Author Archives: Artus Register

About Artus Register

A self-described "objectivist-leaning libertarian deist," Artus Register became a full fledged libertarian after the 2000 elections. An unapologetic freedom-lover, enemy of the state, trouble maker, and permanent subscriber to the "ain't a dime's worth of difference" ideology, Register enjoys few things more than illustrating the hypocrisy of the so-called "left" and "right." When not bellowing from his cyber soapbox, he enjoys Cuban tobacco, good whiskey, and better debate. He lives with his wife in the American southeast where he works as a privacy consultant. You can contact him, if you must, at minarchist[at]

Pot? No; Death? Yes

sheepleTerminally ill patients, tortured with persistent nausea and excruciating pain, are afforded the right to die by an Oregonian law. But the self-appointed guardians of morality and spokespersons of the Almighty in the Bush administration fought to void the law, insisting that Federal authority knows no bounds. In an obvious bout of dementia, the Supreme Court ruled today–despite the obvious fact that FedGov does indeed possess the legal authority to withhold the medical marijuana that may well prevent the terminal condition to begin with — that conditional assisted suicide laws, passed by state governments are beyond the reach of centralized state authority. From the AP:

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose.”

While it is a startling piece of news that the Supreme Court opposed an unconstitutional action by the current administration, the real story is that six of the high court’s justices have, if not actually read, at least heard of the Tenth Amendment. It seems there may be a rumor stirring on capital hill that the powers of the federal government may have some sort of ill-defined ceiling. This will surely be as controversial as ID.

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

“If the term `legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,” he wrote.

Perhaps, but the Constitution I searched does not delegate the definition of medical terms to the federal legislature or judiciary.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft’s “unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide.”

It still amazes me that jurists who truly feel that every aspect of human existance is the domain of the federal government are constantly refered to as “strict constructionsists.” More on this later.

The government could easily have won this case had they illustrated that assisted suicide is clearly a matter of interstate commerce.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Radley Balko apparently got a lot of comments calling Thomas’s dissent a bitchslap:

Seems that once he knew the margin for upholding the law was secure, Thomas decided to dissent for the sole reason of upbraiding (I believe some of you chose the term “bitch slap,” or, alternately, “pimp slap”) the majority for its baldly inconsistent holding in this case versus its holding in Raich.


The Politics of Racism

The word racism is cast about incessantly in attempts to inflame, incite and anger, mostly by those who lack an understanding of its definition. What is usually defined as racism is actually just simple bigotry. True racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another. Oddly, the most striking example of actual, textbook racism is embodied by the political left.

The modern world is filled with examples of ethnic detestation, bigotry and actual racism that apparently do not sell copy, as they are rarely mentioned as more than a footnote to another story. As with most problematic issues, we are treated by society to a great debate over whom to blame and how best to correct the problem. And, as remains the norm, the solutions are mandates, theft and more bigotry postulated by the most egregious offender: the state.

In the alleged spirit of equality, government, most notably the self proclaimed liberals of the Democratic Party, has claimed compassion, fairness and a sort of social-reparation as their motivation for continued government intervention into the racial arena. This sad pretense truly guiles the majority of the populace in general, and the supposedly assisted minorities in particular. The reality is that these collectivists who admit a hatred for the free market are engaging in simple, capitalistic barter. They are exchanging money and programs, or the promise of both, for the votes of the “victimized” and “disenfranchised” minorities.

What follows is a designed perpetuation of the problems government insists it is solving. By taking money by force from a largely Caucasian tax base and gifting it to minorities, bigoted and hateful feelings are deeply worsened. Add to this the anger felt by business owners who are forced by government to comply with racial quotas in hiring practices and it is plain to see that government policy can easily create discrimination and prejudice where it never existed before. Intolerance, force-fed by the omniscient state cannot help but grow in size and magnitude.

Much worse is the effect on those these policies allegedly help. It is the repugnant and unreported fact that those who demand and legislate “affirmative action” and minority set-asides are unrepentant racists of the highest order. The clear and concise message that government has been sending to its black citizens for years is that they are far too stupid and lazy to do anything on their own and that without the assistance of people with guns, they cannot compete or even survive

The culture of this becomes one of belief and expectation. The chains of slavery are replaced with heavier chains of dependency. As the allowance to overcome adversity does not need government assistance, it cannot possibly suffice, we are told. Lyndon Johnson did his best to dispel the accurate notion that despite the past, left alone any free man can control his own destiny:

You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity -not just legal equity but human ability – not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.

By contrasting freedom with opportunity, this nauseating euphemization attempts to hide the racist message that the recipient of government “help” is a mindless sloth wholly incapable of performing a task unassisted. “You can’t do anything” is the clear meaning of those fork-tongued pretenders who care nothing about but minorities but their vote.

Let us imagine, for argument’s sake, that government is not afflicted with the inverted Midas’ touch and is somehow capable of legislating away racial inequality and feelings of bigotry and prejudice. If the state had the magical formula, would it be used? Would government exercise such power, if it could? Certainly not. Government needs the prolongation of what is ugly, unjust and problematic. Only by a situation’s perpetual worsening can government combat it with more money and less freedom. Such is it with the state’s war on drugs, poverty, racism, etc.

And so the boot must remain on the head of the minority. They must be kept down. They must be satisfied with that which government gifts them. They must only enjoy an occasional foray into the world, the one that government decides — the promotion and uplifting never the result of freedom or toil, but of a state directive. You can’t. Failure is inevitable, government insists. Society will chew you up. But we’ll avenge you. We’ll take from them and give to you. Here, our gift. Take it. And vote on Tuesday. It’s the name with the “D” next to it.

It is difficult to imagine a more racist sentiment than a powerful association of people ensuring that ethnic groups they don’t like remain kept down, segregated, and out of polite society by the insistence that they lack the mental capacity and work ethic to survive on their own. The means may differ from those of robed horsemen burning crosses, but the desired outcome is frighteningly similar.


Pelosi Demands Corruption Investigation (lying and thieving excepted)

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

The despotic nature of the current GOP leadership has overshadowed the typical abuses of government excess and the Democrat’s complicity in the nation’s march into abject tyranny. Ensuring the veil won’t be raised, Nancy Pelosi has loudly brayed the distraction of Republican corruption, the AP reports:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said Republicans had created “one of the most closed, corrupt congresses in history” and urged the House ethics committee to investigate GOP lawmakers linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

“It’s hard for the American people to understand how corrupt it is here,” the California Democrat said at a news conference.

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Constitution and natural law has little difficulty understanding “how corrupt it is” on both sides of the aisle.

In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Pelosi said Democrats expect the ethics committee to look into the “alleged violations of criminal laws and the rules of the House” by former Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, and three other Republicans with ties to Abramoff – Bob Ney of Ohio and Californians Richard Pombo and John Doolittle.

This all-too righteous gimcrack will serve to widen the phantasmal chasm separating the two major parties. But even the imagined differences certainly lessen in number when Ms. Pelosi’s pretended concern for the rule of law is betrayed by her omission:

Pelosi’s letter did not ask the ethics committee to investigate an unrelated case involving Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana.

A former aide to Jefferson, in pleading guilty to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official, said Jefferson had demanded bribes for promoting business opportunities in Africa, according to court documents filed Wednesday

Neither did she mention her own alleged troubles. She did, however make the following half-hearted allusion to what we may safely assume were slight oversights on the Dem’s side of the chamber that needn’t be investigated:

“we have said all along that, Democrat or Republican, anyone who doesn’t follow the rules or the law has to be held accountable. That’s the difference between us.”

No, Nancy, that’s the difference between us. We understand and respect the laws harmonious with the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. The difference you alluded to vanished many years ago when the power-lust consuming both parties gave way to an unholy copulation resulting in the hideous jackyderm.

Illegal activities by members of the single party masquerading as two should be investigated and the law applied. But it is difficult to imagine improprieties committed under the cover of darkness being any worse than the unceasing illegality perpetuated daily under the euphemism of legislation. The banditry and repression of Pelosi and the rest of the parliament of swine goes unpunished and all but unmentioned. Kidnapping, theft and other felonious activities are the norm in DC under the banner of “lawmaking.” Yet Nancy Pelosi intends to highlight some inconsequential rule violations so we can finally understand, despite the difficulty, “how corrupt it is.”

“…one of the most closed, corrupt congresses in history.”

We agree, but for very different reasons.