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]

Texas Gets it Right…Sort of

It’s not often that a government agency gets something right. But in the interest of fairness, we like to point out such anomalies.

The Official Site of Texas Tourism, really smacked the nail squarely with their slogan Texas: It’s like a whole other country.

Unfortunately for Texans, the list of other countries Texas is like includes Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Actually, the recent actions of TABC may be insulting to the libertarian-by-contrast nature of those countries. Typical tyrannies don’t use a pretense of concern for their subject’s safety, they rule them for the sake of order and obedience.

It would seem as though the state of Texas would “need” increased revenue from tourism to offset the self-imposed loss they are doubtlessly suffering after a de facto criminalization of drinking establishments. While the iron is HoT, it would be a great time to contact the office of Economic Development and Tourism (operating under the Office of the Governor) and explain exactly why you won’t be visiting Texas. Those on a budget may choose to explain that while you enjoy a drink from time to time, you can’t afford to pay for a vacation and a bail bondsman.

A flood of canceled vacation explanations on the heels of the flurry of complaints HoT previously covered might fast track these goons back to a desk job in Austin.

From the site:

If you find an error or want to provide feedback on, we’d love to hear from you. To share your comments, please complete the form below. We review all comments and appreciate your interest in Texas Tourism; however, due to high volumes we cannot respond to emails.

Let’s show them some all time “high volumes!”

The Governor’s website also lists, in addition to a lot of tripe about the state’s “unique spirit” and “opportunity,” a Citizen’s Opinion Hotline number: 800-252-9600. Happy dialing.


Pot Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

FedGov is pretending to give the idea of self-ownership another shot, the AP is reporting. This time, it appears, the dying, rather than the sick are the intended recipients of a small shot of liberty.

This round, like those before it, matches one person (and her attorney husband) against the state leviathan and its endless cash. Although a long shot in this political climate that has Bush’s hands tightly around Liberty’s neck, there is the possibility of an upset here. If the case somehow goes back to the Supreme Court and is argued well, the “justices” (assuming their hypocrisy has an end) may have a difficult time opining against the right to life when they just ruled in favor of the right to death.

Of course, the Administration has made a compelling case against medical freedom by stating that, well, marijuana is bad and that the government doesn’t like it, or some such stirring oration. More on the well-reasoned opposition from the ass’s mouth:

“There is no fundamental right to distribute, cultivate or possess marijuana,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, the government’s lead medical marijuana attorney, wrote to the appeals court.

From an ethical medical standpoint, the government sounds foolish beyond description. While no one enjoys a right to be healthy, the pursuit of health, like that of happiness is a fundamental right.

If this reality were somewhat more normal and felt a bit less like an altered, down-is-up, parallel one, it might shock the sensibilities that someone like Mark Quinlivan could rise to the level of Assistant US Attorney and not hold the slightest understanding of the Constitution. His position, no more than a parroting of what the Administration’s puppet masters dictate, is without authority on at least three constitutional levels.

Firstly, the 9th Amendment clearly states that rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, stating, in clear language, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Mr. Quinlivan assumes the Constitution is dead wrong on this point. He seems to subscribe to the tyrannical belief that many were concerned about with respect to a bill of rights. James Madison wrote on this point, illustrating the concern.

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”

While well-intending, the verbal guard against statism became, in time, less than a paper tiger.

The 10th Amendment makes it very clear for anyone with third grade reading comprehension skills that the federal government’s power is limited to what the Constitution grants it, and that any power not so delegated, is reserved to the states.

Then there is the “penumbra” of a privacy right (violations of which are not actual if perpetrated by the government) located within the Bill of Rights by court opinion in Griswold vs. Connecticut. In that case the government saw fit to rule in favor of defendants who were trafficking drugs that were illegal under state law. Up to this point, the government has been blazing newer and wider trails of sanctimony by ruling against defendants who are trafficking drugs that are legal under state law.

None of this matters to Messrs. Bush and Quinlivan, who usurp rights for usurpation’s sake. But precedent and constitutionality aside, the entire situation can be distilled down to simple matter of personal choice. If I own my body, as I do my mind, it would reasonably follow that I have as much a right to ingest a tray of black Afghani Hash brownies as I do to chain smoke filter-less Pall Malls as I shoot a fifth of Everclear with a bacon grease chaser. I can not legally do the former, but the latter act, the more ill-advised, I can perform without fear or threat whenever I wish. I am so blessed to have a government that protects me from myself.

That I can harm myself with some substances but not others, or that I can’t choose my own medication while the FDA approves dangerous drugs with horrifying side effects on a daily basis magnifies the absurdity of Washington’s position. If I truly feel that my physical, mental and spiritual heath is best maintained by copulating with racially-mixed circus midgets in a bathtub full of no. 3 heroin, I can’t imagine that being anyone else’s business, so long as the little people were there by choice. Likewise, if I choose to forgo conventional poison therapy to treat cancer, and favor the odds of laetrile and ozonation, that too, is solely my concern. But doctors who operate outside of the mainstream and offer their patients the treatment of their choice, are usually jailed and have their medical licenses revoked. Thus much for the penumbras of the Constitution.

And let us not forget that terminal patients often get all the opiates they want. The dying are sent home with bags of potent and addictive Morphine, but a few tokes of pot could lead to ruin. No one seriously believes that government is a bit concerned that someone with stage IVb pancreatic cancer might be victimized by marijuana’s “gateway drug” charms and start snorting lines of coke in the stall at the local nightclub.

Although I am excited about any foot in the door and hope those worried about a slippery drug slope are right, this upcoming case isn’t really about medical marijuana or even the prohibition of recreational drugs. It is about self-ownership and choice. If we own our bodies, we can put anything we wish into them. If we don’t, then someone else does, which makes us slaves. There is really no third option.


Out With the Old, In With the…Old

Amid the certainty that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and his ilk, the US government, after weeks of thumb-twiddling, thought it important to oust them. After teaming with the “freedom fighting” Northern Alliance, Administration officials heaped large piles of praise on themselves for opposing the Taliban regime on moral issues, as well.

While suddenly unaware of the gross mistreatment of women throughout the Arab world, GOP mouthpieces and their trained parrots in the media feigned horror at the treatment of women in Afghanistan and hailed our military as a messianic liberation force akin to those who landed at Normandy and Omaha. The Taliban, admittedly a pack of thugs whose collective back begs for the lash, were doubtless a repressive lot who gave aid and comfort to the crazed zealots of Islam who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 in addition to having ruled their male and female subjects alike with an iron fist.

Stories of Taliban oppression are everywhere. A simple web search will span the gamut from truth to exaggeration to a bewildering personification of evil itself. And while there is little reason to doubt the tales of flogging, jailing and insane degrees of sex-segregation attributed to these criminals, the “liberation” stopped well short of any real change within the framework of the new and improved Afghan government.

It is apparently impossible to slip in a human rights suggestion between dictating our expectations on border policy and demanding a reduction in poppy growth. Our priorities are again right in line with logic.

The AP continues the horrifying tale of an Afghani man the state shamelessly wants executed for converting to Christianity. The following demonstrates the nature of the kinder, gentler Afghanistan we brought to power at considerable financial and human cost:

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to “pull him into pieces.”

In the allegedly free, post-Taliban Afghanistan that has received billions in US “foreign aid,” a country in which it was vital to wrestle control away from the fanatics, the government murders its citizens as punishment for their private spiritual beliefs. As the AP reported Wednesday, this man’s only defense is insanity.

“We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn’t talk like a normal person,” prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari told The Associated Press.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

To recap: government officials of allegedly sound mind will only fail to murder one of their citizens for subscribing to different religious beliefs than they do if it can be proven that he is the crazy one.

Thank God Allah we ran the pro-terrorists out of Kabul.

When asked about the situation, President Bush began his statement with an admission we have long anticipated, confessing that he is “deeply troubled.” In an obvious attempt to lighten the mood after such a bombshell, he mentioned the “principle of freedom,” a concept he is completely ignorant of. His final remarks couldn’t be heard over the laughter.


FedGov: Protect Privacy; Prohibit Privacy

Dipping deeper into its bottomless well of unbridled hypocrisy, FedGov is forcing privacy businesses to surrender customer lists and copies of their business transactions. During a tumultuous period of alleged privacy protection wherein Congress is poised to (Gasp!) introduce new legislation to ensure private investigators cannot obtain cellular subscriber’s call records, the swastika-wavers at the FCC are demanding that privacy companies TeleSpoof and NuFone who allow customers to place calls showing spoofed info on the receiver’s caller ID device, provide our public servants with every customer name and every call they made, according to a Wired News article.

It appears the FCC’s new chief, Kevin Martin, is well acquainted with the ways of the tyrant, as the investigation (for now) seems to be focused on an abject vagueness.

A seven-page demand from the FCC’s enforcement bureau sent to one such service, called TeleSpoof, says the commission is investigating whether the site is violating the federal Communications Act by failing to send accurate “originating calling party telephone number information” on interstate calls.

Even at this early stage, it is clear that the government’s position will be one of sainted protector regurgitating of of two lines of nonsense: “There is no conceivable legitimate purpose that anyone would want to make a call pretending to be someone else” or “These privacy-seeking customers are potential terrorists bent on releasing nerve gas into a crowded football stadium.”

The article, illustrating one example of legitimacy out of probable hundreds, lays waste to the former excuse of government intervention, leaving the absurdity of the latter to invalidate itself:

TeleSpoof’s operator says he has about 600 users. Private investigators were his earliest customers, but ordinary consumers have found uses for his service as well, he says. In one case, a divorced father was able to talk to his child on Christmas by spoofing his Caller ID to slip the call past his estranged ex-wife, he says.

The nerve of this man. If it were truly important that he speak to his child, government employees would have arranged the conversation.

In any case, the unwarranted action, illegal seizure and unjustified harassment of these companies won’t be the fault of Kevin Martin, his underlings or whatever agency ultimately closes down these and scores of other legitimate businesses. Martin, like his predecessor, will claim he is only doing his job. A job that clearly includes making certain that potential dissenters enjoy no anonymity, ensuring their place as “persons of interest.”


Supreme Hypocrisy

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did his best yesterday to sound like the constructionist the mass media insists that he is. The AP reports that Scalia, referring to himself in third person during a speech sponsored by the Federalist Society, explained:

“Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism,” he said. “That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do,”

It appears that he was telling this for the truth, not as a joke as it would appear. The reality is that Scalia agrees with the Constitution only when the agreement aligns with his own personal and religious opinions. He is a barrel of contradictions: deferring to state authority when to do otherwise would advance personal freedom, and reaching far outside the limitations of the Constitution to federalize things like self-medication.

Long vilified as “a strict constructionist,” Scalia’s frequent fondness for evermore government power goes completely ignored. Although the justice’s schizophrenic rulings occasionally favor David over Goliath, his strict interpretation apparently stops well short of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution Scalia purportedly believes

is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.

One thing the Constitution doesn’t say is that its commerce clause trumps every other law on the planet and that an appeal to said clause grants Washington autocrats unlimited power over their subjects.

Liberty would have a true friend indeed were Scalia the constructionist he is perceived to be. Instead, we get only lip service to “state’s rights” and limited government. Parading himself as a champion of freedom and referring to non-constructionists (like himself) as idiots, Scalia’s speech was pure hypocrisy.

With many of the Washington power-whores, you know what you’re getting — they don’t bother to claim any understanding of or respect for the Constitution. But with dissembling antinomians like Bush and Scalia, the insistence that they are what they are not damages the image of true constructionists, what few exist.


Soldiers, Heroes and Pawns

The political powers that be seem much more concerned with appearances, a few votes or breaking ranks with the devil than performing their duty and saving lives. In contrast, some of us actually consider that those shedding their blood in a far-away desert for mysterious objectives are real people with real families who will be sorely missed. The American dead in this senseless war is much more than an emotionless number — each represents an unimaginable loss and a hole of empty nothing can ever fill.

I can’t, and won’t pretend to have any idea what that loss feels like. But I can hazard a guess that it stings more than had the death been from a car accident or heart attack. It would for me, and I think it does for most. The questions of who lied and why and what the hell we’re really doing over there would drive me mad. And so it is easier to accept the dogma evangelized by the Administration: your loved one died in the service of his country. He died protecting our freedom. Take the flag that draped the casket of a hero and remember him as such.

That tenet accomplishes two things. It rounds the edges of the jagged pill of death, and it reinforces the odious lie that there is some legitimate reason that we are engaged in this war.

The idea that someone close to you has died so you can enjoy the few liberties the government has left you must be more comforting than the awful reality that those he was fighting aren’t the slightest threat to anyone who isn’t there. The “hero’s death” concept is a psychological narcotic. It is a normal defense mechanism to cling to whatever analgesic one can. But in such situations, truth, regardless of how bitter it tastes, should be the only end. Lies, however comforting, hobble justice and only cause more death.

There are likely plenty of heroes among the many military personnel in Iraq. There have been those who put the lives of others ahead of their own and died valiantly. But death alone doesn’t elevate one to the status of paragon. The attitude that it does perpetuates the nakedness of the emperor as it falsely inserts pride and acceptance in the rightful place of anger and inquisition.

The blind devotion both to bad policy and substitutive emotion has so skewed our collective psyche that questioning the war has somehow been equated to treason, political pawns declared heroes, and accountability been deemed a luxury we can’t afford in a time of war. The adage, “my country, right or wrong” has been further muddled to “my government, right or wrong.”

Instead of anger and demands to bring our people home, manufactured pride has given way to the attitude that everything else is cowardice. Our departure from a situation our mere presence is worsening is likened to a frightened plan to “cut and run.” And the parrots squawk in agreement.

Opposition to a confusing and open-ended war, we are told, is akin to opposing those on the ground. But who is less supportive of our troops, those who would have them remain in a cesspool of insurgency, the fires of which we fuel daily, or those who want every last one of them to immediately come home?

I for one, truly support our military. I want them all to come home prepared for their actual duty of national defense. To wish them to stay away, in a dangerous occupation of a place growing ever more hostile to them and without the slightest justification for their presence may masquerade as support. But it is nothing more than a contemptible betrayal. It sacrifices the living for an imagined memory of the dead.


An Impeachable Admission

You wouldn’t know it from the bulk of its recent decisions, but the Supreme Court is often the last line of defense against government itself. The judicial branch of American government is created and limited by the Constitution. That glorious parchment declares the following about federal courts: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. The paragraph concludes, as it began, with no criteria by which federal jurists are empowered to rule based on a concern about precedent. The Supreme Court exists to interpret the constitutionality of laws and actions. Period.

While no thinking person truly believes the Constitution has retained the chains Jefferson stated would bind men from mischief, FedGov’s legislative branch at least gives the idea of restraint some lip service. Apparently Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer no longer sees the need for this formality.

The AP reports that while speaking yesterday at the Law School of the University of Chicago, Breyer said, “I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences; others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition — believing that those help you reach a more objective answer.”

If “purpose and consequence” were truly his primary concerns, Breyer would do well to try to wrap his mind around the true purpose of the Supreme Court and the consequences of interjecting personal thoughts into monumental decisions regarding our liberty.

He decided a display of the commandments in front of two Kentucky courthouses was unconstitutional because he concluded their display would cause religious conflict. But he found that removing a similar display that had been in front of the Texas State Capital for years would not, so he ruled it constitutional.

You can almost smell the shameless hypocrisy.

Breyer’s admission is absolutely frightening and may serve to extract the last remaining teeth from our Constitution. While it is sometimes proper to cite prior cases, righteous judicial decisions can only be made about the case at hand. Concern for what may happen as a result of a ruling not only erases the impartiality of a jurist, it castrates good law. Fear of the future at the expense of the present is an emotion that has no place in a courtroom.

While a strong case could be made to impeach the majority of the high court, Breyer’s confession carries the weight of abject danger. Although members of Congress routinely vote based on the alleged merits or demerits of a prospective law rather than appealing to the Constitution, they still bear the responsibility of their oath and can be taken to task for its violation. This could well change after Breyer’s oration. Sentiment and effect may now be seen as the legitimate criteria by which laws are created and their validity decided. Breyer needs to hang up his robe.

Those of us who cling to a hope for restored liberty need to raise a lot of hell about Breyer’s statement and the attitude it reflects. It has been said (erroneously in modern times) that we are a nation of laws, not of men. It must now be shouted that we are a nation of laws, not of opinions and incidental worries.

In keeping with the theme of worrying about consequence, it is disheartening to consider that Emperor George would hand pick Breyer’s replacement.


Combating Insurgency with Kidnapping

In a stroke of brilliance that could only have been conceived by the marriage of the US State Department and the DOD, offical policy toward to insurgency apparently includes kidnapping the wives of those suspected. Despite previous denial of such actions by Iraq’s deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali and a de facto denial by U.S. command spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, the AP is reporting that the kidnappings did in fact transpire based on documents the Pentagon was legally forced to release as the result of an ACLU FOIA request.

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.


Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects’ houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

…Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and “we are not Saddam.” A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an “imperative threat” are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.


…documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the
Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an
American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect’s house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

“During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target’s surrender,” wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

This issue should make anyone who gives half a damn about the lives of military personnel and civilans in the Middle East demand a complete investigation and instant termination of this insane policy. Of course it won’t. The administration’s mouthpieces and supporters liken any objection to King George and his Praetorian Guard to blasphemy of the highest order. So policies designed to create enemies where there were none and strengthen the hate and resolve of the existing ones will continue unabated.

Perhaps the defenders the neo-con lust for empire are unaware of our own government’s definition of the terror we’re allegedly combatting:

Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Doubtless, the latter portion was inserted by design so government could, as usual escape the guilt of action that, committed by individuals would constitute grave criminality. Still, the spirit of our country’s actions remains the same and in addition to angering us thoroughly at its mind-numbing stupidity, should shame us deeply.


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.