, wounds a pregnant woman. If she miscarries, the guilty party has to pay the woman’s husband a fine (the crime, after all, is against him, not her—and it is damage to property, not manslaughter). But if any “further damage” occurs (presumably the death of the woman), the guilty man must be punished a “life for a life.” (By the way, more recent translations often shy away from wording here that suggests miscarriage—whether due to faithfulness to the original wording or awareness of its modern legal implications, I cannot say.)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 calls for the public stoning of “stubborn and rebellious” children—and we’re talking living, breathing, possibly even adult children here. So what becomes of the rather petty question “What would have happened had the mothers of Washington, Lincoln, and Edison had an abortion?” Think about it: What would have happened had the mothers of Mozart, Einstein, and George W. Bush followed Deuteronomy to the letter?

In the history of the Christian church, to my knowledge, there exists no general tradition of holding funerals for miscarriages—though I am aware that individuals have deeply mourned these losses, usually in private, sometimes with some attempt at an unofficial religious ritual. But (and you may correct me on this) funeral rites for fetuses (or sperm) have not played a significant role in the Christian liturgy.

For that matter, church registers traditionally recorded births as auspicious events, not pregnancies, though high infant-mortality rates 100 or more years ago might have dampened whatever enthusiasm the old-time religionists would have felt in presumptuously celebrating conception. The sacraments didn’t start until after birth. Naming was usually reserved for breathing infants—even premature births were rarely named. The unborn were not counted in censuses and population tallies.

On what, then, do modern Christians, mainly Catholics and evangelicals, base their claims that abortion violates their religious beliefs—much less the Constitution of the United States of America?

For myself, a gay middle-aged male with no interest in procreation (or adoption), I admit to being squeamish over the topic of abortion. Kodachrome photos of bloody fetuses in trash pails appall me. I physically recoil from them—but, then, I do much the same with pictures of tonsillectomies, liposuction, and spinal surgery, without thus reaching the conclusion that all gross-looking and distasteful medical procedures should be banned.

Even more, on moral principle I have reservations about abortion as mere birth control—I am, thus, more romanticist than pragmatist or dogmatist. I like, even revere life—though on occasion I eat dead animals, stomp on hornets that inadvertently (through no fault of their own) enter my home, and do not particularly fear the inevitability of death. (I also, routinely, commit the sin of Onan.)  More to the point, I am not altogether opposed to war—which may be, though rarely is, logically and ethically justified—or to killing, when unavoidable, any human who poses an immediate deadly or maiming or despotic threat to other humans.

Still, the taking of a human or even just potentially human life—through war, vengeance, or euthanasia—strikes me as being solemn business—a painful choice that fortunately I have not had to make. Such decisions should be made through constitutional means if we are talking about war or capital punishment. And, in keeping with the spirit of the Bill of Rights, when we are talking about a woman’s ownership of and responsibility for her body—and its contents—these decisions should be made by the woman alone, on the best advice and counsel and by the most safe and humane means that can be made available to her.

So, apart from deliberate (or careless) misreading of their own scriptures and predispositions to self-righteous orneriness and busybody-ism, what exactly are the right-to-lifers’ religious or social interests in the issue of abortion? If they are in the Bible or church history, I have not seen them there.

The Smoking Argus

In their never ending attempt to obtain a government love license, the homosexual movement has apparently found a loophole. The government must immediately seek to close this glaring omission of the law and stop the notion that love can be obtained without government’s consent. In a post 9/11 world, love must be reserved for those who are capable of providing the government with subsequent generations of offspring in order to ensure the proper repayment of debt. If we allow just anyone to love, then how will the bankers government continue to keep us safe, strong  and free from the evil spooky gays terrorists.

(much [unlicensed] love to Young Americans for Liberty for posting this video.)

Source(s): The Onion News Network

Jeff Lewis

On Wednesday of this past week, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, defiantly said:

“Colin Powell should close the loop and become a Democrat!”¹
Rush Limbaugh
May 6th, 2009

A few days earlier, an ad hoc group of prominent Republicans, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor (R-VA) among them, began a “listening tour”, ostensibly to rekindle a fire in the vanquished Republican faithful. Within 24 hours, Chairman Rush, was on the radio, in full throat, denouncing this half-hearted effort as meaningless and said what Republican leadership should be doing was having a “teaching tour”.

Such a suggestion begs the question, “What should Republicans be teaching folks?” One would be hard pressed to think they should conduct seminars on how to repackage the plethora of outworn, ineffective, and counterproductive mantras of their recent voting experiences. Since the 2004 election, Republican Senators have dwindled from 55 to 40. None other than current Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) summarized on Thursday that unless things improve soon, they [Senate Republicans] would be down to 36 after the 2010 midterm elections. The tread worn issues of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-government, anti-diplomacy in foreign policy, anti-Obama on virtually everything he stands for, have lead the national body politic to the news contained in the April 24th, 2009 Washington Post/ABC opinion survey shows only 21% of voters consider themselves Republicans². Duh!

The Republican Party does not need a teaching program; they need a “Twelve Step Program!” They need a collective soul searching that asks the question, “Where did we run so afoul of the voting populace?” For a 12-step program to be effective, it requires an honest self-appraisal, and therein is the problem. They do not admit to having any inherent message problem, but one of a lack of focus, a loss of basic direction, and cosmetic imaging problems. Republicans are not out of touch with most Americans, they are out of touch with themselves. To borrow from contemporary vernacular, “There is only so much lipstick…”

Assuming that such an approach would be an extremely tough sell with the limited capacity of hard core Republicans to admit any shortcomings, their salvation could happen in one of two ways, in my judgment. One, they need an equivalent of a modern day “Moses” to appear with new tablets of stone; or two wait for President Obama to implode, which would allow votes by default because of the restrictive nature of two party entrenchment, inherent in our political machinery. Both of these possibilities will take more time than the next year permits, barring any unforeseen monumental calamity or lightening bolt. Voters’ attention spans have an effective range of about ninety days, which coincides with corporate America’s attention span, as well.

Moses had forty years in the dessert to deliver his people to their promised land. The Republican Party does not have that much time. Is this the opening for America’s next third Party?

Source(s): ¹Excellence in Broadcasting Network, “The Rush Limbaugh Show” – Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 • ²Washington Post/ABC News Poll, Conducted April 21-24,200 +/-3%