Martha Stewart Did Nothing Wrong


Martha Stewart, apparently headed to prison after her trial and conviction for the healthy practice of "insider trading"

Martha Stewart was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for doing something that actually helps society more than all of her home-making advice, combined.

What makes something good, or bad, is not whether it’s legal or banned. Anyone who disagrees can go explain it to Mr. Schindler.

The difference between right and wrong, good and bad, is whether you violate another person’s property (including their body). This is the one universal “good versus evil” shared by all societies and religions. All of the rest is popular social habits turned into taboos over time, be it covering random body parts (faces in Afghanisan, breasts in America), burping (bad in America, good in Bahrain), or mullets (it’s not that they’re ugly, it’s that they now symbolize a now-unpopular subculture).

Martha Stewart was convicted for doing something illegal that is not bad, and should not be banned. In fact, using any information you consensually obtain, in order to help you make economic decisions, is a good thing. Our economy would be healthier if “inside” information were built into the price of stocks sooner, instead of implosions coming out of nowhere, or companies with a great future having to struggle for capital because it’s illegal to use a “stock tip”.

The whole point of a stock market is to help distribute investments and capital more efficiently than any “expert” or central planner ever could. This requires the participants to be not only responsible for their own risks, but free to make their decisions on any basis they choose.

“Insider trading” needs to be restored as a matter of pride, like having a hot tip on a sporting event, not wrongfully condemned as another arbitrary taboo, repressing society.

Bernie Madoff did something objectively wrong, claiming to be investing people’s money while he was actually just paying off previous investors. That’s evil even when the government makes it legal and calls it a retirement plan…

But what Martha Stewart did was objectively good, using knowledge she had to convey price information to society, even though the government says it’s illegal and calls it “insider trading”.

The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Occupation is Violation


You don't see this kind of mayhem at TEA Party rallies, because they want to protect your property rights and liberty, not violate them.

To “Occupy”, in the sense intended by the current hipster protest movement, means “to enter and take something, and refuse to stop”.

If one of these tantrum-throwing brats were to do the same thing to a date’s body, it’d be called rape.

The Occupiers are specifically trying, as they said they would, to interfere in the rights of other people, keeping them from being able to go where they want, to do what they choose, to use public or their own private property. To violate the choices of you and the rest of your community.

Hell, they object to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan…yet they want to occupy the community where you want to go about your daily life.

And that’s the most obvious problem with the Occupy Wall Street movement: They are, unlike the TEA Party, aggressors, in their methods and solutions.

They move into a neighborhood and try to violate your right to go about your business there.

It’s no wonder that actual rape is so much more common in the Occupied areas than elsewhere…it’s consistent with their overall philosophy.

Remember the Troops Who Defended American Soil


The last war unarguably fought in defense of American Freedom was the War of 1812

I am sympathetic with “support the troops”, and am adamantly in support of a Memorial Day to honor veterans who’ve actually defended the US from aggression.

But I have never, ever found anyone who can explain to me how the veterans of ANY foreign war but WWII ever “defended our freedom”.

Even if I believed in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, I would like to know exactly how our freedoms are being defended by the troops there. Or were in the Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, or the Civil War.

As far as I can see, these were all nothing more than foreign adventures for the esoteric agendas of politicians who valued their own power and advantage more than the lives of brave, loyal, but mortally exploited American boys. And the wars they drag us into are almost always used as an Appeal to Cowardice to actually abridge our liberty, back here in the States.

That’s not Defending American Freedom.

Why Tolerate an Unelected Congress?


This is an apt beginning to the political coup the opponents of Obama have feared...the convening of an unelected Congress. It should be stopped, its actions are not valid, including anything it passes.

You’d think it’s pretty obvious that if we had a Congress that was unelected, people be outraged. We are a constitutional republic, and our legislators should be elected.

And yet, that is what we have right now.

This “lame duck Congress” is not our elected set of legislators. In fact, not only are they not the ones we elected, they are the ones we specifically un-elected.

And that is outrageous.

You there, in the back, who just yelled out “But it’s always been that way”…yes, I saw who you were. Don’t worry, dissent is imperative to learning the truth.

And the truth is that lame duck Congresses are rare, because they are so obviously bad.

A Congress that is unelected, with members whose ideas have already been voted against, rushing those evils through a back door to lock them into place.

We specifically elected DIFFERENT politicians. The guys passing bills they know we oppose right now are, in effect, usurpers.

And, although there have rarely been lame duck Congresses before, this may be the first one that is specifically intended to violate the will of the people. Up until now, lame duck sessions are usually held NOT to pass laws the People are known to have just disapproved, but for a unique emergency, like impeachment, or the McCarthy hearings ostensibly to root out Communists.

But this political coup…and it is a coup, same as if the Army showed up in Congress with tanks one day and “temporarily” ousted the government…is unusual, because it’s all about passing new expansions of government that could not possibly get through next session:

  • A massive expansion of the FDA’s powers
  • Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
  • Gays in the Military
  • An unpopular arms treaty
  • A massive expansion in the already-overextended unemployment subsidy

All of these are important issues, that should be considered by our elected representatives, if by the Federal government at all.

Yet they’re being railroaded through by the corrupt Establishment on both sides. The Political Class have been carefully quiet about this, but we should not be. They think they can violate our will, for their own good…but it is intolerable.

As with the TEA Party backlash against the past three years of massive government expansion, we need to “rise up” and organize an objection to this coup, and stop it from continuing to seize power unconstitutionally.

Arizona’s Death Panel?


It’s bad enough that the Federal government created its first actual death panels thirty years ago, with organ transplants.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

Gingrich and Santorum are Enemy Combatants


Freedom of speech is one of the most important, fundamental, sacred American values.

Secrecy in government, on the other hand, is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

So when politicos like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum call for people fighting against government secrecy to be falsely classified as “enemy combatants”, “a terrorist organization”, or even to be assassinated or publicly executed, it’s pretty clear who the real enemy of America is.

What Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange, have vowed to do…and done, far more than most of us ever expected…is to bring the openness to American politics that politicians like Obama, McCain, and Bush promised but ended up opposing in almost all things.

They exposed Hillary Clinton ordering DNA samples and credit card information stolen from top UN officials.

They revealed a source of the bizarre push to attack Iran; it’s being ordered by the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

They showed that the US is secretly using its missiles and drones to slaughter people in foreign countries, while the tyrannical, abusive governments of those countries claimed credit.

The response to the whistle-blowing of these inexcusable coverups?

Above, we have a list of crimes against the American Constitution…but the criminals are named in the first half of each sentence, not the second.

Why Steal $700,000,000,000 from the US Economy?


Robin Hood stole from the Political Class and returned to the taxpayers made poor by the government's burden

With the US economy suffering its first depression in sixty years, why would the Liberal Democrats in Congress want to suck seven hundred billion dollars from the economy?

But that is what they’re demanding, with their bizarre claim that we should raise taxes in the midst of this economic crisis.

When they say letting job-producing businesses and families making more than $250K per year keep their money “will cost seven hundred billion dollars”, of course that means that NOT letting them keep it will cost the private economy that same amount.

And, of course, the private economy is what creates wealth and permanent jobs.

We have seen that for the past year, when the government’s make-work “stimulus” jobs each ended, causing unemployment to worsen.

A “stimulus” job is a burden on the economy that must eventually end, leaving the worker unemployed again…but a job at at a real company pays for itself…as long as the worker makes the employer a profit, the business keeps employing him.

So, in order to save our economy, we need to leave money in private hands, to create wealth that sustains private jobs, that create more wealth, on and on.

Remember, the Political Class thinks that it owns the money it confiscates in taxes…but in the real world, WE own it, and the entire economy is robbed when it’s taken by the government.

The T.E.A. Party is correct: We are Taxed Enough, Already.

Who is the Real Traitor: Wikileaks, or Their Attackers?


There is no more important expression to protect, than any truth embarrassing to the government.

That is, above all else, the freedom of speech the Founders wanted the First Amendment to preserve.

In fact, its big test, in 1798, was against the Alien and Sedition Acts, that were passed to silence those who would embarrass the US government.

This censorship so outraged the American public that it brought down the Adams administration, and destroyed the Federalist Party, that had dominated American politics up to that very point.

And that should tell you something about the kind of people who are wanting to censor Wikileaks, for the crime of publishing truth that is embarrassing to secretive liars in the US government.

And to those who would claim that Swedish/Australian Wikileaks isn’t protected:

The Founders clearly intended the entire Bill of Rights to restrain the US government in ALL actions, not just on Americans. Just ask Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Wherever the US government goes, the Constitution is there…it’s the sole source of its legitimacy. And the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Not only do the Obama administration and neocons want to violate the 1st amendment, but they are promoting the tyranny of government secrecy.

If the government keeps an embarrassing secret from its own voters, this changes how they vote. That is the same violation of an election as if there were armed stormtroopers in your polling booth, changing your vote.

What is the excuse these attackers of the Constitution use as their excuse? That people who have lied to and kept secrets from the American voter might be endangered.

It is yet another example of Appeal to Cowardice, their favorite tool today.

These people, who assault the American ideals of truth and justice, who want to engage in the terrorism of a police state against political speech, are the real traitors.

Entrapment: The FBI Rolls its Own Terrorism


The FBI has a disturbing pattern of taking loudmouth bluffers and pushing them into FBI-supplied "crimes"

All over America, right now, drunks are sitting in bars talking about how they’d love to shoot their evil Ex in the head. Almost none of them will ever do it, of course.

But, someday, one will.

If the police state then organizes a task force to go around offering guns and encouragement to those drunks, then arresting any who are talked into acting on their bluff, it will be entrapment.

Some of those men (almost all, in fact) would never otherwise have done it.

Right now, all over America, angry people are talking about how they’d like to do this or that thing that really amounts to terrorism, if it weren’t petty hot air. A task force looking for these people and offering to help them is exactly the same kind of entrapment evil.

Some goofy, poser kid in Oregon was recently bragging that he could “get a gun because I’m a rapper”, wanted to blow something up, et cetera.

The FBI contacted this kid, pretending to be a terrorist organization, and got him to accept a fake bomb, which he then tried to use to blow up a Christmas tree.

This was precisely the same kind of unacceptable entrapment. We will never know whether the kid would have actually tried to blow up anything, without our own government’s encouragement and enablement.

And worse, this is a disturbing pattern. They did it in Chicago, Dallas, New York, Rockford, and elsewhere. We also don’t know how many will be spurred on to do something they wouldn’t have, but end up bypassing the FBI scammer and actually kill someone BECAUSE of our own government’s urging, as happened with the 1992 WTC Bombing.

Entrapment is always wrong…even when the police state uses Appeal to Cowardice to justify it.

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Fire in a Crowded Theater


Why You CAN Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater...

Censorship advocates say “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”, to prove that there are limits to free speech.

But the way they mean it, is not true.

You cannot actually be banned from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In fact, you are completely free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as long as there’s an actual fire, you probably be treated as a hero.

If there is NOT a fire, but everyone believes that you honestly thought there was, you shouldn’t be penalized, either.

But if you LIED about it, and it turns out that people were hurt, money lost, et cetera, then you can pay civil and (dubiously) criminal penalties.

But that’s not a restriction of free speech: It’s justice for others, who have been violated by fraud, which is a kind of coercion as evil as any other.

In other words, it’s hurting people with lies that brings penalties, not that your speech can rightfully be censored.

Black Racism Proves the Problem is Government


The Obama administration's racist abuses show that the problem isn't the race or sex of the abusers, but that government authority always gets abused.

I have long said that the main problem with, say, black rappers and militant black activists against The White Man is simply that they are confusing “white” with “government”. This is illustrated by the fact that the Obama administration is committing abuses against whites, now, and then the black racist rants of the people they’re shielding from prosecution.

If you simply remove the word “white” from  “The White Man”, suddenly angry black men become part of a much larger movement, and their objections/complaints become perfectly valid, if not some of their “solutions”:

“The White Man is keeping you down!”

No, The Man [government] is keeping you down…it’s just that in your time and place, it happens to be “white”.

  • The problem with the laws that keep you dependent, or make becoming successful illegal, is the law, not the color of the skin of the fools passing it.
  • The problem with the drug war isn’t the White Man using it to keep down the Black Man, but that corrupt or foolish government officials are using it to oppress society in general, especially poorer people.
  • The problem with police brutality isn’t White Cops, it’s power-abusing cops, the culture of cowardice (shoot first, ask questions and get paid leave for being wrong later, for Police Safety), and entitlement/privilege (“we are paid to enforce the law, not obey it” and how dare you exercise your rights instead of complying abjectly) that is the problem.

Of course the solutions proposed, whether anarchist or black activist, can include foolishness like “kill the police“. But only among the most foolish or crazy, and it’s easier to fall into that animalistic reaction when it’s racial, as well. Racism is tribalism, which is always bad.

We can see this with Malcom X, who was reportedly outgrowing the violent racial nonsense, apparently that’s WHY Louis Farrakhan and friends had him killed.

As it’s revealed that the Obama administration ordered black crimes against whites to not be prosecuted, and that black government officials specifically neglected helping white people, we can see that the problem is that authoritarian government ALWAYS gets abused, not the race or sex of the people who happen to be abusing it at any given moment in time.

Bunning (Almost) Fights Unemployment


When you subsidize anything, you get more of that thing. Including unemployment.
I have a friend who got fed up with his job, and gave it up because he felt collecting unemployment was a better option. This, alone, is evidence of how unemployment benefits increase unemployment…but it gets worse:

He eventually got tired of not working at all, and got a job one day a week, just low enough not to cut into his unemployment benefit.

Here comes the “worse” part.

His employer liked him, and kept begging him to work full time…but he planned to kick back and relax until unemployment ran out. That’s right, benefits not only caused him to CHOOSE to be unemployed, but to refuse to take a full-time job, keeping him on the unemployment roles. But at least it would eventually run out…right?

  • Then Bush and Congress decided to extend it.
  • Then, when it was about to run out (again), Obama and Congress extended it once more. My friend has ended up living off the taxpayers, indefinitely, while his employer dreams of GIVING him full time work.
  • Then Jim Bunning decided my friend must go back to work. His employer must have been thrilled.

Not that Bunning is a principled Conservative, who believes in not subsidizing unemployment. No, he is just a partisan RiNO grandstanding against unfunded government spending…now that Bush isn’t the one spearheading it.

Which may be why he caved in, just a short time later. My friend gets to remain a burden on society, unemployment gets to remain artificially high.

Ever wonder how much of the 10% unemployment is simply people who CHOOSE not to work, because the government subsidizes not working?

What we need is more people in Congress who are actually like Jim Bunning was pretending, for a few hours, to be.

Fine, Kill Your Baby, But Don’t Make Me Help


Uncle Sam Squandering Taxpayer DollarsThe proposed Health Care “Reform” law includes, apparently, the taxpayer funding of abortion somewhere in its thousands of pages. But many taxpayers believe abortion is murder.

Abortion may need to be legal, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose it can be justly forced to pay for it.

The first amendment protects, in essence, our freedom of conscience. Certainly in regard to religious beliefs.

It’s ironic that abortionists like to say that abortion should be legal because of religious freedom; Some portion of those against abortion oppose it on religious grounds…

To the extent that religion is the motivation behind opposing abortion, the first amendment therefore bans government funding of abortion, because one should not be forced to violate their own religion.

Now I’m agnostic, and like Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery, I believe abortion cannot be banned, even though it’s the killing of a human baby…but despite those things, it is clear to me that forcing people who believe abortion is murder to fund that killing would be a holocaust-level evil.

An Evil Hate Crimes Law


Ron Karenga, klansmanIn what way is the new hate crimes legislation evil?

In what way is it not?

  • Hate crime laws violate the first amendment’s protection of freedom of expression and conscience. You have a right to hate someone, and to express that; you just aren’t allowed to murder them, regardless of the reason.
  • Hate crime laws belittle actual crimes. Instead of murder being the ultimate evil, murdering with politically incorrect intentions is treated as if it were somehow, magically, worse. In reality, murder is equally wrong and evil, no matter what your motivation. If anything, murdering people at random is surely worse for society as a whole.
  • What’s more, this law was passed through fraud. Enough Americans oppose such evil laws that corrupt politicians had failed to pass any, for the past decade…until they snuck it into a massive military spending bill, defrauding the American people, and illustrating why no Congresscritter should be allowed to vote for any bill they have not read, completely, themselves.

What the Liberals (Democrats and RiNOs) have proven, in passing this law, is that they are dishonest and corrupt, sneaking legislation through when they know America would oppose it, and that they despise American freedoms enough to do so even when the first amendment is at stake, and that they are sociopathic enough not to care that this undermines the basic morality against actual violent crimes.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 787 other followers

%d bloggers like this: