Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Religious neutrality in politics is a myth the humanists try to impose on Christians, while they themselves are never neutral.” Tim Price

Some of my own thoughts on the recent SCOTUS declaration of marriage redefinition-

There is no such thing as Secularism unless you define Secularism as Universalism (acceptance of all religions) because even Humanists effectively worship humanity and Metaphysical Naturalists effectively worship the cosmos. And Universalism itself is not religiously neutral.  It blesses those religions which are Universal and condemns those which claim exclusivity.

In legislating fundamental marriage redefinition & dilution from the bench, SCOTUS was establishing a government religious standard grounded in Humanism which all must follow or be prosecuted under law, just as private (non-government) businesses like Arlene’s Flowers and Sweet Cakes By Melissa have been prosecuted within the last couple years.

This topic was not forced on America by conservatives or conservatism but by progressives. If they throw religious issues into the limelight – and they seem bent on doing so – it is their moralizing which necessitates addressing how we as conservatives arrive at a response.  We’re not the ones dragging religion into the public sphere, they are. Perhaps we should be messaging that, instead of agreeing with the non sequitur logic fallacy that somehow when conservatives speak regarding values it is religious, but when Humanists do it is not.

If you push them for the source of their ideology they’ll eventually wind up at Marx, Engels, Nietzsche and Hegel. If we conservatives are pushed we wind up at Locke, De Montesquieu, Aquinas and Moses. Both sets of philosophers – theirs and ours – are working from inherently religious world views. Modern Humanism is based in the faith of Metaphysical Naturalism – blind faith in a random, self-generating universe, and in random, self-aggregating, self-improving life. Such faith informs the holder’s beliefs regarding origins, their daily decision making and their thoughts on morality.  That is the very essence of a religion.  What they worship is what they believe to be the highest known cause and the highest known life form.  Therefore it’s non sequitur to call our faith religious and theirs non-religious, for their world view effectively does worship mankind and nature.

If we play along and try to accept their religious suppositions in discourse then, what we’re in effect saying is that their religious viewpoint is acceptable for public discussion (deemed “secular”) and ours is not, and so they automatically win any discussion by default before it begins.

That’s why trying to say we should be “secular” in politics is a misnomer, it just declares their religious viewpoint to be supreme.

Tragically we’ve been thoroughly conditioned to keep thinking in terms of secularism by our experiences in law and political discourse, and by our education in public schools – because education as well is an inherently religious exercise.


Read Full Post »

Ever heard of civil forfeiture?

It goes like this:  6 Billion dollars worth of U.S. citizen’s assets seized each year by law enforcement on “suspicion” with no warrant or prosecution needed for seizure and sale of the assets.  There is no compensation for the owner.

I think this can only be happening because the average citizen hasn’t heard of it and probably wouldn’t believe it.


I believe the logic is that the government declares it can sue an item of property instead of an individual.  In the suit, the government is listed as the plaintiff, the item of property as the defendant, and the legal owner of the item as simply a third party “claimant”.  The item itself is assumed to have been potentially complicit in some alleged crime, whether or not the owner of the item was involved or has knowledge.

Because objects don’t have the same rights as human beings, the item is then simply disposed of and if the owner wants even a chance of compensation they have to initiate costly litigation in a government courtroom (it is germane that both the confiscating agency and court belong to the same entity) to attempt to assert a third party interest in the item.

This leads to ridiculous lawsuits with titles such as “USA vs. $124,700”.


Here is the opening text of the above suit:

The United States initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against $124,700 in United States currency, alleging that the money was subject to forfeiture as the proceeds of a drug transaction or as property used to facilitate the possession, transportation, sale, concealment, receipt, or distribution of a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Three individuals filed claims opposing the forfeiture, and after a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the claimants. The government appeals, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Notice what the wording does?  The suit magically erases the fact that any individual ever owned the item in question, and assumes the government has – and has always had – complete jurisdiction, which is equivalent to ownership.

By the way, if any lawyers are reading this, feel free to tell me tell me if you think I’m presenting this incorrectly.

This is not at all the first time government has assumed ownership over private items.  Property taxes – taxation on any item which is privately owned – effectively make you a renter of your own property.  If you neglect to pay taxes the government can place a lien against an item.  And the value of the taxes collected over time inevitably exceed the value of the item itself (especially if you figure in the horrible tax of inflation, which averages about 4 1/2 percent per year), so the government is really ultimately claiming true ownership.

This leads to it’s own set of ridiculous circumstances, such as the government confiscating a woman’s home over a $6.30 tax bill:


The confiscation of the house was executed by Beaver County, Pennsylvania.  But confiscations like this happen in every state, and can occur all levels of government.  It’s not hyperbole or fear-mongering to make the very rational conclusion that if this happens to one citizen, it could happen to you next.

Coming back to civil forfeiture confiscations, over one third of them happen at the federal level.

The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But there can be no protection for private property when government assumes it legally owns everything.

Read Full Post »

A week ago Governor Inslee issued Executive Order 14-04 to implement, “WASHINGTON CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION AND CLEAN ENERGY ACTION”

Governor Inslee has no authority to do this. 

According to the Washington State Constitution, Article II Section 1, “The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature.”  That word “vested” means non-transferrable.  Additionally, “The first power reserved by the people is the initiative,” and, “The second power reserved by the people is the referendum.”

Because of this, Executives Orders in Washington State carry no force of law.  They are simply and only policy statements describing how the executive branch intends to implement law that has been duly passed by the State legislature or the people. 

No legislation has been passed mandating a, “transition from coal,” or to, “advance electric vehicle use,” or to, “implement opportunities to increase statewide investments in multimodal transportation.”  And no legislation has been passed to, “develop…a new state program to assist and support our research institutions, utilities, and businesses to develop, demonstrate, and deploy new renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.” 

For Governor Inslee to pretend to create such mandates with the stroke of his pen is for him to abandon the role of the executive listed in the State Constitution in Article III Section 5, to, “see that the laws are faithfully executed.”


Part of the problem is poorly crafted law.  When legislators craft law giving the executive branch a blanket statement such as, “spend such and such,” or, “provide energy,” the executive branch ~assumes~ it has been delegated the duty of making up any law as it sees fit – in the form of executive orders and bureaucratic regulations – to achieve the goal.  That’s the real issue. 

For example, in 1969 the federal Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act.  The act basically said, “An Act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.”  That’s it.  The rest of the act was six pages of platitudes about, “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings,” and, “recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” etc.  I’m not making this up.


In 1970, based off that poorly crafted act, President Nixon issued an executive order authorizing creation of the EPA and giving it blanket authority over wide swaths of government and other previous legislation. 


Since that time the federal Congress has given the EPA additional, similarly undefined duties.  For example, the monstrous Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 which starts off with the preamble, “The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and goes on to say things like, “It is…the policy of the Congress to support and aid research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and to provide Federal technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution,” etc.  It went on to say, “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this chapter called “Administrator”) shall administer this chapter”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1251 (Title 33 1251-1376)

So the President of the United States and the EPA administrator both think they can make up law as they see fit.  But they cannot, because under the U.S Constitution, “We the People…do ordain and establish..All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”  Again, that word “vested” means non-transferrable. 

The U.S. Congress has no authority to delegate it’s role away.  They have no authority to delegate environmental regulation to the EPA, power to initiate acts of war to the executive, coinage to the Fed, or origination of tax code to the I.R.S. 

Similarly, the Washington State Congress has no authority to delegate to Governor Inslee the authority to make regulation regarding engergy consumption, transportation or creating new state programs.

Read Full Post »

The establishment Republicans are at it again. This time they’ve crafted a House bill which pretends to safeguard against an international body taking over control of internet naming, and hence the internet itself, but which – after a technicality is met – gives our current administration full authority to simply give over control. The administration has indicated it wants to do so.

So establishment Republicans (self-called moderates, but in practice always progressive) can pretend to vote against handing over the internet, all the while actually handing it over.

This is the same thing they did with funding Obamacare in October of last year, in collusion with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other progressive-voting Republican Senators.

Have you personally lost good health care and now been forced to purchase a much more expensive plan? Have you qualified for free health care but lost access to needed doctors and hospitals? You can thank this gang for going along with the President on the ACA, all the while pretending to vote against it.

This group always says, “We have to be moderate (i.e., progressive) to get the independent voters.” Every last one of them talks about being a conservative, but even their conservatism is progressive because they legislate against people having personal liberty; they want to force behaviors on people without safeguards for life, liberty or property.

The bill which would give over control of the internet is HR 4342, the DOTCOM Act of 2014. Full text is at: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4342/text

It starts, “To prohibit the National Telecommunications and Information Administration from relinquishing responsibility over the Internet domain name system…” That sounds pretty good. Then it continues, “…until the Comptroller General of the United States submits to Congress a report on the role of the NTIA with respect to such system.”

Uh oh. Did you catch that? It’s language will allow every establishment Republican to say, “I voted to prohibit the NTIA from giving up the Internet domain system!” The bill however is a complete authorization for the NTIA to give up the internet. It’s like saying a kid is prohibited from stealing a twinkie (until they open the kitchen cabinet). And then saying, “Honey, I did prohibit little Johnny from having a twinkie!”

If you care, please contact your federal Congress-person and Senators and tell them you are strongly against HR4342 and against giving any foreign body control over the internet in the United States.

If you don’t know your legislator’s names, simply call the Capital at 202-224-3121. Give them your zip code (you may also need the 4 digit zip extension) and ask them for your Congress-person and Senators.

I wish the establishment Republicans in the legislature weren’t the same group who radically increased government spending and took away citizen rights through the Patriot Act during the Bush years between 2004 to 2006, when we had a Republican President and Republican majorities in the House and Senate. During those years the Republican leadership acted more progressive than even President Lyndon Baines Johnson would have dreamed of being. Their actions is what led directly to the Tea Party surge in 2010, and is leading to another one in 2014. It’s also what has turned off independents to the Republican party. I wish I could say I’m surprised by their actions now, with so much on the line when the administration is trying to fundamentally change the nation. But I am not surprised that establishment Republicans are trying to give away control over the internet while pretending not to.

Read Full Post »

Saw a great story about a second grader who tried to defend actually thinking through a common core math problem:

This second grader’s revenge against Common Core math will make your day

Do you know why Common Core has such a convoluted, non-intrisic method? It’s like having to learn a proprietary guild handshake, They made the entire thing arbitrary so that in 10 or 20 years they can turn homeschoolers and private school students out from college entrance. It’s an end-around educational freedom. Why else do you think they would do this, sheer incompetence? Don’t believe it. Progessives are always working an angle. That’s the angle with common core.

Read Full Post »

The stories were broken today that the U.S. Federal Government has been data mining not only information from all private phone calls but also user data from all major U.S. internet companies.

The stories are at:



Here is why the U.S. Government has violated the 4th Amendment in mining information from phone calls and back-ending the servers of major internet companies to indiscriminately gather user data:  There is no probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

It works like this – Unless the Attorney General or someone else has testified to a judge the sincere belief that there is probable cause to suspect each and every one of the 312 million U.S. citizens of being individually guilty of committing acts of terrorism – and this would have to include the Attorney General making the oath and the judge issuing a warrant, they would need to have committed acts of terrorism as well – unless this has occurred, the Bill of Rights was violated because the 4th Amendment reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

No probable cause and no oath means that this administration has once again trampled on the 4th Amendment that it’s office holders were supposed to have sworn to protect and uphold.  Clearly the phone and internet data mining is a violation of the Constitution.

Read Full Post »

Isn’t there a fundamental conflict of interest in allowing public teacher’s unions to give any sort of campaign funds or gifts in kind to elected officials who oversee legislation for the public schools? Saying it’s free speech would be exactly analogous to saying it would be free speech for Airbus to give Pentagon officials a monetary kickback on all orders the U.S. government places with Airbus, regardless of the quality of their product or their performance.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »