Audit the Fed

I don’t know nearly as much about the Gold Standard as do Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, but I do think that, given not just that the Feds have ruined the dollar but that the dollar has been its own piece of counterfeit in the first place, currency in general should be privatized. It should not be made, controlled, administered nor distributed by the government. With a market of different makers of competing currencies, the ones with the most quality and value would be the most popular and successful, and the ones with the least quality would fail, as with any other business. As soon as a commodity this important is controlled by the armed force of government, with its power and officialdom, the currency is then corrupted. And a government monopoly over money, forbidding any possible competitors, is more in line with fascism.

Unfortunately, the selfish, corrupt politicians don’t want to change the status quo because they love power. Power is not only corrupting, but it is as addictive as any drug. Just look at all those politicians and bureaucrats who go to Washington and stay there. They can’t overcome their addiction to government power. Just look at Alan Greenspan. It’s hard to believe that he wrote this article called Gold and Economic Freedom. That old schlep went from being an Ayn Rand capitalist to being a Big Government Control freak!

Perhaps “Washington” should be renamed “Corruptington” because of all the corrupting and dirtying they’re doing to our government. We need to put some “washing” back in “Washington” to get the dirt and filth out of it. Well, if we can’t get rid of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve (as well as the unconstitutional income tax and the capital gains tax), then at the very least Congress should act on Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed. He now has 245 co-sponsors, so I think that should be enough for House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to get going on it (whether he likes it or not!). And, I’m sure President Obama doesn’t want all the illegalities lying underneath the Fed’s hood to be uncovered, but he still shouldn’t veto it once it’s been passed.

Grown Man Shouldn’t Have Little Boys in Bed With Him

In my previous post, when I referred to Michael Jackson as a “sicko perv,” you can say what you want about him and include the phrase “child molester” if you want to, but I believe in “presumption of innocence.” He was acquitted of that, but any grown man who has little boys in his bed over night–and he openly admitted to this–really is a “sicko” and a “perv,” because that’s perverted behavior, especially if you’re not related to the children. It’s perverted behavior because it’s an invasion of the children’s boundaries. Jackson overstepped those boundaries in doing that. It’s just wrong when people are invasive against others, especially children. I try to be understanding when he stated that he was abused as a little boy, and he felt his “childhood was taken away from him” because of being made to start in performing at such a young age. But that’s still no excuse for such invasive behavior towards little children.

More Fascism, More Idiocy

Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives voted for another huge increase in fascism and further erosion of our liberty. And, they took some time for a moment of silence to mourn the death of a sicko perv, of which there are many in Congress.

One hopes that the more sane among us will mourn the further loss of freedom that this Congress is taking away, and maybe next year’s elections can remove many of those now in Congress.

Goldman Sachs Big Profits, and Possibly the Biggest Bonuses Boner

So, let’s see if I have this right. Goldman Sachs receives $billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts last Fall. And now, they had the most profitable period ever in the first half of 2009, so they pay the $billions back to the Feds to escape the obligations attached to the bailout money (that was extorted from taxpayers), AND still have enough to give themselves the biggest bonuses ever!

Hmmm. What exactly could have enabled Goldman Sachs to have the “most profitable” period ever within months after such a big national economic downturn, to make it possible for them to give themselves such prospective big bonuses? Was it the…TARP money? Did that…stimulate them?

There’s something very unsettling about all this. They did pay back the bailout billions. But, ethically, wouldn’t they owe the payers of what “stimulated” their huge profits, like one might pay for a service of some kind? Maybe it should be similar to what regular people have to pay for loans, like in “interest.” Or paying a professional “financial planner” to help regular people try to profit from what they have.

Well, I’m a proud capitalist, because capitalism is the only system that protects freedom, while socialism uses fascism to rob from people to give to others. In this case, Americans were robbed to “bail out” financial firms (based on the lies and threats of “doom and gloom”), but really it looks like people were fooled into making already rich people richer. Period.

Medicine Fascism

It’s too bad that ignorant control freaks in Congress and the White House are pursuing a fascist health care system, despite the high costs of health care being caused by government-imposed regulations and bureaucracy, expensive malpractice insurance and lack of individual responsibility and prevention among too many people. Instead of physicians being in cahoots with the greedy pharmaceutical industry and relying on prescriptions for patients, they ought to better inform patients on the various preventions for conditions, like taking vitamins and limiting alcohol consumption, and not smoking, and having regular exercise routines.

Reasonable people shouldn’t want the government involved in their private health matters, which, if it’s none of their neighbors’ damn business, it’s certainly none of the government’s damn business!

Also, I know it’s difficult to quit smoking, despite the fact that smokers light a cigarette and put it up to their mouths and inhale by their own free will. No one puts a gun to their heads and forces them. Yes, there are chemical processes going on in the brain that causes smokers to “need” a “cigarette fix,” I know. But it requires a strong determination to overcome that chemical “need,” and other techniques such as gradual reduction and patches,  chewing gum, hypnosis, etc., are helpful or even necessary, but you can do it. “Cold turkey” is a bad idea, as is sudden withdrawal of any chemically addictive substances, because various parts of the body are just too “used to” the nicotine.

Now, for you fat slobs out there who can’t resist those cheese cakes and Twinkies, and Ring Dings, and pizzas etc., I have less sympathy. This “addiction to junk food” that some people have is mostly psychological, in my opinion. And this junk food stuff is also largely responsible for coronary disease as well as obesity, and problems in the digestive area. I think people need the “sweets fix” to satisfy emotional needs that aren’t being met, to fill a particular “emptiness.” It’s sad that these fat slobs refuse to control their own lives, and instead want to force others to pay for their extra doctors visits or medical procedures that are results of their poor food choices. A lot of problems in the digestive area have psychological etiologies. That is why the lower part of the colon is called the “Sigmund Freudal Colon.”

David Letterman’s Cognitive Abilities

Has anyone asked Alex Rodriguez how he feels about David Letterman’s sarcastic remark, referring to him as having “knocked up” a teenager? He is somebody too, you know.

Speaking of that, it could be that David Letterman’s judgment is affected by the heart bypass surgery he had about 8 or 9 years ago. Such a surgery uses a heart-lung machine, and recent studies have shown that a side effect of that, known as “pump head,” in which the patient’s cognitive abilities become “negatively affected,” could have long-term consequences as well as a temporary reaction. Some people have speculated that former President Bill Clinton’s bad temper tantrums during last year’s election campaign may have been in some way related to his heart surgery in 2004.

It’s Okay for Black People to Harass and Intimidate White Voters

Apparently, Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Dept. have dropped the case against several African-Americans alleged to have intimidated White-voters/poll workers in Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love.” And he dropped the case several weeks ago, and I only just heard about it from a talk radio show. When searching the Internet, all I can find is the Washington Times’s editorial about this action, Michelle Malkin’s column about it, and maybe several blogs, but no actual news items. I searched the Washington Post’s website, and the Boston Globe’s website, and gave up after that. Is the Mainstream News Media really so biased that they probably would put the news of the aforementioned Holder DOJ action only if the races were reversed, if White people were accused of intimidating Black voters and poll workers? Supposedly there was a video taken of the whole alleged incident, and sworn testimony by 1960s civil rights activist lawyer Bartle Bull saying it was the worst case of voter intimidation he’d ever seen. This is from an Attorney General who called this a “nation of (racist) cowards” right after the country elected its first African-American president, who received a majority of White votes!

Separation of Marriage and State

June 2009

Recently the California State Supreme Court upheld a referendum to ban same-sex marriage, and New Hampshire’s governor signed a bill into law legalizing it. I’m so tired of hearing about “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage,” and every time a talk show is discussing it I change the station. First, why are we still debating this issue in the 21st Century? And what business is it of the state who is married and who isn’t? And who is the state to allow or forbid any kind of private relationship or contract? One would think that conservatives would want homosexuals to be in a monogamous commitment, rather than living a promiscuous, multi-partner lifestyle. I personally favor traditional marriage, but there should be no laws addressing the issue altogether.

The Declaration of Independence states that, among our natural Rights are the “Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And that implies that an individual’s pursuit of happiness may not include any violation of any other individual’s life, liberty or property.  People have a  right to be involved in a marriage, whether or not it’s in line with  society’s common description of “marriage,” as long as they don’t violate anyone else’s life, liberty or property.

I’m no expert on contract law, but a marriage contract is a contract, and people have a right to establish voluntary contracts, with the terms of those contracts being the private business of those involved, and it’s really no one else’s business. People’s private contracts certainly are none of their neighbors’ business, so they ought not be any of the state’s business. Who is the state to determine which contracts are valid and which aren’t, based on some arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with the protection of life, liberty and property? If a party in a contract has some dispute with another, or wants to sue for “breach of contract,” then the state gets involved to help settle the disagreement or suit.

Some people are just so worried that same-sex marriages will lead to some kind of “degradation of society.” Well, what do you think we have now, for crying out loud? Our society has degraded not because of homosexuals being married, but because of many other factors, including the ever-increasing dependence on government to do things it has no business doing, the ever-increasing intrusion of government into our private lives in general, and the influence of the sickos of pop culture on our society. Other factors of societal degradation include bad parenting, and allowing people to get away with actual crimes, such as child-molesters, tax-cheating Treasury Secretaries and the incestuously extortionist relationship between Big Business and Big Government. The moralists should stick with these problems of actual immorality.

And some people are worried that allowing same-sex marriage will “negatively affect our population growth.” Just what percentage of the population is homosexual, anyway? Various sources on the Internet give figures ranging from 2-15%. I’ll go with roughly 10%. And what percentage of that 10% consists of those in actual homosexual relationships? And what percentage of that is in long-term relationships who actually want to be married? It can’t be that much. If you’re worried about the society’s future, then enacting laws banning same-sex marriage to promote opposite-sex marriage for “population growth” would then be in the category of “social engineering.”

Conservatives usually speak of the “right to be left alone,” and believe in “small government,” and are critical of the Left for using the state for forced social engineering.  If traditional marriage really needs to be protected, then let our cultural institutions such as churches and families, and other social organizations promote it. And let people in the “bully pulpit” such as Rush Limbaugh or Phyllis Schlafly  be vocal advocates of traditional, opposite-sex marriage. But don’t use the armed force of government to ban same-sex marriage. Laws should exist to protect people and property, not to engage in social engineering or society planning.

Businesses Have Every Right to “Collude” With Each Other, But Not With Government

The Justice Department is looking into whether some Big Tech companies are agreeing not to hire each other’s employees and executives. They’re worried about big companies in “collusion.” Here’s what I think about this. In a free society under the rule of law, all companies would have the right to employ whomever they want, and if some companies want to have agreements with each other addressing hiring practices, as a legal contract or as informal verbal agreements, that’s their own business, as long as there’s no fraud or theft involved.  Why is the DOJ wasting time and money investigating these non-issues? What business is it of government what agreements Dell or HP or IBM might have?

I’m no expert on “anti-trust” laws, but the actual immoral “collusions” are between businesses and governments. While not related to the aforementioned issue, if a business has a “monopoly” in some industry, any other business has every right to get into that line of production to compete. The problem is when government regulations, taxes, fees and arbitrary restrictions legally prevent  smaller businesses or investors from getting in to compete.


Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s empathy reserved only for those who belong to a race or national origin whose past members were victims of discrimination or abuse, whether or not the individual oneself was a victim? Will she have more empathy for a minority homeowner facing eviction because of loan defaults than she would for a white homeowner facing eviction because of loan defaults? Or empathy for a white victim of violent crime as much as for a minority victim? Or as much empathy for a white male being harassed by police as for a minority?

Will Sotomayor have as much empathy for people in Arizona who are victims of the increasingly rampant violent crimes brought about by the invasion of Mexican drug gangs, as much as she might have for “illegal immigrants” of Mexican or other Latin American origin?

In Massachusetts, because of the unwillingness of Gov. Deval Patrick and state legislators to cut excess offices and jobs created by the Patrick Administration and get rid of the criminal double-dipping and triple-dipping of state pensions, we now have more state and local police than ever before, out there catching motorists in speed traps and handing out otherwise tickets for the sole purpose of revenue collection. Where is the empathy for average citizens who are just trying to make an honest living and going about their business only to get harassed and robbed like this? It was the same kind of arrogance with state bureaucrats and police during the 1980s under Gov. Michael Stanley Dukakis who was busy running for president and just slightly out of touch with things. Then we had Gov. Willard Mitt Romney, himself busy running for president, and because he had so much empathy for people without health insurance,  he had to push through his Mandatory Health Insurance Law–”You must, MUST have health insurance,” he said in his bill-signing speech that day, with his detectable Locust Valley Lockjaw accent. (He repeated the word, “must.”) His empathy certainly wasn’t available for the many residents and businesses who wanted to opt out of the program, and many of whom had fled or will flee the state. What business is it of the government whether someone has health insurance? How will it be enforced? If someone doesn’t participate, fine them. What if they don’t pay the fine? Jail them. With more and more police. Wait, they’re still busy collecting taxes on the highways.

The purpose of the police is not to act as zealous tax collectors, but to prevent actual crimes, by…”policing” the streets. That’s why they’re called that. My empathy is for victims of crimes, Black or White, Hispanic or Asian, and for victims of police and state intrusions. I really hope we’ll get an equal distribution of empathy from a Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Walter E. Williams on “Empathy Versus Law”

President Obama has chosen Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be our next Supreme Court Justice. Judge Sotomayor agrees with Obama that Justices should have “empathy” for either the underprivileged or people who belong to races or national origins, etc. that have histories of discrimination. She believes that a “Latina” would be more qualified than a “white male” to judge based on empathy. This means that she does NOT believe that Justice is “blind” or “objective,” which is what actual justice really is, and is what our laws really should be based on.

George Mason University Economics professor Walter E. Williams explains it here in his recent column, Empathy Versus Law.

Michael Savage Banned from United Kingdom

Michael Savage is suing the United Kingdom for banning him from entering their country. Their reason is because of his “hate speech” that could incite violence or terrorism, and his reason for suing is that they’re violating his First Amendment rights to free speech. Well, he has a First Amendment right to free speech here in the US, which is the only place the US Constitution applies. Also, the UK has the right of national sovereignty to ban anyone, any non-UK citizen from entering their country, and for whatever reason, just as does our country. In my view, Michael Savage is now a huge hypocrite, given he has constantly and for years been arguing for our right to ban anyone from entering our country, including illegal immigrants, based on that right of national sovereignty. His main slogan is “Borders, Language, Culture.”

Another thing that’s questionable about Savage is his legal fund for this matter and for his past legal fiasco with CAIR, in which this highly rated, multi-millionaire syndicated talk host, asks his listeners, many who are of modest means, to donate to the fund. Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh doing that? I can’t. And Limbaugh would probably just tell England to go to Hell and forget about it.

Another Reminder of Why I Stopped Getting the NY Times

Maureen Dowd is in the news, herself accused of plagiarism. I stopped getting the NY Times in October 1987 after that Biden-Kinnock speech-plagiarizing fiasco, because of Dowd’s direct involvement in it. Accoding to Boston Globe stories by Joan Vennochi, Stephen Kurkjian, and Chris Black at that time, Dowd called then-Dukakis for President campaign manager John Sasso regarding an unrelated story about Joe Biden, and Sasso told Dowd about the particular Iowa debate in which Biden quoted British politician Neil Kinnock without attribution, even though Biden gave Kinnock credit the previous times he used the quote. Dowd asked Sasso to make a tape of the Biden and Kinnock speeches for her as long as she didn’t identify its source. In her page one story Dowd paired the Biden Iowa debate speech with the Kinnock speech, but didn’t mention Biden’s previous attribution of that quote to Kinnock.

So, Dowd knew that Biden had previously attributed that quote but only on this one occasion forgot to make the attribution. My conclusion at that time with these articles was that Dowd was “in cahoots” with Sasso to sink the Biden campaign. And that wasn’t the first time I’d seen “biased” reporting with the NY Times.

Evolution vs. Creation

Recently, there have been criticisms by people in the news media of conservatives’ “listening tour,” with the pundits bringing up the old creation vs. evolution debate. They are constantly labeling those who believe in God or a creator as knuckle-dragging, flat-Earth-thinking Neanderthals. Most people who believe that we were created by a superior being or beings also believe that we were products of evolution from earlier life forms, and gradually over a period of centuries, millennia, etc. It’s just as each individual evolves from conception to birth to adulthood to death.

One may ask the critics of creationism how exactly humans formed, with the heart the way that works and the brain and how it functions, and so on. Is their answer that it all came about by total randomness, with particles and matter and chemicals coming together and developing the means of life on their own? What are the chances of our heart and entire circulatory system being the results of spontaneous events and randomness? Just look at how every part of us works, and how everything functions, and all working together. Look at the eyes and how complex the optic nerve is, communicating visual messages to the brain. It’s all coincidental?

All these biological facts of existence and their complexity really should be seen as evidence that we were created, because the odds of being the results of such randomness are so great, you’d have to believe in that randomness as a matter of faith.

Rush Limbaugh Is a Liberal

April, 2009

It’s too bad that people such as Rush Limbaugh, who believe in free market capitalism,  individualism and individual rights, which is advocated by “liberalism,” refer to modern day socialism and fascism as “liberalism.” That term really refers to the advocacy of freedom of the individual from authority, specifically arbitrary governmental or state authority. The Left hijacked that word a century ago to cover up  their anti-liberty views and policies. That is why FDR, LBJ and other fascists have gotten away with their fascism. Another distortion of the words “liberalism” and “liberal” is in describing a “cultural permissiveness” that excuses irresponsibility, recklessness and even social aggression, and by law. In the old days, “responsibility” meant that an individual was responsible for the consequences of one’s own actions. Now it means, as President Barack Obama has stated, “I am my brother’s keeper,” or words to that effect. In other words,  we all have “shared guilt or blame” for what other individuals do. Obama and his ilk also mean “responsibility” as “obligation.”  We have an obligation of self-sacrifice, not really as much to “serve others,” but sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, like there’s some kind of inherent duty of self-denial in living within a community.

In this new age of increasing government fascism, socialist redistribution of wealth schemes and politically correct dictates, we need to recognize the intrusions by government into our private lives and property from which the American Founders fought so hard to protect us. The public discourse of today’s important issues deserve clarity. Rush Limbaugh is a “social conservative,” but does he really want the government to dictate particular “conservative” ways of life that everyone must follow? If so, then he would be a fascist. But I doubt that. He probably believes that those things should be encouraged by cultural institutions such as families, churches and other social organizations, but not forced by government.   Limbaugh is really a  “liberal” in that he probably believes that the individual’s right to live freely, as long as one does not interfere with another individual’s same right, should be protected by the government, not violated by it. Instead of referring to “liberalism,” Limbaugh ought to use the terms “socialism” and “fascism.” And perhaps Michael Savage’s book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ought to be called The Mental Disorder of Extreme Social Abnormality and Cultural Permissiveness. And in the discussion of ultra-authoritarian government’s redistribution of wealth schemes, Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism should be called Robin Hood Fascism or Do-Gooder Fascism.